Gregory I (Pope, A. D. 590-604)
Whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests.—“Epistles of St. Gregory the Great,” Letter to Emperor Mauricius Augustus, against assumption of title by Patriarch of Constantinople; “Epistles of St. Gregory the Great,” book 7, epis. 33; “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,” Vol. XII, p. 226. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.HBS 10.8
Antichrist, English Reformers on.—The subject is however so important, the times so critical, and the views of the early Reformers and founders of our English Church on the point in question so often overlooked, if not misrepresented, that it seems to me desirable that the truth about it should be fully and plainly stated. ...HBS 11.1
1. Tyndale. (Martyred a. d. 1536.)HBS 11.2
“Now, though the Bishop of Rome and his sects give Christ these names, ... yet in that they rob him of the effect, and take the significations of his names unto themselves, and make of him but a hypocrite, as they themselves be-they be the right Antichrists, and ‘deny both the Father and the Son;’ for they deny the witness that the Father bare unto the Son, and deprive the Son of all the power and glory that his Father gave him.”-“Works of Tyndale,” Vol. II, p. 183, Parker edition.HBS 11.3
2. Cranmer. (Archbishop of Canterbury, 1533; martyred 1555.)HBS 11.4
“But the Romish Antichrist, to deface this great benefit of Christ, hath taught that his sacrifice upon the cross is not sufficient hereunto, without another sacrifice devised by him, and made by the priest; or else without indulgences, beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other pelfry, to supply Christ’s imperfection: and that Christian people cannot apply to themselves the benefits of Christ’s passion, but that the same is in the distribution of the Bishop of Rome; or else that by Christ we have no full remission, but be delivered only from sin, and yet remaineth temporal pain in purgatory due for the same; to be remitted after this life by the Romish Antichrist and his ministers, who take upon them to do for us that thing which Christ either would not or could not do. O heinous blasphemy, and most detestable injury against Christ! O wicked abomination in the temple of God! O pride intolerable of Antichrist, and most manifest token of the son of perdition; extolling himself above God, and with Lucifer exalting his seat and power above the throne of God!”-Preface to Defence, etc., in “Works of Archbishop Cranmer,” Vol. I, pp. 5-7, Parker edition.HBS 11.5
3. Latimer. (Bishop of Worcester, 1535-1539; martyred 1555.)HBS 11.6
“‘Judge not before the Lord’s coming.’ In this we learn to know Antichrist, which doth elevate himself in the church, and judgeth at his pleasure before the time. His canonizations, and judging of men before the Lord’s judgment, be a manifest token of Antichrist. How can he know saints? He knoweth not his own heart.”-Third Sermon before Edward VI, in “Works of Bishop Latimer,” Vol. I, pp. 148, 149, Parker edition.HBS 11.7
4. Ridley. (Bishop of Rochester, 1547, and of London, 1550-1553; martyred 1555.)HBS 11.8
“The see [of Rome] is the seat of Satan; and the bishop of the same, that maintaineth the abominations thereof, is Antichrist himself indeed. And for the same causes this see at this day is the same which St. John calleth in his Revelation ‘Babylon,’ or ‘the whore of Babylon,’ and ‘spiritually Sodoma and Agyptus,’ ‘the mother of fornications and of the abominations upon the earth.’”-Farewell Letter, in “Works of Bishop Ridley,” p. 415, Parker edition.HBS 11.9
5. Hooper. (Bishop of Gloucester, 1551-1554; martyred 1555.)HBS 12.1
“If godly Moses and his brother Aaron never acclaimed this title [to be God’s vicar and lieutenant] in the earth, doubtless it is a foul and detestable arrogancy that these ungodly bishops of Rome attribute unto themselves to be the heads of Christ’s church. ...HBS 12.2
“Because God hath given this light unto my countrymen, which be all persuaded (or else God send them to be persuaded), that [neither] the Bishop of Rome, nor none other, is Christ’s vicar upon the earth, it is no need to use any long or copious oration: it is so plain that it needeth no probation: the very properties of Antichrist, I mean of Christ’s great and principal enemy, are so openly known to all men that are not blinded with the smoke of Rome, that they know him to be the beast that John describeth in the Apocalypse.”-Declaration of Christ, chap. 3, in “Early Writings of Bishop Hooper,” pp. 22-24, Parker edition.HBS 12.3
6. Philpot. (Archdeacon of Winchester; martyred 1555.)HBS 12.4
“I doubt not but you have already cast the price of this your building of the house of God, that it is like to be no less than your life; for I believe (as Paul saith) that God hath appointed us in these latter days as sheep to the slaughter. Antichrist is come again; and he must make a feast to Beelzebub his father of many Christian bodies, for the restoring again of his kingdom. Let us watch and pray, that the same day may not find us unready.”-Letter to Robert Glover, in “Writings of Archdeacon Philpot,” p. 244, Parker edition.HBS 12.5
7. Bradford. (Prebendary of St. Paul’s, 1551; martyred 1555.)HBS 12.6
“This word of God, written by the prophets and apostles, left and contained in the canonical books of the Holy Bible, I do believe to contain plentifully ‘all things necessary to salvation,’ so that nothing, as necessary to salvation, ought to be added thereto.... In testimony of this faith I render and give my life; being condemned, as well for not acknowledging the Antichrist of Rome to be Christ’s vicar-general, and supreme head of his Catholic and universal church, here and elsewhere upon earth, as for denying the horrible and idolatrous doctrine of transubstantiation, and Christ’s real, corporal, and carnal presence in his Supper, under the forms and accidents of bread and wine.”-Farewell to the City of London, in “Writings of Bradford,” p. 435, Parker edition.HBS 12.7
8. Homilies of the Church of England. (Authorized, 1563.)HBS 12.8
“He ought therefore rather to be called Antichrist, and the successor of the Scribes and Pharisees, than Christ’s vicar or St. Peter’s successor.”-“Homilies,” Part 3, Homily of Obedience, p. 114. Cambridge: Corrie, 1850.HBS 12.9
“Neither ought miracles to persuade us to do contrary to God’s word; for the Scriptures have for a warning hereof foreshowed, that the kingdom of Antichrist shall be mighty ‘in miracles and wonders,’ to the strong illusion of all the reprobate. But in this they pass the folly and wickedness of the Gentiles.”-“Homilies,” Part 3, Homily Against Peril of Idolatry, p. 234.HBS 12.10
9. Jewel. (Bishop of Salisbury, 1559-1571.)HBS 12.11
“Many places of the Holy Scriptures, spoken of Antichrist, seemed in old times to be dark and doubtful; for that as then it appeared not unto what state and government they might be applied: but now, by the doctrine and practice of the Church of Rome, to them that have eyes to see, they are as clear and as open as the sun.”-“Defence of the Apology,” Vol. IV, p. 744.HBS 12.12
Note.—This section is found in the first edition of Rev. E. B. Elliott’s “Hora Apocalyptica,” Appendix IV, pp. 548-552.—Eds.HBS 13.1
Antiochus Epiphanes.—Epiphanes-that is, the “Illustrious”-was illustrious only for the grossness of his character and the wickedness of his conduct. At his accession, the high priesthood at Jerusalem was in the hands of a worthy man, named Onias. But a brother of his own having offered to pay Antiochus 360 talents for the office, Onias was dispossessed, and the brother installed. Onias fled to Egypt, where he built a temple at Heliopolis, and acted as high priest. The name of the usurper was Jesus; but not liking the Hebrew name, he changed it into the Greek name Jason. A Greek party now appears among the Jews. The sympathies of Jason were entirely with the Greeks; and to the utmost of his power he discountenanced the old Hebrew customs and religion. He even sent on one occasion an embassy to Tyre to take part in certain games in honor of the heathen god Hercules, and to offer sacrifices on his altar. Jason, in his turn, was supplanted by another brother, who took the Greek name of Menelaus, and,was still more of a Greek than Jason.HBS 13.2
Persecutions at Jerusalem.-Antiochus now undertook an expedition into Egypt, and was successful. While he was there, the Jews heard a report of his death, at which they showed signs of great joy. Hearing of this, Antiochus, on leaving Egypt, went to Jerusalem to chastise them. He besieged and took the sacred city, slew forty thousand Jews, and sold a like number as slaves. To show his contempt for the Jewish religion, he entered the holy of holies, sacrificed a sow on the altar of burnt offering, and sprinkled broth made from its flesh all over the building.HBS 13.3
On occasion of another expedition of Antiochus into Egypt, he was met by Popillius, a Roman ambassador, who ordered him peremptorily to quit the country. Antiochus hesitated, on which the ambassador, drawing a circle around him on the sand, declared that he should not leave it till he had given his answer. Antiochus felt that he had no alternative but to yield. It will readily be believed that as the haughty monarch returned homeward he was in no very gentle temper. To chastise the Jews, he sent to Jerusalem a general named Apolonius, who executed his commission with terrible rigor. Waiting till the people were all assembled in their synagogues on the Sabbath, he made a frightful massacre, slaying the men, seizing the women and children as slaves, demolishing the city and its walls, and building the fortress of Acra with the ruins. The remaining inhabitants fled in consternation, and for three years and a half, till Judas Maccabeus recovered the temple and purged it from its pollutions, the daily sacrifices and all the public festivals ceased to be observed.HBS 13.4
Not content with these atrocities, Antiochus began a furious persecution against the religion of the Jews. He issued an edict requiring all the people under his scepter to worship the same gods. The Samaritans conformed to the decree, and allowed their temple on Mt. Gerizim to be dedicated to the Grecian Jove. The temple at Jerusalem was forcibly consecrated to the same heathen deity, and the statue of Jupiter Olympus was erected on the altar of burnt offering. Two Jewish women, that were found to have circumcised their children, were led through the streets with their children fastened to their necks, and cast headlong over the steepest part of the walls. At the feast of Bacchus, the god of wine, the Jews were forced to join, carrying ivy and taking part in the abominations of the festival. To observe any of the Jewish customs was made a capital offense,-in short, the most rigorous measures were adopted absolutely to root out the Jewish faith.—“A Manual of Bible History,” Rev. William G. Blaikie, D. D., LL. D., pp. 393-395. London: T. Nelson & Sons, 1906.HBS 13.5
Apocrypha, As Usually Understood.—The word “apocrypha,” as usually understood, denotes the collection of religious writings which the Septuagint and Vulgate (with trivial differences) contain in addition to the writings constituting the Jewish and Protestant canon. This is not the original or the correct sense of the word, as will be shown, but it is that which it bears almost exclusively in modern speech. In critical works of the present day it is customary to speak of the collection of writings now in view as “the Old Testament Apocrypha,” because many of the books at least were written in Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, and because all of them are much more closely allied to the Old Testament than to the New Testament. But there is a “New” as well as an “Old” Testament Apocrypha, consisting of Gospels, epistles, etc. Moreover, the adjective “apocryphal” is also often applied in modern times to what are now generally called “Pseudepigraphical writings,” so designated because ascribed in the titles to authors who did not and could not have written them (e. g., Enoch, Abraham, Moses, etc.). The persons thus connected with these books are among the most distinguished in the traditions and history of Israel, and there can be no doubt that the object for which such names have been thus used is to add weight and authority to these writings....HBS 14.1
The investigation which follows will show that when the word “apocryphal” was first used in ecclesiastical writings, it bore a sense virtually identical with “esoteric;” so that “apocryphal writings” were such as appealed to an inner circle and could not be understood by outsiders. The present connotation of the term did not get fixed until the Protestant Reformation had set in, limiting the Biblical canon to its present dimensions among Protestant churches.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Apocrypha,” p. 179.HBS 14.2
Apocrypha, Value of.—The voice of prophecy was utterly hushed in this period [between the Testaments], but the old literary instinct of the nation asserted itself; it was part and parcel of the Jewish traditions, and would not be denied. Thus in this period many writings were produced, which although they lack canonical authority, among Protestants at least, still are extremely helpful for a correct understanding of the life of Israel in the dark ages before Christ.HBS 14.3
a. The Apocrypha.—First of all among the fruits of this literary activity stand the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. It is enough here to mention them. They are fourteen in number: 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 2 Esther, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Song of the Three Holy Children, History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon, Prayer of Manasses, 1 and 2 Maccabees. As 3 and 4 Maccabees fall presumably within the Christian era, they are not here enumerated. All these apocryphal writings are of the utmost importance for a correct understanding of the Jewish problem in the day in which they were written.—Id., art. “Between the Testaments,” p. 457.HBS 14.4
Apocrypha, Not in the Early Canon of the Scriptures.—The apocryphal books were not admitted into the canon of Scripture during the first four centuries of the Christian church.HBS 14.5
They are not mentioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in those of Origen, in the third century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, Jerome, Rufinus, and others of the fourth century; nor in the catalogue of canonical books recognized by the Council of Laodicea, held in the same century, whose canons were received by the Catholic Church; so that, as Bishop Burnet well observes, “we have the concurring sense of the whole church of God in this matter.” To this decisive evidence against the canonical authority of the apocryphal books, we may add that they were never read in the Christian church until the fourth century, when, as Jerome informs us, they were read “for example of life and instruction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doctrine;” and contemporary writers state that although they were not approved as canonical or inspired writings, yet some of them, particularly Judith, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus, were allowed to be perused by catechumens.HBS 15.1
As proof that they were not regarded as canonical in the fifth century, Augustine relates that when the book of Wisdom was publicly read in the church, it was given to the readers or inferior ecclesiastical officers, who read it in a lower place than those books which were universally acknowledged to be canonical, which were read by the bishops and presbyters in a more eminent and conspicuous manner.HBS 15.2
To conclude: Notwithstanding the veneration in which these books were held by the Western Church, it is evident that the same authority was never ascribed to them as to the Old and New Testament; until the last Council of Trent, at its fourth session, presumed to place them all (excepting the prayer of Manasseh and the third and fourth books of Esdras) in the same rank with the inspired writings of Moses and the prophets.—“An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures,” Thomas Hartwell Horne, B. D., Vol. I, pp. 458, 459. London: T. Cadell, 1839.HBS 15.3
Apocryphal Books, Last of, Extant.—It is not wonderful that, besides those which are admitted to be canonical books of the New Testament, there were many others which also pretended to be authentic.... In the ages following the apostles, the apocryphal writings, which were published under the names of Jesus Christ and his apostles, their companions, etc. (and which are mentioned by the writers of the first four centuries under the names of Gospels, epistles, acts, revelations, etc.), greatly increased. Most of them have long since perished, though some few are still extant.... The apocryphal books extant are: An Epistle from Jesus Christ to Abgarus; his Epistle, which (it is pretended) fell down from heaven at Jerusalem, directed to a priest named Leopas, in the city of Eris; the Constitutions of the Apostles; the Apostles’ Creed; the Apostolical Epistles of Barnabas, Clemens or Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp; the gospel of the infancy of our Saviour; the gospel of the birth of Mary; the prot-evangelion of James; the gospel of Nicodemus; the Martyrdom of Thecla or Acts of Paul; Abdias’s History of the Twelve Apostles; the Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans; the Six Epistles of Paul to Seneca, etc.—Id., p. 461.HBS 15.4
Apostasy, The Great, Multiplying Rites.—It is certain that to religious worship, both public and private, many rites were added, without necessity, and to the offense of sober and good men. The principal cause of this I readily look for in the perverseness of mankind, who are more delighted with the pomp and splendor of external forms and pageantry, than with the true devotion of the heart, and who despise whatever does not gratify their eyes and ears. But other and additional causes may be mentioned, which, though they suppose no bad design, yet clearly betray indiscretion.HBS 15.5
First, There is good reason to suppose the Christian bishops multiplied sacred rites for the sake of rendering the Jews and the pagans more friendly to them. For both these had been accustomed to numerous and splendid ceremonies from their infancy, and had no doubts that they constituted an essential part of religion. And when they saw the new religion to be destitute of such ceremonies, they thought it too simple, and therefore despised it. To obviate this objection, the rulers of the Christian churches deemed it proper for them to be more formal and splendid in their public worship.HBS 16.1
Secondly, The simplicity of the worship which Christians offered to the Deity, gave occasion to certain calumnies, maintained both by the Jews and the pagan priests. The Christians were pronounced atheists, because they were destitute of temples, altars, victims, priests, and all that pomp in which the vulgar suppose the essence of religion to consist. For unenlightened persons are prone to estimate religion by what meets their eyes. To silence this accusation, the Christian doctors thought they must introduce some external rites, which would strike the senses of people; so that they could maintain that they really had all those things of which Christians were charged with being destitute, though under different forms.—“Institutes of Ecclesiastical History,” Mosheim, book 1, cent. 2, part 2, chap. 4, secs. 1-3 (Vol. I, pp. 171, 172). London: Longman & Co., 1841.HBS 16.2
Apostasy, The Great, Adopting Heathen Philosophy.—The Christian church came early, after the days of the apostles, under the influence, not merely of the Greek language, but of the philosophy of the Greeks. The tendency in this direction was apparent even in the times of the apostles. It was against this very influence that Paul so often and earnestly warned the early Christians: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, ... and not after Christ.” “Avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith.” “I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve, through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” ... It was not long before the Grecian philosophy had become dominant and controlling. Their schools of literature, and especially of theology, were Grecian schools. Grecian philosophers became their teachers and leaders.—“The Gospel of Life in the Syriac New Testament,” Prof. J. H. Pettingell, p. 9.HBS 16.3
Arabah.—This word indicates in general a barren district, but is specifically applied in whole or in part to the depression of the Jordan valley, extending from Mt. Hermon to the Gulf of Akabah. In the Authorized Version it is transliterated only once (Joshua 18:18) describing the border of Benjamin. Elsewhere it is rendered “plain.” But in the Revised Version it is everywhere transliterated. South of the Dead Sea the name is still retained in Wady el-Arabah. In Deuteronomy 1:1; 2:8 (Authorized Version, “plain”) the southern portion is referred to; in Deuteronomy 3:17; 4:49; Joshua 3:16; 11:2; 12:3, and 2 Kings 14:25 the name is closely connected with the Dead Sea and the Sea of Chinnereth (Gennesaret). The allusions to the Arabah in Deuteronomy 11:30; Joshua 8:14; 12:1; 18:18; 2 Samuel 2:29; 4:7; 2 Kings 25:4; Jeremiah 39:4; 52:7, indicate that the word was generally used in its most extended sense, while in Joshua 11:16 and 12:8 it is represented as one of the great natural divisions of the country.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. I, art. “Arabah,” p. 211.HBS 16.4
Archeology, Results of the Work of the Excavator.—For a hundred years or more the explorer and the excavator have been busy in many parts of the world. They have brought to light monuments and texts that have in many cases revolutionized our conceptions of history, and have in other cases thrown much new light on what was previously known.HBS 17.1
In no part of the world have these labors been more fruitful than in the lands of the Bible. In Egypt and Babylonia vistas of history have been opened to view that were undreamed of before exploration began. The same is true for that part of the history of Palestine which antedates the coming of Israel. Information has also been obtained which illumines later portions of the history, and makes the Biblical narrative seem much more vivid. It is now possible to make real to oneself the details of the life of the Biblical heroes, and to understand the problems of their world as formerly one could not do. Exploration has also brought to light many inscriptions in the various countries that confirm or illuminate the traditions, history, poetry, and prophecy of the Bible.—“Archeology and the Bible,” George A. Barton, Ph. D., LL. D., Preface, p. iii. Philadelphia: American Sunday-School Union, copyright 1916.HBS 17.2
Archeology, Emphasis of, upon Inspiration.—Not the least service that archeology has rendered has been the presentation of a new background against which the inspiration of the Biblical writers stands out in striking vividness. Often one finds traditions in Babylonia identical with those embodied in the Old Testament, but they are so narrated that no such conception of God shines through them as shines through the Biblical narrative. Babylonians and Egyptians pour out their hearts in psalms with something of the same fervor and pathos as the Hebrews, but no such vital conception of God and his oneness gives shape to their faith and brings the longed-for strength to the spirit. Egyptian sages developed a social conscience comparable in many respects with that of the Hebrew prophets, but they lacked the vital touch of religious devotion which took the conceptions of the prophets out of the realm of individual speculation and made them the working ethics of a whole people. Archeology thus reinforces to the modern man with unmistakable emphasis the ancient words, “Men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:21.—Id., Preface, pp. iv, v.HBS 17.3
Archeology, Effect of, upon the New Testament.—The modern archeological discoveries have made the old criticisms of New Testament “mistakes” seem very immature. The discoveries indeed have confirmed in a most remarkable way the general and constant accuracy of the New Testament writers in their reports of first-century facts and customs.—Article by Camden M. Cobern, D. D., Litt. D., “The New Archeological Discoveries and the New Testament Text,” in the Biblical Review, January, 1920, New York.HBS 17.4
Arminianism.—The “Remonstrance” of 1610 summed up in five articles the Arminian modifications of orthodox Calvinism. James Arminius had died in 1609. His views were maintained by Episcopius (Bisschop), his successor at Leyden, and by the preacher Uytenbogaert, and were supported by such eminent jurist-statesmen as Barneveldt and Grotius. The “Remonstrance” was drawn up by Uytenbogaert for presentation to the Estates of Holland and West Friesland, and was signed by forty-six pastors. It represented an even more serious and determined attempt than Amyraldism-its kindred though independent French counterpart-to break down the rigor of supralapsarian and infralapsarian Calvinism. Though condemned by the weighty, if onesided, Synod of Dort, and driven by force from Holland or suppressed for a time, it exerted an extremely widespread influence, especially throughout the English-speaking world, pervading the Anglican Church and its great Methodist offshoot. It presents the recoil of the human heart from the stern inferences of the head, from the darker aspects of Scripture teaching and of everyday observation of life. Its weapons against scholastic logic and learning are sentiment and humane feeling. It first denies five current propositions, then affirms five others, ending with the claim that the latter are “agreeable to the word of God, tending to edification, and, as regards this argument, sufficient for salvation, so that it is not necessary or edifying to rise higher or to descend deeper.”HBS 17.5
The first article affirms that election is conditional upon, and inseparable from, divine foreknowledge of faith and perseverance, and reprobation upon foreknowledge of unbelief and sin persisted in.HBS 18.1
The second affirms that the atonement through Christ’s death is universal and sufficient for all, though not necessarily accepted and actually effective in every case, denying any a priori limitation of it to elect persons.HBS 18.2
The third affirms that fallen man cannot accomplish good or attain to saving faith unless regenerated through the Holy Spirit.HBS 18.3
The fourth denies that grace is irresistible, compelling the elect though withheld from the reprobate.HBS 18.4
The fifth denies that recipients of irresistible grace, those who through faith are “Christo insiti ac proinde Spiritus eius vivificantis participes [ingrafted into Christ and therefore partakers of his life-giving Spirit],” are unable to fall away and necessarily persevere to the end, and affirms that it is impossible to say from Scripture whether the regenerate can ever fall away.—“A History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith,” William A. Curtis, B. D., D. Litt., pp. 239, 240. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.HBS 18.5
Arminianism and Methodism.—As the church in Holland became less and less distinctively Calvinist, the separate testimony of the Remonstrants became the less necessary, and save at Rotterdam and Amsterdam they are now few in numbers. Wesley’s movement gave the name at least of Arminianism in England a new lease of life, and a modified Arminianism is associated with the Methodists, as distinct from the Calvinism of other sects.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, Vol. I, art. “Arminianism,” p. 371A.HBS 18.6
Artaxerxes, Seventh Year of.—Sir Isaac Newton, the great mathematician and scientist, made an analysis of Greek and other records bearing witness to 457 b. c. as the seventh year of Artaxerxes. For the famous discoverer of the law of gravitation was an earnest student of prophecy, and of that greatest of all sciences-the science of salvation. In his work on the prophecies of Daniel, he gives various independent lines of proof for the date 457 b. c. as the seventh year of Artaxerxes, whence the prophetic period was to be reckoned. Reference to three of these lines of evidence must suffice:HBS 18.7
1. Newton shows that soon after an anniversary of his accession, Xerxes began to march his army over the Hellespont into Europe, “in the end of the fourth year of the seventy-fourth Olympiad,” which ended in June, 480 b. c. Newton continues:HBS 18.8
“In the autumn, three months after, on the full moon, the sixteenth day of the month of Munychion, was the battle of Salamis, and a little after that an eclipse of the sun, which, by the calculation, fell on OctoberHBS 18.9
2. His [Xerxes’] sixth year, therefore, began a little before June, suppose in spring, An. J. P. [Julian period] 4234 [b. c. 480], and his first year consequently in spring, An. J. P. 4229 [b. c. 485], as above. Now he reigned almost twenty-one years, by the consent of all writers. Add the seven months of Artabanus, and the sum will be twenty-one years and about four or five months, which end between midsummer and autumn, An. J. P. 4250 [b. c. 464]. At this time, therefore, began the reign of his successor, Artaxerxes, as was to be proved.” (“Observations upon the Prophecies,” Sir Isaac Newton, part 1, chap. 10.)HBS 19.1
2. Again, Newton takes the writings of Africanus, a Christian of the third century:HBS 19.2
“The same thing is also confirmed by Julius Africanus, who informs us out of former writers that the twentieth year of Artaxerxes was the one hundred fifteenth year from the beginning of the reign of Cyrus in Persia, and fell in with An. 4, Olympiad 83 [the fourth year of the eighty-third Olympiad ]. It began, therefore, with the Olympic year soon after the summer solstice, An. J. P. 4269 [b. c. 445]. Subduct nineteen years, and his first year will begin at the same time of the year An. J. P. 4250 [b. c. 464], as above.”-Ibid.HBS 19.3
3. Another of Newton’s arguments in proof of the date, the last that we have space to refer to, is based on testimony as to the death of Artaxerxes. It will be more easily followed if we quote more fully than Sir Isaac Newton does from the original authority cited; and indeed the story is an interesting one apart from its contribution to chronology. It is from the “History of the Peloponnesian War,”-really a contest between Sparta and Athens,-written by Thucydides. Writing of the winter season of 425-424 b. c., he says:HBS 19.4
“During the ensuing winter, Aristides, son of Archippus, one of the commanders of the Athenian vessels which collected tribute from the allies, captured at Eion, upon the [river] Strymon, Artaphernes, a Persian, who was on his way from the king [Artaxerxes] to Sparta. He was brought to Athens, and the Athenians had the dispatches which he was carrying, and which were written in the Assyrian character, translated.... The chief point was a remonstrance addressed to the Lacedamonians by the king, who said that he could not understand what they wanted.... If they meant to make themselves intelligible, he desired them to send to him another embassy with the Persian envoy. Shortly afterward the Athenians sent Artaphernes in a trireme [galley] to Ephesus, and with him an embassy of their own; but they found that Artaxerxes, the son of Xerxes, had recently died; for the embassy arrived just at that time.” (“History of the Peloponnesian War,” Thucydides, book 2, par. 50, Jowett’s translation, p. 278.)HBS 19.5
As all this happened “during the winter,” it is evident that the envoys from Greece on the way to Artaxerxes’ court in Persia, and the embassy from Persia announcing the king’s death, met in Ephesus (in Asia Minor) in the early months of 424 b. c.; and that the death of Artaxerxes must have occurred toward the end of 425 b. c. Sir Isaac Newton shows that his precise reign was thirty-nine years and three months. Counting this time back from the end of 425 b. c., the beginning of his reign comes in the latter half of 464 b. c., just as we have seen by other witnesses, and the seventh year of his reign would be 457 b. c.HBS 19.6
This is but a rough calculation, based on an estimate of the reasonable time elapsing in the journeying of the embassies. It is related to the exact chronology of Ptolemy’s Canon only as the “log” reckoning of a ship is related to the sure observation by the sun or stars in determining the ship’s position. But it is interesting as showing how fragmentary details of chronological history join in confirming an important date in prophecy.HBS 20.1
The testimony of the Olympiads agrees with that of Ptolemy’s Canon in fixing the year period within which Artaxerxes began to reign. And just where the testimony of history is uncertain-as to the season of the year-the voice of Inspiration speaks.HBS 20.2
The year in which the great commission was granted to Ezra to restore and build Jerusalem was 457 b. c.—“The Hand of God in History,” William A. Spicer, pp. 57-60. Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, copyright 1913.HBS 20.3
Artaxerxes, Seventh Year of, Date of.—Now, what is the testimony of the canon to the seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, when the decree to Ezra went forth? Ptolemy, of course, knew nothing of the Christian era and the reckoning of years before Christ and after Christ. He began with the era of Nabonassar. Of the origin of this system, Dr. Hales (“Chronology,” Vol. I, p. 155) says:HBS 20.4
“Nabonassar [king of Babylon], having collected the acts of his predecessors, destroyed them, in order that the computation of the reigns of the Chaldean kings might be made from himself. It began, therefore, with the reign of Nabonassar, Feb. 26, b. c. 747.”HBS 20.5
That day was the Egyptian Thoth, or New Year. It begins the year 1 of Ptolemy’s Canon, which thenceforward numbers off the years, 1, 2, 3, etc., straight on through history, telling in what year of Nabonassar’s era each king began to reign, always counting full years from New Year to New Year. The canon does not deal with parts of years. It is like a rigid measuring rule, just three hundred sixty-five days long, laid down over history, marking the years and numbering them from that first New Year. Knowing the starting-point, Feb. 26, 747 b. c., it is but a matter of computation, or measuring, to tell in what year of our modern reckoning a given year of the canon falls.HBS 20.6
According to Ptolemy, the year in which Artaxerxes began to reign was the two hundred eighty-fourth year of the canon. This year 284, according to our calendar, began Dec. 17, 465 b. c. HBS 20.7
But according to the rule of Ptolemy, this means only that somewhere between Dec. 17, 465, and Dec. 17, 464, the king came to the throne. At whatever time in the year a king came to the throne, his reign was counted from the New Year preceding. To illustrate: If we were following that plan now of recording the reigns of kings,-by years only, not counting parts of years,-and a king should come to the throne in July, 1913, the year of his accession would be set down as beginning with the New Year, Jan. 1, 1913, for in the year then opening he began to reign. That was Ptolemy’s method. Dr. Hales (“Chronology,” Vol. I, p. 171) states the rule:HBS 20.8
“Each king’s reign begins at the Thoth, or New Year’s Day, before his accession, and all the odd months of his last year are included in the first year of his successor.” ...HBS 20.9
Therefore, inasmuch as the canon shows only that Artaxerxes began his reign sometime in the Nabonassean year beginning Dec. 17, 465 b. c., and ending Dec. 17, 464, the question is, At what time of the year did he come to the throne? With this answered, we can readily determine the seventh year of Artaxerxes, as the Scripture would reckon it from the time when he actually began to reign. And here Inspiration itself gives the answer.HBS 21.1
The record of Nehemiah and Ezra fully establishes[Original illegible] the fact that Artaxerxes began his reign at the end of the summer, or in the autumn. Nehemiah 1:1; 2:1; Ezra 7:7-9. His first year, therefore, was from the autumn of 464 b. c. to the autumn of 463 b. c., and his seventh year was from the autumn of 458 b. c. to the autumn of 457 b. c.HBS 21.2
Under Ezra’s commission the people began to go up to Jerusalem in the spring of that year, 457 b. c. (in the first month, or April), and they “came to Jerusalem in the fifth month” (August). Ezra 7, 8, 9. Ezra and his associates soon thereafter “delivered the king’s commissions unto the king’s lieutenants, and to the governors on this side the river: and they furthered the people, and the house of God.” Ezra 8:36.HBS 21.3
With this delivery of the commissions to the king’s officers, the commandment to restore and to build had fully gone forth. And from this date, 457 b. c., extend the 70 weeks, or 490 years, allotted to the Jewish people. “Seventy weeks are determined [cut off] upon thy people and upon thy holy city, ... from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem.” Daniel 9:24, 25.HBS 21.4
This 490-year period, measuring from 457 b. c. to 34 a. d., touches at its close the years of the public ministry and crucifixion of Christ, and the turning of the apostles to the Gentiles.HBS 21.5
At the same date, 457 b. c., necessarily began the longer period of 2300 years, from which the shorter period was “determined,” or cut off. And this long prophetic period was to reach to “the time of the end,” to “the cleansing of the sanctuary,” the beginning of the closing ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary, preparatory to his second coming in glory.—“The Hand of God in History,” William A. Spicer, pp. 44-49.HBS 21.6
Asherah.—Like so much else in Canaanitish religion, the name and worship of Asherah were borrowed from Assyria. She was the wife of the war god Asir, whose name was identified with that of the city of Assur with the result that he became the national god of Assyria. Since Asirtu was merely the feminine form of Asir, “the superintendent” or “leader,” it is probable that it was originally an epithet of Istar (Ashtoreth) of Nineveh. In the West, however, Asherah and Ashtoreth came to be distinguished from one another, Asherah being exclusively the goddess of fertility, whereas Ashtoreth passed into a moon goddess.HBS 21.7
In Assyrian, asirtu, which appears also under the forms asrâtu, esrçti (plural), and asru, had the further signification of “sanctuary.” Originally Asirtu, the wife of Asir, and asirtu, “sanctuary,” seem to have had no connection with one another, but the identity in the pronunciation of the two words caused them to be identified in signification, and as the tree trunk or cone of stone which symbolized Asherah was regarded as a Beth-el, or “house of the deity,” wherein the goddess was immanent, the word Asirtu, Asherah, came to denote the symbol of the goddess. The trunk of the tree was often provided with branches, and assumed the form of the tree of life. It was as a trunk, however, that it was forbidden to be erected by the side of “the altar of Jehovah.” ... The existence of numerous symbols in each of which the goddess was believed to be immanent, led to the creation of numerous forms of the goddess herself, which, after the analogy of the Ashtaroth, were described collectively as the Asherim.—The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by James Orr, M. A., D. D., Vol. I, art. “Asherah,” pp. 268, 269.HBS 22.1
Ashtoreth.—Ashtoreth, or Astarte, is a word whereof no satisfactory account has as yet been given. It seems to have no Semitic derivation, and may perhaps have been adopted by the Semites from an earlier Hamitic population. Originally a mere name for the energy or activity of God, Ashtoreth came to be regarded by the Phonicians as a real female personage, a supreme goddess, on a par with Baal, though scarcely worshiped so generally. In the native mythology she was the daughter of Uranos (heaven), and the wife of El, or Saturn. The especial place of her worship in Phonicia was Sidon. In one of her aspects she represented the moon, and bore the head of a heifer with horns curving in a crescent form, whence she seems to have been sometimes called Ashtoreth Karnaim, or “Astarte of the two horns.” But, more commonly, she was a nature goddess, “the great mother, the representation of the female principle in nature, and hence presiding over the sexual relation, and connected more or less with love and with voluptuousness. The Greeks regarded their Aphrodité, and the Romans their Venus, as her equivalent. One of her titles was “Queen of Heaven;” and under this title she was often worshiped by the Israelites.—“The Religions of the Ancient World,” George Rawlinson, M. A., pp. 106, 107. New York: Hurst & Co.HBS 22.2
Assyria, Kings of.—In the Scriptures we find the names of the following Assyrian kings:HBS 22.3
Pul, contemporary with Menahem. 2 Kings 15:19 (b. c. 771-760).HBS 22.4
Tiglath-Pileser, with Ahaz. 2 Kings 16:7-10 (cir. 738).HBS 22.5
Shalmaneser, with Hoshea and Hezekiah. 2 Kings 17:4 (723).HBS 22.6
Sargon. Isaiah 20:1 (cir. 718).HBS 22.7
Sennacherib. 2 Kings 18:13 (b. c. 713).HBS 22.8
Esarhaddon, his son. 2 Kings 19:37. (The same, or another of the same name, in Ezra 4:2.)-“Chronology of the Holy Scriptures,” Henry Browne, M. A., p. 546. London: John W. Parker, 1844.HBS 22.9
Augsburg Confession, Notes on.—The Augsburg Confession was drawn up to be presented to Charles V at the Diet of Augsburg, 1530. Charles inherited united Spain, Naples, the Netherlands, and Austria, and was elected emperor of the Holy Roman Empire 1519, taking the title of Charles V. Charles was a Catholic and took the side of the Papacy, but his wars with Francis of France and the Turks took so much of his efforts that he could not put forth his power to crush the reform movement. The Diet of Augsburg was held after his second war with Francis, and though the emperor decided for Catholicism, when the time came to execute the edict the next spring, he was again busy with France and the Turks.HBS 22.10
The Confession shows the ideas of the Reformation better than any other one document, and is the basis of the Protestantism of Northern Europe. It was not, however, the belief in all ways of all Protestants. Zwingli believed that the sacrament did not change the bread and wine to the actual body of Christ, and Luther and he never permanently joined forces. Calvin later had other differences of belief, but the document states in an effective form the ideas of the Protestants of Germany....HBS 23.1
The ideas of the Confession were Luther’s, but it was drawn up by Melanchthon.—“The Library of Original Sources,” edited by Oliver J. Thatcher, Vol. V, p. 151. Milwaukee, Wis.: University Research Extension Company, copyright 1907.HBS 23.2