As a sample of their cruel spirit let me present you one of their curses. The following is part of a Romish form of excommunication, taken from the Roman pontifical: “By the authority of Almighty God, and of his holy apostles, Peter and Paul, we solemnly forbid, under the curse of an anathema, that any one draw away these present virgins or holy nuns from the divine service to which they have devoted themselves, under the banner of chastity; or that any one purloin their goods, or be a hindrance to their possessing them unmolested. But if any one shall dare to attempt such a thing, let him be accursed at home and abroad, accursed in the city and in the field, accursed in waking and sleeping, accursed in eating and drinking, accursed in walking and sitting, accursed in his flesh and in his bones; and from the sole of his feet to the crown of his head, let him have no soundness. May there come upon him the malediction which, by Moses in the law, the Lord hath laid on the sons of iniquity. May his name be blotted out from the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
“May his portion and inheritance be with Cain, the fratricide, with Dathan and Abiram, with Ananias and Sapphira, with Simon, the sorcerer, and Judas, the traitor; and with those who have said to God, ‘Depart from us, we desire not the knowledge of thy ways.’ Let him perish in the day of Judgment; and may everlasting fire devour him with the devil and his angels, unless he make restitution and amendment. So be it—so be it.”
Romish cruelty is still further illustrated by the fact that “Benedict the Dominican, in his history of the Albigenses, approves of all the inhumanity of the holy inquisition and the holy wars. Mariana, the Jesuit, in his history of Spain, eulogizes persecutions, and the inquisition, and recommends ‘fire and sword, when mild means are unavailing and useless.’ ‘A wise severity,’ he says, ‘is the sovereign remedy.’ Cardinal Bellarmine contends that for ‘the honor of religion, heretics should be consigned to the flames.’ ‘The apostles,’ he says, ‘abstained from calling in the secular arm only because there were, in their day, no Christian princes.’
“Dens advocates the same views as Bellarmine. This Dens of whom I speak, was a doctor of the university of Louvain. About 1760 he published a system of theology, which is better known to Catholic priests than the Bible. This work awards to heretics ‘confiscation of their goods, banishment from the country, confinement in prison, infliction of death, and the deprivation of Christian burial.’ I quote his exact words, which you may verify for yourselves. ‘Such falsifiers of the faith, and troublers of the community,’ says this divine, ‘justly suffer death in the same manner as those who counterfeit money and disturb the State.’
“This work was recommended to Christendom by the doctors of Louvain university, on account of its orthodox faith and its Christian morality.”
The church of Rome has a code of laws she calls “the canon law.” “Cardinal Wiseman, says of the canon law, that it is the ideal and complete code of the church.”
. . . Your canon law, which is the growth of many centuries, is made up of the bulls of the popes and the decrees of councils, and traditions which have received the pontifical sanction. In this canon law, in the decretals of Gregory IX., we read, ‘Archbishops and bishops, either personally or by representatives, are commanded to visit their dioceses once or twice every year and inquire for heretics. Princes are admonished to purge their dominions from the filth of heresy. This work is to be conducted as follows: First—Excommunication; Second—Proscription from all offices, ecclesiastical or civil; Third—Confiscation of their goods; Fourth—Death, sometimes by the sword, more commonly by fire.’
“In the decretals of Pope Honarius II. concerning heretics we find this: ‘All heretics, of both sexes and of every name, we damn to perpetual infamy; we account them accursed, and their goods confiscated; nor can they enjoy their property, or their children succeed to their inheritance, inasmuch as they grievously offend against the Eternal as well as the temporal king.’
“And we find such statements as these in the canon law: ‘The bishop of Rome has power to absolve from allegiance, obligation, bond of service, promise and compact, the provinces, cities, and armies of kings that rebel against him, and also to loose their vassals and feudatories.’ And this: ‘The bond of allegiance to an excommunicated man does not bind those who have come under it.’ And this: ‘An oath sworn against the good of the church does not bind, because that is not an oath, but a perjury, rather, which is taken against the church’s interests.’
“The persecuting edicts of infallible(?) popes are infallible still; but they are not just in accordance with the sentiments of the present day. The ark of Rome has dashed on the rock of infallibility, and is fast going to pieces.”
Gavazzi says, “A Roman Catholic archbishop in being installed in office,” is required to take this oath: “Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord, or his aforesaid successors, I will to my power persecute and oppose.”
Relative to the tortures of the inquisition I will quote from Hemphill: “The victims were apprehended commonly at midnight. The familiars of the holy office surrounded the door of a house, whispered the name of the tribunal, and the inmates, transfixed by the dreadful word, delivered up their dearest relatives. The victim was consigned to a dungeon. All communication with friends was cut off. The accuser and the accusation were alike unknown to him. He was urged by the most treacherous means to criminate himself. And when he refused, the rack was employed to extort confession.
“The accused, whether man or woman, was stripped naked; the arms were tied behind the back. A pulley, fastened to the arms, raised the sufferer off his feet, and held him suspended in the air. Then he was let fall several times and raised with a jerk, which dislocated all the joints of his arms, while the cord with which he was suspended195entered the flesh, and lacerated the tortured nerves.
“The last scene in the dismal tragedy was the act of faith—auto da fé. The ecclesiastical authority transferred the condemned to the secular arm. The heretic, dressed in a yellow coat variegated with pictures of dogs, devils, serpents, flames—typical of his destiny hereafter—was then led to the place of execution, tied to the stake, and committed to the flames, amid the joyful acclamation of the populace.”
On the tortures of the inquisition, we will next quote from Gavazzi: “There are, I said, fourteen different species of tortures, all of which I, of course, cannot describe, as it would take many hours. One of the worst was the deprivation of rest, not allowing sleep for fourteen, twenty, or thirty days and nights continuously. Sometimes I have said, Let a description of these tortures be read and all their cruelty cannot be conceived; but if I can here reproduce them I can more clearly convey what was the pain suffered.
“The first was called the ‘queen of tortures,’ namely, the ‘torture of the cord.’ In the middle of the prison stands a massive iron beam reaching from the floor to the ceiling; at the top is a pulley, and a rope passed through it, one end in the hand of the executioners (these always are two masked Dominican friars), the other end fastened to the arms of the victim, which are tied behind his back, while to his feet is attached a weight of a hundred pounds. At the signal the rope is drawn, the victim hoisted, and by the weight of the body and the hundred pounds attached to the feet, the arms are wrenched backward and upward, until they are drawn over his head. While in this position the victim is often cruelly flogged, and tormented with hot pinchers or iron nails, and then comes the question, ‘Are you guilty? Confess!’ He denies—then the rope is suddenly relaxed by the executioner; the victim descends, and is stopped within a few inches of the floor with a violent jerk, which completely dislocates the arms. If he do not then confess he is sent back to the dungeon, to lie there three or four weeks, until sufficiently recovered to be able to bear a repetition of the torture, which is often applied three or four different times.
“Another torture is that ‘by fire.’ In the middle of the prison stands a brasier filled with live coals, within a few inches of which the naked feet of the victim are made to approach. Soon they become inflamed—then they break into wounds from which blood and matter fall into the brasier. The torture is continued for twenty-five minutes; then the feet are often scorched off, and the charred bones drop into the brasier; upon this the executioners remove the victims in their arms.
“The torture of the wheel is especially used against delicate women. The undressed female is tied on one of these wheels, which is armed with sharp cogs; two strong men turn it round rapidly, stop it suddenly, and the cogs enter the flesh of the suffering woman, who remains always senseless, and often lifeless.
“The last, which is especially used against courageous men, is the torture by water. The victim is tied on a rough bench, his face is covered with white linen, and a funnel filled with water points towards his mouth. There is the inquisitor, there is the victim, and there the executioner. On one hand is the inquisitor, on the other the executioner, between them the victim. The sign is given, and slowly, drop by drop, the water in the funnel begins to fall upon the cloth which covers the wretch’s face. The cloth is moistened, and, as it is, the breathing becomes more difficult. Gloom, sternness, secrecy, silence, except that one small, fearful sound, drop, drop, drop; and now the breathing grows thick, and thicker, and becomes a second sound, breaking the dreadful silence of that scene.
“Drop, drop, drop—still they come; and now the sensation of strangling, drowning seizes the victim, and a third sound is heard, low moans join the chorus of torture. The question is put, ‘Are you guilty?’ A weak voice answers with difficulty, ‘No! I have not committed’—Drop, drop, drop; still thicker breathings—still feebler moans; and the question is put again, ‘Are you guilty?’ A weak voice, almost inaudible, piteously gasps forth, in broken syllables, ‘No—I have not’—Drop, drop, drop; again the question; but now there is no voice—no breathing—once more the sound of that merciless drop is heard alone, as if in triumph at its victory; for it has arrested the blood and stilled the tongue—there is no more any answer, for there is no more any life.”
This is a sample of what Rome has done in her work of exterminating heretics. As we have shown, this terrible inquisition has been established at the request, and under the direction of Catholic popes. A bull of Paul III. established the Roman inquisition in 1540. A bull of Clement, styled by Webster, “A Protestant Pope,” abolished the Roman inquisition in 1773. A brief of Pius VII. restored it to life in 1814. It was again abolished by the Italians under Garibaldi, in 1848, but restored again the same year by Pius IX., when French and Austrian soldiers had restored him from Gaeta to Rome.
In this chapter we have given you some sample of what the church did when she had the power. She has not changed. “Give her the power again and she will strike more fiercely than before. When the news of the massacre of Bartholomew Day reached Rome, Gregory XIII. went in procession to the Church of Saint Louis to render a Te Deum of thanks to God for the happy victory. Aye, and Pius IX. would do the same if he heard that every Protestant in America was ‘butchered to make a Roman holiday.’”
Rome cannot change. She can so glove her iron talons as to make them appear soft and delicate as an infant’s fingers, but, despite her fair pretensions, her character is the same as in the darkest of the Middle Ages. She glories in her unchangeableness.”
I ask, are there not facts coming to the surface that fully justify Mr. Hemphill’s statement? Let us see. The Catholic Guardian of San Francisco, only a few months since, came out with this statement, “The church is superior to the State, and as such the State has no right to dictate any law which shall have force in the spiritual order against the rights of the church.” That statement, surely, looks like again desiring to make the Government the bond-slave of the church.
But we read also in the Catholic Review of 1873. “Protestantism of every form, has not, and never can have any rights where Catholicity is triumphant. ‘The Catholic church is the only church of God, all others must be suppressed before God can reign on earth.’”
The thoughtful reader who is any way familiar with the history of the Romish church, can readily decide what such hints mean, and what the church of Rome would be and do if she had the power.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
The Atonement.—No. 2.
By J. H. Waggoner
BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
That man has this innate sense of, and aspirations for, justice, cannot be denied; and that they are not gratified in the present state need not be further argued. My moral nature, my sense of justice, cannot be satisfied to see virtue trodden under foot; to see the libertine mocking over the grave of blighted hopes and a broken heart; to see the priceless treasure of virtuous purity, around which cluster the fondest hopes of earth, sported with as a mere toy of little worth; to see honest toil sink unrequited, and hide itself in squalid poverty and a pauper’s grave; to see the vain, rolling in wealth accumulated by fraud and oppression; to see vice exalted to the pinnacle of fame; to hear the praises of him whose very presence is loathsome by reason of the filthiness of his iniquities. Can I look upon these things with complacency, and say, “This is right; this satisfies my sense of justice”? No; but this is but a mere glance at the facts as they have existed, and will exist in the present state. Why should we pronounce upon the nature or demerit of human actions, if there is no accountability for those actions? Our feelings of responsibility are but the expectations of a great assize in which wrong will be requited, and virtue and justice be vindicated. In this only do we find a vindication of the divine government in respect to the anomalies of the present state.
It cannot be possible that these aspirations, these discriminations of right and wrong, were placed within our breasts to be mocked—to look and long in vain. It cannot be that the Supreme One has placed moral balances in our hands to no purpose; that we are never to see a complete vindication of the principles of justice. We must accept the truth that God has a moral government. Our moral sense is evidence that we are within the limits of such a system. Our consciousness, or self-conviction of wrong, is proof to ourselves of our amenability to such a system. That we discriminate, as all do, between moral and natural laws, is proof of a recognition of the fact that there is a moral government. Thus, to look above nature—to acknowledge God as a moral Governor—is necessary in order to be true to our own natures, to the convictions planted in every breast. In this great truth our aspirations find rest. Here our sense of justice takes refuge; for a government is a system of laws maintained, and the very idea of a moral government leads us to look forward to a vindication of the right principles or laws now trampled upon.
We sometimes find those who, in theory, deny the existence of moral wrong; their denial is founded mostly on the supposed inability of man to act with freedom of will, or except in a prescribed line. But they, as readily as others, condemn the actions of their fellow-men, and complain of any encroachments on their rights. But it is folly and injustice to blame any one for doing that which he cannot avoid. And as these plead for reason and against revelation, it cannot be made to appear reasonable that God bestows upon man a moral sense, and plants within us the monitor, conscience, to lead us to do right, and yet compels us to do wrong. We count the man immoral and degraded who disregards the distinctions of right and wrong; what, then, should we think of a Deity who would frame a system wherein these distinctions could not be preserved? And yet such is the case if man has no freedom to act. All but the utterly debased acknowledge the existence of right and wrong as principles; that it is right to regard our neighbor’s life and property; and hence, that he who disregards them does wrong. And all are conscious that the wrong we do is of ourselves, and no one seeks to throw it back to any other cause until his moral sense is perverted by selfishness and false reasoning.
Akin to the above position is the oft-repeated assertion that God is so loving, so kind, that he will not mark to condemn our aberrations from duty. This is contrary to, and of course a denial of, the declarations of Scripture. But let me ask the objector, laying the Bible aside, Where is your evidence that God so loves us? You surely do not learn from nature that love is the sole attribute of Deity. How came you by the idea that the Deity must possess love? Reflect on this. Whence do you derive your conceptions of love, and of its necessity in the divine character? Can you tell? Your only answer must be that they are intuitive; that you owe this conception to your own consciousness. You have, in a degree, an innate knowledge of the moral fitness of things; and according to this, you clothe the Deity with such attributes as your moral sense determines to be fitting to him. But, in the idea above advanced, you are only partially true to your consciousness or innate sense of right in awarding to Deity only love. Our judgment of the moral fitness of things gives us as definite and clear conceptions of justice as of love. All the propositions established in this argument tend to this point. We are apt to lose sight of justice, and to exalt love, even in the divine character. This is quite natural with all who have any sense of wrong (and who has not?), for we feel the need of love or mercy, and are ever willing or anxious to screen ourselves from justice. But in this, as before remarked, we do violence to our moral sense, to gratify our selfish feelings. Can any one dispassionately reason and reflect upon this subject, and accept the idea of a God of even partial justice? The idea is alike repugnant to reason and to reverence. God must be strictly, infinitely just. Annihilation would be preferable to immortal existence in a universe governed by a being of almighty power, but lacking justice.
But it is humiliating to think that a word is necessary to prove to any human being that moral wrong exists. Must we enter into argument to prove that it is wrong to commit adultery, to steal, or to kill? To argue the question seems but to insult the sense of mankind. The question which invites our attention and which ought to command our earnest interest is, How shall existing evil be disposed of? How may criminals be rescued from the awful consequences of their violations of the law of Him who is infinitely just? The question is not as to how they might stand before a being of limited or partial justice, or even whether it would be possible to rescue them by suspending justice; but how they are to stand when justice is maintained and vindicated on the scale of infinity. In examining this question, only the plainest and most evident principles of government will be recognized, and the attention of all is invited to the examination, in which we think it will be shown that it is not possible to save a sinner without an atonement, unless it be by trampling justice and government under foot; that an atonement, such as is presented to us in the Christian system, is at once reasonable, merciful, and just, and is the only remedy for sin which does not lead to immorality.
Spirit Manifestations not to be believed because of their Signs and Wonders.
“To the law and to the testimony” is the invariable rule the Bible gives us as a test of doctrine. “If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Spirit mediums, these modern magicians, often appeal in triumph to their signs and wonders, and, in the words of Jesus, demand belief for the “very works’ sake.” But what saith the Scriptures? “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.” Deut. 13: 1–5.
Spiritualism would lead us to other sources for truth than the Word of God; and it would lead us to regard as truth what is in that Word plainly denied. Yet we are not to follow it notwithstanding its miracles, unless its teachings are in accordance with sacred truth. But what are its teachings? First, that the dead are conscious and communicate with the living; an idea which both reason and revelation, if they are allowed to have their proper bearing, instantly repel; and, secondly, it professes to have for its main object, to convince skeptical minds of the immortality of the soul; in other words, that man has inherent immortality; which is the first and greatest falsehood with which Satan has ever cheated our credulous race—greatest, because it has had the greatest effect in our world, and because mankind generally are content notwithstanding the experience of six thousand years, to swallow down the same bait with which our mother Eve was first caught in the garden of Eden.
We say then, To the testimony of the Word of God. There learn that death is sleep—not a “perpetual” one as infidels have declared, and we have sometimes been accused of believing—but a sleep till the resurrection, when every man shall be rewarded according to his works; there learn that we have no immortality except through the atonement of our Redeemer. Then we are shielded against the delusive teachings of these spirits, though many legions more should be added to the innumerable number now hovering over the earth to convince the “skeptic.”—Sel.
Three Hints Worth Taking.
1. NEVER attempt to do anything that is not right. Just as surely as you do, you will get into trouble. If you ever suspect that anything is wicked, do it not until you are sure that your suspicions are groundless.
2. When you do attempt anything that is right, go through with it. Be not easily discouraged. Form habits of perseverance. Yield not to sloth and sleep and fickleness. To resist all these will not be easy, but you will feel that you have done right when you get through.
3. Do not waste your money. Perhaps you have very little. Then take the more care of it. Besides helping to spread the gospel, buy some good books and read them well. A good book is one of the best things in the world. If you can not buy as many as you need, borrow from others, and return them safe and sound. Never let a book lie where it may be injured.—Sel.
Justin Martyr on the Resurrection
JUSTIN MARTYR, who was born A. D. 89, and suffered martyrdom for Christ A. D. 163, in his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, says: “Should you happen upon some who are called Christians, . . . . . . . . and say there is no resurrection of the dead, but instantly when they die are received up into Heaven, do not count these among Christians.”
The Heart Gains Value When Broken
THE heart is the only thing that increases in value by being broken.
Germany and Switzerland.
By John Nevins Andrews
The work of God in these countries still makes progress. I have spoken of our efforts to prepare tracts and pamphlets for publication in Europe. When the work on the Three Messages was finished I thought to take time for some other matters of great importance preparatory to the commencement of our work in Bale. But just then came a call from Bro. Ertzenberger of so urgent a character that I could not refuse the request. He wished my assistance in his field of labor. It was necessary to choose between matters of serious importance, some of which must be neglected, and it gave me much distress to be thus straitened. But after much prayer I set out for Germany. I found that some of those who received us joyfully last year are now embittered toward us. The cause of estrangement is the doctrine that Christ, when he comes, will gather his people to old Jerusalem instead of the new, and that in particular he will gather there all the natural Jews, and that men will be converted after Christ comes.
Those who hold these views have never been pressed to renounce them, and could make no complaint in this respect. But they cannot tolerate those who think that old Jerusalem and her children are not the subjects of promise, and that sin can only be pardoned while Christ serves as priest in the temple in Heaven. It therefore became necessary to meet this issue thus forced upon us, and this, with God's help, has been done. Though bitter words have been spoken against us by a few, no such words were returned. But the doctrine that the Jews are the heirs of the kingdom of God, by virtue of their descent from Abraham, was shown to be without foundation in the Bible, and to be plainly contradicted by its teaching.
Should time and strength hereafter permit, I mean to write out this subject as I presented it in this series of meetings. I am happy to say that nearly every person who has been proved by acquaintance to be of moral worth still remains in union with our work. Bro. Ertzenberger has pursued a wise and noble Christian course, and our friends in Germany have great confidence in him. Some of those who are at present alienated will, without doubt, return after a time. Perhaps some others will not. But if they do not they can never complain that they have been driven off, nor say that on any occasion harsh words have been spoken to them. On the whole, I do not regret that the sieve has been shaken, though it has been the occasion of pain to us.
It gave me great pleasure to visit Solingen, the city where Bro. Ertzenberger has given a course of lectures. Here I found a church of sixteen good, substantial, intelligent Christian Sabbath-keepers. I was very favorably impressed with what I saw in this little company. Probably several others in that vicinity will soon unite with them. Three of those who have embraced the commandments through the labors of Bro. E. were baptized while I was there. It was a very interesting baptism.
At Essen there are seven Sabbath-keepers who came from the company who keep the Sabbath in Eastern Prussia. In company with Bro. E. I twice visited these friends, and I think our visits were very profitable. At first they were distant and seemed afraid of us. But two of them, by our invitation, were present at the baptism, and the Spirit of God touched their hearts. At our second visit I had the privilege of speaking to a company of their neighbors on the commandments and the Sabbath. God gave much freedom in speaking, and the word took hold of all present. In particular these Sabbath-keepers were much affected and most heartily thanked us for the visit, and for what they had heard.
I remained in Germany a little more than three weeks, but the time was used with diligence to make it count all that it was possible. I greatly regretted to leave so soon, but could not avoid making my stay thus brief. My interview with Bro. Ertzenberger was a precious one to me, and I believe was a source of encouragement to him. He has labored faithfully and God has made his labors a great blessing to the cause in that region. My heart is of good courage as to Germany.
Immediately after my departure for Germany, circumstances indicated the propriety of making a public effort at Locle. Bro. Bourdeau therefore advertised in the paper, and by the distribution of hand-bills called out quite a congregation. He put forth a very earnest effort to reach the people. As the result, twelve persons are now keeping the Sabbath. One of these is a gentleman who has stood high as a teacher in a position he has filled for twelve years. He is well educated in the French and German languages, and as he seems to be a humble Christian, and is in the prime of life, and in good health, we hope that he will be able to render us important assistance. He has resigned his position that he may take hold with us in the work in Bale. I was sorry to be absent during the most important part of these meetings, but as it seemed to be duty I could not do otherwise.
On my return to Locle, we held our first quarterly tract and missionary meeting for Switzerland. The reports showed the distribution of about 26,000 pages of tracts. These have gone to nearly all the countries of Europe. One sister who has a relative that is a servant in the household of the Emperor of Russia, sent publications to that relative for the benefit of his Imperial Majesty. Important publications have been sent to a missionary in the interior of Africa. Moreover, it was the distribution of reading matter in Locle which created the first interest in that place, and caused our friends to desire a special public effort. Under the circumstances, the amount of pages distributed, though not large, is a matter of encouragement to me. It has not been possible for me to visit our friends to urge forward this work since first starting it, but we shall, with God's blessing, do greater things hereafter.
The past week myself and children removed to Bale to get our hired house in order, and Bro. Bourdeau remained to close up the work in Locle and to baptize. He will join us with his family this coming week. After some further preparatory labor, we shall enter upon our public effort in this city. We hope to move in the counsel of God; for we well know that every thing depends upon his help. We are grateful for the prayers of the people of God. We still ask them. Hitherto the Lord has helped us.
Our residence is 68 Mullerweg, Bale, Switzerland, which is now our postoffice address.
J. N. ANDREWS.
Bale, Switzerland, April 16, 1876.
Who Was Michael?
By George Ide Butler
This is a question of some interest, upon which there has been a difference of opinion in the religious world, and which the Scriptures alone can settle. We propose, therefore, to notice each passage where his name is mentioned. These are five in number. We will first notice Rev. 12:7: “And there was war in Heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought against his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in Heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world.” Here are two great hosts brought to view, and their respective commanders at their head. Michael leads the angelic host; Satan, his rival, leads the other. Who, then, is represented in the Scriptures as the commander of the angelic host? I answer, Christ. 1 Pet. 3:22: “Who is gone into Heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels, and authorities, and powers, being made subject unto him.” The Scriptures bring to view, in many places, one being between the Father and the angels, the agent through whom all his high commands were given, our Lord and Saviour. Evidently he is the same as Michael referred to above.
The next passage I will quote, is Jude 9: “Yet Michael, the archangel, when contending with the devil, he disputed about the body of Moses,” &c. Here the same parties are again represented as contending, evidently in regard to the resurrection of Moses. And it is further evident that Michael was successful; for the next account of Moses we have, he is seen upon the mount with Elijah and Christ. He is there, not his disembodied spirit. Evidently, then, Michael had power to resurrect him. Who is it that brings the dead to life? John 5:25: “The dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” “All that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth.” Verse 28. Here we see again that Michael and Christ are the same.
Jude calls Michael the archangel. This is an important word. According to Webster, arch means, “chief, eminent;” angel means “a messenger of God.” So Michael is the chief, or first messenger of God; the first in authority under him. This answers exactly to Christ. Paul says, “For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1 Thess. 4:16. The shout proceeds from Christ; the voice of the archangel goes forth from Christ; and the trump of God is with Christ. It is therefore evident that the archangel is no other than Christ. This word is never used in the plural.
The next instance we quote from Dan. 12:1, 2: “And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation, even to that same time; and at that time shall thy people be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,” &c. Who is the great prince whose standing up results in the coming forth of the dead, and the terrible destruction of his enemies? We have but to read the scriptures quoted from 1 Thess. 4:16, and many others, to be satisfied it must be Christ. He is the “great prince” who is so often set before us in the Word of God; “the chiefest among ten thousand and the one altogether lovely.”
The next instance I quote from Dan. 10:13: “But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days; but lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I remained there with the kings of Persia.” One of the heavenly messengers was evidently the speaker. There was an important work to be done. There were certain purposes to be revealed in the past through God’s prophets, to be brought about and fulfilled. These purposes involved the agency of the kings of Persia. Daniel had been earnestly praying to God, and had been chastening his soul, partaking of no pleasant food for three full weeks. Daniel’s heart was set to see that work wrought for his own people, that God had promised. His faith took hold upon God’s promises, and we see its effects. The heavenly messenger says to him, “From the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me,” &c. Here we not only see the way God works among the nations of the earth, but the power of fervent prayer when the soul is really chastened before God. Satan no doubt was doing all he could to hinder the fulfillment of God’s purposes, bringing his influence to bear upon the mind of the sovereign. The king himself, it seems, was loth to carry out the design of God. It became necessary for a greater and more powerful influence to be brought to bear upon his mind; so Michael is sent. In the text, he is said to be “one of the chief princes.” The margin says, “the first of the chief princes.” I think in view of the other scriptures I have quoted, this is evidently the correct reading; and here plainly this refers to Christ, the head over all the angelic host.
Michael is mentioned in just one more instance. Dan. 10:21: “There is none that holdeth with me in these things but Michael your prince.” We read that angels are “all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.” Heb. 1:14. We see, then, that they occupy a very important and intimate relation to the salvation of men. But Michael is a heavenly messenger, and one to be entitled emphatically, “your prince.” One of the heavenly beings is our prince. I trust none of us can have any doubt who that is: the “Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” How thankful we may all be, if we love him, that our “prince” is so soon “to stand up.” May the Lord hasten it in his time.—Geo. I. Butler.