Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    “T” Entries

    Tacitus.See Advent, 5.SBBS 547.21

    Temperance.See Health and Temperance.SBBS 548.1

    Temporal Dominion of the Pope.—See Councils; Rome, 455.SBBS 548.2

    Temporal Power of the Pope, Source of.—First, the exarchate of Ravenna, which of right belonged to the Greek emperors, and which was the capital of their dominions in Italy, having revolted at the instigation of the Pope, was unjustly seized by Aistulphus, king of the Lombards, who thereupon thought of making himself master of Italy. The Pope in this exigency applied for help to Pipin, king of France, who marched into Italy, besieged the Lombards in Pavia, and forced them to surrender the exarchate and other territories, which were not restored to the Greek emperor, as in justice they ought to have been, but at the solicitation of the Pope were given to St. Peter and his successors for a perpetual succession. Pope Zachary had acknowledged Pipin, usurper of the crown of France, as lawful sovereign; and now Pipin in his turn bestowed a principality, which was another’s properly, upon Pope Stephen II, the successor of Zachary. “And so,” as Platina says, “the name of the exarchate, which had continued from the time of Narses to the taking of Ravenna by Aistulphus, a hundred and seventy years, was extinguished.” This was effected in the year 755, according to Sigonius. And henceforward the popes, being now become temporal princes, did no longer date their epistles and bulls by the years of the emperor’s reign, but by the years of their own advancement to the papal chair.SBBS 548.3

    Secondly, the kingdom of the Lombards was often troublesome to the popes: and now again King Desiderius invaded the territories of Pope Adrian I. So that the Pope was obliged to have recourse again to the king of France, and earnestly invited Charles the Great, the son and successor of Pipin, to come into Italy to his assistance. He came accordingly with a great army, being ambitious also himself of enlarging his dominions in Italy, and conquered the Lombards, and put an end to their kingdom, and gave great part of their dominions to the Pope. He not only confirmed the former donations of his father Pipin, but also made an addition of other countries to them, as Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily, the Sabin territory, the whole tract between Lucca and Parma, and that part of Tuscany which belonged to the Lombards: and the tables of these donations he signed himself, and caused them to be signed by the bishops, abbots, and other great men then present, and laid them so signed upon the altar of St. Peter. And this was the end of the kingdom of the Lombards, in the 206th year after their possessing Italy, and in the year of Christ 774.SBBS 548.4

    Thirdly, the state of Rome, though subject to the popes in things spiritual, was yet in things temporal governed by the senate and people, who after their defection from the Eastern emperors, still retained many of their old privileges, and elected both the Western emperor and the popes. After Charles the Great had overthrown the kingdom of the Lombards, he came again to Rome, and was there, by the Pope, bishops, abbots, and people of Rome, chosen Roman patrician, which is the degree of honor and power next to the emperor. He then settled the affairs of Italy, and permitted the Pope to hold under him the duchy of Rome, with other territories.... And thus the foundation was laid for the absolute authority of the Pope over the Romans, which was completed by degrees; and Charles in return was chosen emperor of the West.—“Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Thomas Newton, D. D., pp. 218, 219. London: J. F. Dove, reprinted by J. J. Woodward, Philadelphia, 1835.SBBS 548.5

    Temporal Power of the Pope, Not Divinely Conferred.—All inquiry into the origin and history of the temporal power of the popes is necessarily attended with difficulty.... If it were divine, as Pius IX asserts, there would be, undoubtedly, some word or act of Christ or of his apostles, ... to attest a fact of so much importance, especially as it is now required that it shall be accepted as a necessary part of the true faith. If conferred by the nations, to preserve themselves from anarchy, some distinct historic record would have been made of it, as a guide to future ages. In the absence of any convincing proof upon these points, the impartial mind will naturally run into the conclusion that its origin was, at least, suspicious. And if it is found that it had no existence in the apostolic age, and was not recognized as a part of the early Christian system, this other conclusion must inevitably follow: that it is the product of human ambition, resting upon authority which the popes have wrenched from the nations by illegitimate means, and not upon any divinely conferred upon Peter or the Church of Rome.—“The Papacy and the Civil Power,” R. W. Thompson, pp. 320, 321. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876.SBBS 549.1

    Temporal Power of the Pope, Founder of.—Innocent III may be called the founder of the states of the church. The lands with which Pippin and Charles had invested the popes were held subject to the suzerainty of the Frankish sovereign and owned his jurisdiction. On the downfall of the Carolingian Empire the neighboring nobles, calling themselves papal vassals, seized on these lands; and when they were ousted in the Pope’s name by the Normans, the Pope did not gain by the change of neighbors. Innocent III was the first Pope who claimed and exercised the rights of an Italian prince. He exacted from the imperial prefect in Rome the oath of allegiance to himself; he drove the imperial vassals from the Matildan domain, and compelled Constance, the widowed queen of Sicily, to recognize the papal suzerainty over her ancestral kingdom. He obtained from the emperor Otto IV (1201) the cession of all the lands which the Papacy claimed, and so established for the first time an undisputed title to the Papal States.—“A History of the Papacy,” M. Creighton, D. D., Vol. I, p. 24. London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899.SBBS 549.2

    Temporal Power of the Pope, Bellarmine on.—There remains the last part of the discussion concerning the Pontiff, that which relates to his temporal power, concerning which there are found three opinions of authors. The first is that the Pope by divine right has full power over the whole world, both in ecclesiastical and political affairs. Thus teach Augustinus Triumphus (in Summa de Potes. Eccl., quast. 1, art. 1), Alvarus Pelagius (lib. 1, De Planctu Ecclesia, ca. 13), and many jurists, as Hostiensis (in ca. Quod Super His, de Voto and Voti Redemptione), Panormitanus (in ca. Novit. de Judiciis), Sylvester (in Summa de Peccatis, verbo “Papa” 2), and many others. Nay rather, Hostiensis goes further. For he teaches that by the coming of Christ all right of ownership of infidel princes was transferred to the church and resides in the Chief Pontiff, as vicar of the supreme and true King Christ, and therefore the Pontiff, can of his own right give the kingdoms of unbelievers to such of the faithful as he wishes.—“Disputations Concerning the Controversies About the Christian Faith, Against the Heretics of This Time,” Bellarmine (R. C.), Vol. I, “Concerning the Roman Pontiff,” book 5, chap. 1.SBBS 549.3

    Temporal Power of the Pope, Roman Catholic View of Rise of.—The independence of Italy and Rome dates from the moment when the emperors of the East abandoned it. From that time there never was a moment when the emperors of the East could so much as protect Rome. Italy and Rome were given over providentially to the purgation of fire and of blood;-that sea of blood mingled with fire which poured from the steeps of the Alps when Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, Huns, and Lombards in successive generations poured over the plains of Italy, steeped it in blood, and furrowed it with fire. Rome itself was saved only by the Roman pontiffs, by a divine presence, and by a supernatural agency, which turned back the barbarian chiefs Attila and Genseric and others when within the very sight of its walls.SBBS 549.4

    Again, when Pepin descended into Italy to deliver the exarchate of Ravenna, the capital of that very Romagna which is now the center of discord; when he drove out the Lombards who had usurped the patrimony of the church, we are told that he again made a donation to the church. Not so; the very word in his act was this, that he made “restitution to the church and to the (Roman) republic”-that is, the commonwealth of the people and city of Rome-of that portion of territory which had been usurped from them by the Lombards. Again, when Charlemagne once more delivered Ravenna, and even Rome itself, he at the same time declared that he made a restitution, not a donation. Though included nominally for a time, central Italy and Rome were providentially and in fact eliminated and excluded from all civil dominion; from the moment the empire was translated, they have stood out from the circle of any other sovereignties, resting on a sovereignty of their own; and neither the empire of the Franks, nor the empire of the Germans, much less the empire of the Greeks, has ever included Rome within its circumference from that hour.SBBS 550.1

    I say, then, that it was God’s own act which liberated his vicar upon earth from subjection to temporal power; and that for twelve hundred years the bishops of Rome have reigned as temporal princes.—“The Temporal Power of the Vicar of Jesus Christ,” Henry Edward Manning, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 14-16. London: Burns and Lambert, 1862.SBBS 550.2

    The conversion of the empire to Christianity, and then its removal, its banishment into the Far East, freed the vicar of Jesus Christ from temporal subjection; and then, by the action of the same Providence, he was clothed with the prerogatives of a true and proper local sovereignty over that state and territory and people so committed to his charge. From that hour, which I might say was fifteen hundred years ago, or, to speak within limit, I will say was twelve hundred, the Supreme Pontiff has been a true and proper sovereign, exercising the prerogatives of royalty committed to him by the will of God over the people to whom he is father in all things both spiritual and temporal.—Id., p. 182.SBBS 550.3

    Temporal Power of the Pope.See French Revolution, 179, 180.SBBS 550.4

    Ten Kingdoms, Sir Isaac Newton on Their Location in Western Europe.—“As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.” And therefore all the four beasts are still alive, though the dominion of the three first be taken away. The nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedon, Greece and Thrace, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, are still the third. And those of Europe, on this side Greece, are still the fourth. Seeing therefore the body of the third beast is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast is confined to the nations on this side Greece; we are to look for all the four heads of the third beast, among the nations on this side of the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast, among the nations on this side of Greece. And therefore, at the breaking of the Greek Empire into four kingdoms of the Greeks, we include no part of the Chaldeans, Medes, and Persians in those kingdoms, because they belonged to the bodies of the two first beasts. Nor do we reckon the Greek Empire seated at Constantinople, among the horns of the fourth beast, because it belonged to the body of the third.—“Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John,” Sir Isaac Newton, Part I, chap. 4, pp. 31, 32. London: J. Darby and T. Browne, 1733.SBBS 550.5

    Ten Kingdoms, Boundaries of Western Rome.—I would therefore beg the reader to trace on the map the frontier line of the Western Empire as drawn by Gibbon: Beginning north from the wall of Antoninus that separated England from Scotland, then following the Rhine up to its point of nearest proximity to the Danube source, i. e., half way between Strasburg and Basle; thence down the Danube to Belgrade; and thence in a southern course to Dyrrachium, and across the Adriatic and Mediterranean to the Syrtis Major and the Great Desert of Africa: it is to be understood that all to the eastward of this line belonged to the Constantinopolitan or Greek division of the empire; all westward,-including England, France, Spain, and African Province, Italy, and the countries between the Alps and the Rhine, Danube, and Save, anciently known under the names of Rhaetia, Noricum, and Pannonia, in modern times as Switzerland, half Swabia, Bavaria, Austria, and the western part of Hungary,-to the western or Roman division.—“Hora Apocalyptia,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, p. 115, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley. 1847.SBBS 551.1

    Ten Kingdoms, Tenfold Division Prominent in History.—The historian Machiavel, without the slightest reference to this prophecy, gives the following list of the nations which occupied the territory of the Western Empire at the time of the fall of Romulus Augustulus [476 a. d.], the last emperor of Rome:SBBS 551.2

    The Lombards, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Heruli, the Sueves, the Huns, and the Saxons: ten in all. [p. 318] ...SBBS 551.3

    Amidst unceasing and almost countless fluctuations, the kingdoms of modern Europe have from their birth to the present day averaged ten in number. They have never since the break-up of old Rome been united into one single empire; they have never formed one whole even like the United States. No scheme of proud ambition seeking to reunite the broken fragments has ever succeeded; when such have arisen, they have been invariably dashed to pieces....SBBS 551.4

    And the division is as apparent now as ever! Plainly and palpably inscribed on the map of Europe this day, it confronts the skeptic with its silent but conclusive testimony to the fulfilment of this great prophecy. Who can alter or add to this tenfold list of the kingdoms now occupying the sphere of old Rome?-Italy, Austria, Switzerland, France, Germany, England, Holland, Belgium, Spain, and Portugal-ten, and no more; ten, and no less. [320, 321]-“The Divine Program of the World’s History,” by H. Grattan Guinness, pp. 318-321.SBBS 551.5

    The ten horns may not be strictly permanent, but admit of partial change. Some may perhaps fall or be blended, and then replaced by others. The tenfold character may thus be dominant through the whole, and appear distinctly at the beginning and close of their history, though not strictly maintained every moment. The following reasons may be given for this view:SBBS 551.6

    First, it avoids the opposite difficulties of the primary and the territorial definition of the kingdoms. It recognizes the kings as ruling powers, not local divisions, three of which may therefore be uprooted. Yet it extends the fulfilment through the whole range of European history, instead of confining it to one corner of time. It also accounts for the same number, ten, being still found at the fall of [mystic] Babylon.SBBS 552.1

    Next, it has a direct warrant in the vision of the image. For these kings “mingle themselves with the seed of men, but shall not cleave one to another.” This implies temporary and partial union, and then renewed separation. And these changes will of course alter the list of actual kingdoms.SBBS 552.2

    Further, it results at once from the uprooting of three horns. For since after this the number is still ten (Revelation 17:16), the three uprooted horns must have been replaced. And unless they are replaced in the same instant, there will be an interval in which the number is not exactly ten. Both a deviation, then, from the precise number, and a change in the kingdoms, is consistent with the emblems, and directly implied in them.—“The Four Prophetic Empires, and the Kingdom of Messiah,” Rev. T. R. Birks, M. A., pp. 143, 144, 2nd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1845.SBBS 552.3

    Amidst fluctuations so numerous and unceasing as almost to defy an exact numeration the prophetic description remains prominent, and a tenfold division of the Western Empire reappears from time to time. The correspondence with the prediction is thus accurate and complete. For it must be borne in mind that two opposite features had equally to be fulfilled. The tenfold number was to exist; but there was also to be a frequent intermingling with the seed of men. In the actual outline of European history, both of these predicted features are alike conspicuous. A tenfold division, such as some have looked for, mathematical and unvaried, would frustrate one half of the prediction; and would deprive the rest of all its freedom and moral grandeur. But now every part is alike accomplished. At the same time, by these partial changes in the list of the doomed kingdoms, the reproach of a stern fatalism, which otherwise would cloud the equity of divine Providence, is rolled away.—Id., p. 152.SBBS 552.4

    Ten Kingdoms, Exactness of the Prophetic Fulfilment.—Even if it is not practicable to make out the number with strict exactness, or if all writers do not agree in regard to the dynasties constituting the number ten, we should bear in remembrance the fact that these powers arose in the midst of great confusion; that one kingdom arose and another fell in rapid succession; and that there was not that entire certainty of location and boundary which there is in old and established states. One thing is certain, that there never has been a case in which an empire of vast power has been broken up into small sovereignties, to which this description would so well apply as to the rise of the numerous dynasties in the breaking up of the vast Roman power; and another thing is equally certain, that if we were now to seek an appropriate symbol of the mighty Roman power-of its conquests, and of the extent of its dominion, and of the condition of that empire about the time that the Papacy arose, we could not find a more striking or appropriate symbol than that of the terrible fourth beast with iron teeth and brazen claws, stamping the earth beneath his feet, and with ten horns springing out of his head.—“Notes on the Book of Daniel,” Albert Barnes, on Daniel 7, p. 323. New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1859.SBBS 552.5

    Ten Kingdoms, as Enumerated in “Thoughts on Daniel.”—Rome was divided into ten kingdoms, enumerated as follows: The Huns, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Franks, the Vandals, the Suevi, the Burgundians, the Heruli, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Lombards. These divisions have ever since been spoken of as the ten kingdoms of the Roman Empire.—“Daniel and the Revelation,” Uriah Smith, p. 132. Washington: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1907.SBBS 552.6

    Note.—In the “Appendix” to his “Daniel and the Revelation,” p. 785, the author says of the various enumerations of the ten kingdoms by old-time expositors:SBBS 553.1

    “The ten kingdoms which arose out of the old Roman Empire, are symbolized by the ten horns on the fourth beast of Daniel 7. All agree on this point: but there has not been entire unanimity among expositors as to the names of the kingdoms which constituted these divisions. Some name the Huns as one of these divisions, others put the Alemanni in place of the Huns. That the reader may see the general trend of what has been written on this subject, the following facts are presented:SBBS 553.2

    “Machiavelli, the historian of Florence, writing simply as a historian, names the Huns as one of the nations principally concerned in the breaking up of the Roman Empire. Among those who have written on this point with reference to the prophecy, may be mentioned. Berenguad, in the ninth century; Mede,, 1586-1638; Bossuet, 1627-1704; Lloyd, 1627-1717; Sir Isaac Newton, 1642-1727; Bishop Newton, 1704-1782; Hales,-1821; Faber, 1773-1854.SBBS 553.3

    “Of these nine authorities, eight take the position that the Huns were one of the ten kingdoms; of these eight, two, Bossuet and Bishop Newton, followed by Dr. Clarke, have both the Huns and the Alemanni; only one, Mede, omits the Huns and takes the Alemanni. Thus eight favor the view that the Huns were represented by one of the horns; two, while not rejecting the Huns, consider the Alemanni one of the horns; one rejects the Huns and takes the Alemanni. Scott and Barnes, in their commentaries, and Oswald, in his ‘Kingdom That Shall Not Be Moved,’ name the Huns.”-Eds.SBBS 553.4

    Ten Kingdoms, Reference Notes on Gibbon’s List.—Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” (Harper’s edition), gives the names of ten kingdoms that arose in that empire, and the time when each arose [or in some instances, rather, the time when they broke into the empire.—Eds.]. They are as follows:SBBS 553.5

    1. The Alemanni, a. d. 351, Suabia, Alsace, and Lorraine. (See Gibbon, chap. 10, par. 26; 12:20; 19:20; 36:5; 49:22.) 37The figures immediately preceding the colon give the number of the chapter, and those which immediately follow the colon, the number of the paragraph.SBBS 553.6

    2. The Franks, a. d. 351, Northeast Gaul. (Gibbon 19:20; 36:5.)SBBS 553.7

    3. The Burgundians, December 31, a. d. 406. (Gibbon 30:17.) Located in Burgundy, a. d. 420. (Gibbon 31:39.)SBBS 553.8

    4. The Vandals, December 31, a. d. 406. (Gibbon 30:17.) Located in Spain, a. d. 409. (Gibbon 31:36.) Settled in Africa, a. d. 429. (Gibbon 33:35.)SBBS 553.9

    5. The Suevi, December 31, a. d. 406. (Gibbon 30:17.) In Spain, a. d. 409. (Gibbon 31:36.)SBBS 553.10

    6. The Visigoths, a. d. 408. (Gibbon 31:2, 14.) In southwest Gaul, a. d. 419. (Gibbon 31:39.) In Spain, a. d. 467. (Gibbon 36:22; 38:2, 29.)SBBS 553.11

    7. The Saxons entered Britain, a. d. 449. (Gibbon 31:41, 42; 38:33; Greene’s England 1:17; Knight’s England 5:6.)SBBS 553.12

    8. The Ostrogoths, in Pannonia, a. d. 453. (Gibbon 35:16.) In Italy, a. d. 489; final conquest, a. d. 493. (Gibbon 39:7, 8.)SBBS 553.13

    9. The Lombards, a. d. 453, in Pannonia and Norricum, banks of Danube. (Weber’s “Universal History,” sec. 180; Gibbon 42:2; Encyclopedia Britannica, art. “Lombards.”) In Lombardy, a. d. 567-8. (Gibbon 45:5-7; Machiavelli’s “History of Florence,” chaps. 1, 2.)SBBS 553.14

    10. The Heruli, in Italy, a. d. 475-6. (Gibbon 36:28-33.)-“The Sure Word of Prophecy,” M. H. Brown, pp. 54, 55. Mountain View: Pacific Press Pub. Assn.SBBS 553.15

    Ten Kingdoms, Dr. Elliott’s Two Enumerations of.—It will be obviously inconsistent with the requirements of the vision to antedate the list before the extinction of the Western Empire, a. d. 476, by Odoacer; for it was then first that a barbaric horn established its rule in the central province of Italy. Again it seems equally inconsistent to post-date the list near a century after Odoacer, and include the Greek exarchate of Ravenna, then at length established, as one of the ten horns of the Romano-Gothic beast. In fact the irruption of the Greek imperial army among the Gothic horns, a. d. 533, whence the exarchate arose, and striking down two of them, the Vandal and the Ostrogothic, in Africa and Italy, appears to me to form almost as marked a chronological limit on the one side, as the establishment of Odoacer’s Italic kingdom on the other. Between the two there lies but the interval of 57 years. And I think there presents itself in the history of the Franks that which yet further narrows the interval for investigation. For they,-the most noted afterwards, and perhaps most important of all the nations of the beast,-could scarce be said to have formed a horn on the territory of the Western Empire, until, emerging from their Batavian island, they had under Clovis conquered in 486 Syagrius, “the (so-called) king of the Romans,” but in fact the then ruler of the natives and barbarians of Soissons and its neighborhood. On the whole, after consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I conclude to prefer the terminating point of this 47 years’ interval, i. e., a. d. 532 or 533, as the chronological epoch at which to make my enumeration.... At the same time a list of ten kingdoms may be made with reference to the commencing point of the interval, i. e., a. d. 486-490....SBBS 553.16

    From about the year 486 then to 490, the following were the existing barbaric kingdoms, formed by the invaders within the limits of the Western Empire: Anglo-Saxons, Franks, Allemans, Burgundians, Visigoths, Suevi, Vandals, Heruli, Bavarians, Ostrogoths; ten in all....SBBS 554.1

    I next take the ara that immediately preceded Belisarius’s invasion of Africa and Italy: that of a. d. 532, or the beginning of 533....SBBS 554.2

    Thus, in fine, there existed at the epoch of a. d. 532 the following ten kingdoms on the platform of the Western Roman Empire; viz., the Anglo-Saxons, the Franks of central, Alleman-Franks of eastern, and Burgundic-Franks of southeastern France, the Visigoths, the Suevi, the Vandals, the Ostrogoths in Italy, the Bavarians, and the Lombards: still ten in all. The most important difference between this and the former list is that there the Heruli had place among the ten, here the Lombards: the latter being numerically, though not as yet geographically. in the stead of the former.SBBS 554.3

    Such then is my second list, and that to which I conceive the sacred prophecy to have had respect, from the circumstances of the epoch being otherwise, as I shall soon have to show, very notable.—“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, pp. 115-120, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847.SBBS 554.4

    Ten Kingdoms, Catholic Recognition of.—Even the Romanists themselves admit that the Roman Empire was, by means of the incursions of the northern nations, dismembered into ten kingdoms (Calmet on Revelation 13:1; and he refers likewise to Berangaud, Bossuet, and DuPin. See Newton, p. 209); and Machiavelli (“History of Florence,” 1. i), with no design of furnishing an illustration of this prophecy, and probably with no recollection of it, has mentioned these names: 1. The Ostrogoths in Mosia; 2. the Visigoths in Pannonia; 3. the Sueves and Alans in Gascoign and Spain; 4. the Vandals in Africa; 5. the Franks in France; 6. The Burgundians in Burgundy; 7. the Heruli and Turingi in Italy; 8. the Saxons and Angles in Britain; 9. the Huns in Hungary; 10. the Lombards at first upon the Danube, afterwards in Italy.—“Notes on the Book of Daniel,” Albert Barnes, on Daniel 7, p. 322. New York: Leavitt and Allen, 1859.SBBS 554.5

    Ten Kingdoms, “Thoughts on Daniel” on the Three “Plucked Up.”—Elliott, in his “Hora Apocalyptica,” makes two enumerations of the ten kingdoms which rose out of the Roman Empire, varying the second list from the first according to the changes which had taken place at the later period to which the second list applies. His first list differs from that mentioned in remarks on chap. 2:42, only in that he put the Alemanni in place of the Huns, and the Bavarians in place of the Lombards, a variation which can be easily accounted for. But out of this list he names the three that were plucked up before the Papacy, in these words: “I might cite three that were eradicated from before the Pope out of the list first given; namely, the Heruli under Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths.”-Vol. III, p. 152, Note 1.SBBS 555.1

    Although he prefers the second list, in which he puts the Lombards instead of the Heruli, the foregoing is good testimony that if we make the enumeration of the ten kingdoms while the Heruli were a ruling power, they were one of the horns which were plucked up.SBBS 555.2

    From the historical testimony above cited [see “Daniel and the Revelation,” pp. 145-153], we think it clearly established that the three horns plucked up were the powers named; viz., the Heruli in a. d. 493, the Vandals in 534, and the Ostrogoths in 553.—“Daniel and the Revelation,” Uriah Smith, p. 153. Washington: Review and Herald Pub. Assn., 1907.SBBS 555.3

    Ten Kingdoms, Elliott on the Three “Plucked Up.”—For if it needed that the imperial power ruling at Rome should be removed, in order to the primary actual development of the Antichrist (agreeably with St. Paul’s wonderful prophecy), the same necessity would obviously require the removal, in order to its fuller development, of such of the ten horns as might have established themselves in the immediate neighborhood of Rome, and be in a condition, with the plenitude of their royal power, to oppress or overawe it.SBBS 555.4

    Now then, in looking at the list [the second list] given in my fourth chapter, we may mark three of the ten kings as thus characterized. 38I might cite three that were eradicated from before the Pope out of the list first given; viz., the Heruli under Odoacer, the Vandals, and the Ostrogoths. But it is needless; the second list being, as I believe, the true one. Moreover, though the neighborhood of Odoacer could not but be unpleasant to the Pope, he does not appear to have overawed him, like Theodoric or the Lombards. A letter from Pope Gelasius, of the date 494, speaks of having successfully resisted Odoacer’s wishes on certain ecclesiastical matters: “Odoacro barbaro haretico, cum aliqua non facienda praciperet, Deo prastante, nulla tenus permississe manifestum est.”-Hard. ii. 914. Other expositors (as Peyrani, the Vaudois minister, in his work on the Vaudois, p. 54) have supposed the Herulian, Ostragothic, and Lombard horns to be the three meant. But they were not contemporarily existent as horns of the beast. The Herulian had been destroyed, ere the Lombard had risen within the limits of the Roman Empire. First the Vandals, as rulers, within the Roman Bishop’s own diocese, of Corsica and Sardinia; secondly the Ostrogoths, the successors of Odoacer in the kingdom of Italy; and thirdly, the Lombards: which last although in the year a. d. 533 referred to far distant in Pannonia, were some thirty or forty years after destined to conquer Lombardy, and afterwards to extend their conquests to the very neighborhood of Rome.SBBS 555.5

    The manner in which these several powers overawed the Roman bishops is matter of history. It was such as to make it evident that their removal from before it was essential to the full glory and expansion of the papal spiritual power. And accordingly their removal constitutes one of the most prominent topics in the next pages of the history of Western Christendom. First, in 533, just after Justinian’s decretal epistle before quoted, the horn of the Vandals in Africa, Corsica, and Sardinia, and presently after, that of the Ostrogoths in Italy was rooted up by Justinian’s forces under Belisarius. After which, and the establishment of the Greek exarchate at Ravenna (a power that can never properly, I conceive, be reckoned among the ten horns of the prophetic beast, emerging as the latter are said to have done, one and all, out of the barbarian invading flood), the Lombards came in; just as if to neutralize the Greek emperor’s power in that country, and prevent its domineering over the Pope at Rome, so as over the Patriarch at Constantinople: and for some years so divided the empire of Italy with them, as to allow of Gregory the Great and others acting independently the part of king, as well as of Pope, at Rome.SBBS 555.6

    At length in the course of the eighth century, the Lombard power altogether preponderating, and after the conquest of the exarchate, a. d. 752, acting like its predecessors in Italy to overawe the Roman see, the assistance of the Franks was called in by Popes Stephen II and Adrian I, from their devoted Gaulic province. And then the Lombard horn was eradicated through the instrumentality of Pepin and Charlemagne, just like those of the Vandals and the Ostrogoths previously, never again to be heard of in Christendom: and the exarchate of Ravenna, together with other of the Lombard conquests, attached forever to the Roman see, under the very singular appellation of the Patrimony of Peter.—“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, pp. 140-143, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847.SBBS 556.1

    Ten Tribes, The, the Kingdom of Israel (953?-722 b. c.).—The kingdom of the ten tribes maintained its existence for about two hundred years. The little state was at last overwhelmed by the Assyrian power. This happened 722 b. c., when Samaria, as alredy narrated, was captured by Sargon, king of Nineveh, and the flower of the people were carried away into captivity. The gaps thus made in the population of Samaria were filled with other subjects or captives of the Assyrian king. The descendants of these, mingled with the Israelites that were still left in the country, formed the Samaritans of the time of Christ.—“General History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, p. 51. Boston: Ginn & Company.SBBS 556.2

    Sargon II was a great conqueror. In 722 b. c. he captured Samaria and carried away the most influential classes of the “ten tribes” of Israel into captivity. The greater portion of the captives were scattered among the towns of Media, and probably became, for the most part, merged with the population of that region.—Id., p. 42.SBBS 556.3

    Tetzel.See Indulgences, 239; Reformation, 407.SBBS 556.4

    Theodoric.See Papal Supremacy, 355; Rome, 439, 444, 445, 446, 448, 450, 451; Seven Trumpets, 507.SBBS 556.5

    Theodosius.See Bible, 95; Councils, 119; Eastern Question, 148; Heresy, 202; Inquisition, 251; Paganism, 323, 324; Rome, 437, 444.SBBS 556.6

    Theosophy.See Spriitualism, 532, 533.SBBS 556.7

    Theudas.See Jerusalem.SBBS 556.8

    Three Angels’ Messages.See Advent, Second, 22-25.SBBS 556.9

    Tiberius.See Rome, 435, 436; Seventy Weeks, 520-523.SBBS 556.10

    Tithing, Blessing in Practice of.—So far as known to the writer, there is but one evangelical denomination in the world which accepts the tithe as a church tenet and belief, and regards the law of the tithe as of the same binding force as the law of the Sabbath. I refer to the Seventh-day Adventists. While the percentage of their growth in church membership has been large, having increased in all the world from 5,440 in 1870 to 104,526 in 1910, the financial results of their recognition of the law of the tithe are far more remarkable.—“What We Owe, and the Results of Paying It,” p. 21 (a tract bound with others in pamphlet entitled, “Tithing and Tithing Reminiscences,” A layman). Chicago, 1912.SBBS 556.11

    Tithing, As a Test of Character.—The supreme purpose of the tithe is to develop character and test our loyalty to God. The payment of the tithe when there is no compulsion and no pressure brought to bear, when it is a matter of a clear conscience between yourself and God, will develop in you those sterling qualities that will make you worth while in the kingdom.SBBS 557.1

    The Bible designates two sources of revenue,-tithes and free-will offerings. The tithe is the Lord’s, whether we keep it or pay it to him, not because he needs it in his business, but because it is dishonest to keep what does not belong to us.SBBS 557.2

    The tithe is our just debt to God, and should be paid promptly and cheerfully, like any other debt. God has no need of our money (seeing all is his), but requires his share just to remind us that we are in partnership with him. Just as the tribute money paid to Casar was a recognition of his authority, so the tithe is the recognition of God’s interest in every dollar we receive.—“Tithing,” tract compiled by C. Vernon Fox, M. D., p. 4. Chicago: The Methodist Book Concern.SBBS 557.3

    Titus.See Jerusalem, 262, 263.SBBS 557.4

    Totila.See Rome, 445, 448.SBBS 557.5

    Tradition, Jewish.—Shammai and Hillel [in the century before Christ] were the first to speak of the written and the oral law as equally authoritative.—The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, art.Oral Law,” p. 424.SBBS 557.6

    Traditions were laws, or precepts of men, which they (the Jews) said had been handed down by word of mouth from past generations.... They were often treated as of more authority than the laws of God.—“The New Testament, with Introductions, Notes, and References,” note on Matthew 15:2 (pocket ed.). New York: American Tract Society, 1906.SBBS 557.7

    Tradition.—From being transcribers and expounders of the law, they [the Sopherim, “scribes”] supplied, after the captivity, the place of the prophets and inspired oracles, which had ceased; and from them arose those glosses and interpretations which our Lord rebukes under the term “traditions.” These became so numerous that they were collected by the Rabbi Judah (a. d. 200) into six books, called the Mishna (Repetition of the oral law), to which was subsequently added a book of comments (Gemara), which completed the whole traditionary doctrine of the Jewish church. The Mishna and the Gemara together constitute the Talmud, of which there are two, one by the Jews in Judea (called the Jerusalem Talmud), the other by those in Babylon (called the Babylonian).—Oxford Sunday School Teacher’s Bible, art.Jewish Sects, Parties, etc.,” sec. on the Sopherim (Scribes).SBBS 557.8

    Tradition, Defined by Rome.—Tradition ([Greek word, transliterated “paradosis”]) means properly the act of handing down, and thus the doctrine so handed down. In its widest sense it includes all truths or supposed truths handed down from one generation to another; and in all societies which have no literature tradition is, with all its manifold imperfections, the great bond between the present and the past, and one of the great distinguishing marks between man and the brutes, which latter have no tradition, and therefore no history.—A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis and Thomas Arnold, art.Tradition,” p. 882. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1893.SBBS 558.1

    By tradition we do not mean a mere report, a hearsay, wanting sufficient evidence to deserve belief; or a local tradition started by men, and therefore merely human, as were those traditions of the Pharisees condemned by our Lord; but we mean a tradition first coming from God, continually taught, recorded, and in all desirable ways kept alive by a body of trustworthy men successively chosen in a divine, or divinely appointed manner, well instructed, and who are, as a body, protected by God from teaching what is wrong, or handing down unfaithfully to others the doctrine committed to them.—“ Catholic Belief,” Rev. Joseph Faa di Bruno, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 39, 40. New York: Benziger Brothers.SBBS 558.2

    The objectivity of Christianity would have necessarily disappeared, if, besides the Bible, there had not been a rule of faith, to wit, universal tradition. Without this rule, it would ever be impossible to determine with positiveness, safety, and general obligation, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity.—“Symbolism; or Exposition of the Doctrinal Differences Between Catholics and Protestants,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), p. 284. London: Thomas Baker, 1906.SBBS 558.3

    The truths of Christian revelation were made known to the apostles either by Christ himself or by the Holy Ghost. They constitute what is called the Deposit of Faith, to which nothing has been added since the apostolic age.... The Bible, as the inspired record of revelation, contains the word of God; that is, it contains those revealed truths which the Holy Ghost wishes to be transmitted in writing. However, all revealed truths are not contained in the Bible.... Though the inspiration of any writer and the sacred character of his work be antecedent to its recognition by the church, yet we are dependent upon the church for our knowledge of the existence of this inspiration. She is the appointed witness and guardian of revelation. From her alone we know what books belong to the Bible. At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered “as sacred and canonical.”-The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, art.Bible,” p. 543. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907.SBBS 558.4

    Now for the first time the Roman Church became conscious of the full significance of tradition, so that, if they surrendered it in its character of an infallible transmission of God’s word, they would surrender themselves; for all the ordinances against which the Reformation protested as novelties and abuses, established their divine claims from this tradition.—“Handbook to the Controversy with Rome,” Karl von Hase, Vol. I, p. 117. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909.SBBS 558.5

    Whence comes that tradition? Does it descend from the authority of our Lord and the Gospels? Does it come from the commands and epistles of the apostles? God testifies that we must do the things that are written, saying to Joshua, “The book of the law shall not depart from thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do all that is written in it.” Likewise, the Lord, when he sent his apostles, commanded them to baptize all nations, and to teach them to observe whatsoever he commanded. If, therefore, it is commanded, either in the Gospels or in the apostolic epistles, or in the Acts, that those coming from any heresy should not be baptized, but only hands laid on them, then this is a divine tradition, and let it be observed; but if in these books heretics are called nothing but adversaries and antichrists; if we are told to avoid them as perverse and self-condemned, why should we not condemn those who, the apostle witnesses, are self-condemned?-Cyprian, Ep. 74, Ad Pompeium; cited inThe Infallibility of the Church,” George Salmon, D. D., p. 145. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1914.SBBS 558.6

    I. We can never be assured that any articles were invariably or entirely without any addition or diminution conveyed down to us by tradition; since it hath been in all times and ages observed that matters of fact, much more of belief, not immediately committed to writing, presently degenerated into fables, and were corrupted by the capricious malice or ignorance of men....SBBS 559.1

    II. In the next place, tradition cannot certainly and invariably propose the belief of Christianity to all private persons. For, from whence shall this tradition be received? From a pope, or a council, or both; or from none of these, but only the universal church? In every one of these cases infinite difficulties will occur, which even singly will appear insuperable....SBBS 559.2

    III. Tradition is so far from being independent of other articles of the Christian faith, that the belief in all other articles must be presupposed before it. For since all sects propose different traditions, and the truth of none of them is self-evident, it must first be known which is the true church before it can be determined which is the true tradition....SBBS 559.3

    IV. Lastly, it can never be proved that tradition was assigned by God as a rule of faith. For this proof must be taken either from the Scriptures or from tradition. Not from the first; for not to say that Scripture is wholly silent in this matter, such a supposition would destroy itself, and involves a manifest contradiction.... No less absurd is it to imagine that any proof of this article can be drawn from tradition. For we can never be assured that the tradition of this very article is of divine authority and consequently infallible, until we be first satisfied that God, by assigning tradition for a rule of faith, conferred divine authority upon it, which is the matter now in question.—“Treatise of Bishop Pecocke, Proving Scripture to be the Rule of Faith,” published by Henry Wharton; cited inRomanism: A Doctrinal and Historical Examination of the Creed of Pope Pius IV,” Rev. Robert Charles Jenkins, M. A., pp. 60-63. London: The Religious Tract Society.SBBS 559.4

    Tradition, Christian; Its Beginnings.—Some of the Apostolic Fathers are found in the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament at the end of the canonical writings: Clement was first made known through the Codex Alexandrinus; similarly, Hermas and Pseudo-Barnabas are appended to the canonical books in the Codex Sinaiticus. Standing between the New Testament era and the literary efflorescence of the late second century, these writers represent the original elements of Christian tradition.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I. art.Apostolic Fathers,” p. 639.SBBS 559.5

    “Without tradition,” says Collier, “we could not prove that the Old, any more than the New Testament contains the word of God.” “Tradition, not Scripture,” Lessing says, “is the rock on which the church of Jesus Christ is built.”-“Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent,” Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. (R. C.), p. 157. Philadelphia: Peter F. Cunningham, 1869.SBBS 560.1

    Tradition Safer Than the Bible.—Like two sacred rivers flowing from Paradise, the Bible and divine tradition contain the word of God, the precious gems of revealed truths. Though these two divine streams are in themselves, on account of their divine origin, of equal sacredness, and are both full of revealed truths, still, of the two, tradition is to us more clear and safe.—“Catholic Belief,” Rev. Joseph Faa di Bruno, D. D. (R. C.), p. 45. New York: Benziger Brothers.SBBS 560.2

    Tradition of Same Authority as the Scriptures.—The sacred and holy, ecumenical and general Synod of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, ... seeing clearly that this truth and discipline [of the gospel] are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the synod), following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament,-seeing that one God is the author of both,-as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.—Decree of the Council of Trent concerning the Canonical Scriptures, celebrated in the fourth session, April 8, 1546; cited inDogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pp. 7, 8. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 560.3

    Tradition, Authority of, Proved by the Change of the Sabbath.—Finally, at the last opening on the eighteenth of January, 1562 [Council of Trent], their last scruple was set aside; the Archbishop of Reggio made a speech in which he openly declared that tradition stood above Scripture. The authority of the church could therefore not be bound to the authority of the Scriptures, because the church had changed Sabbath into Sunday, not by the command of Christ but by its own authority. With this, to be sure, the last illusion was destroyed, and it was declared that tradition does not signify antiquity, but continual inspiration.—Extract from an Address of Caspar del Fossa, Archbishop of Reggio (R. C.); cited inCanon and Tradition,” Dr. J. H. Holtzman, p. 263.SBBS 560.4

    Such is the condition of the heretics today that they appeal to no other matter more than they, under the pretense of the word of God, overthrow the authority of the church; as though the church, which is the body of Christ, could be opposed to this word, or the head to the body. Yea, the authority of the church is most gloriously set forth in the Holy Scriptures; for while on the one hand she recommends them, declares them divine, offers them to us to be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord’s day.... These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue ofSBBS 560.5

    Christ’s teaching (for he says he has not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it), but they have been changed by virtue of the authority of the church. Should this authority cease (since there must be heresies), who would then witness for truth, and confound the obstinacy of the heretics?-Extract from an Address by Caspar del Fossa, Archbishop of Reggio (R. C.), in the Council of Trent, Jan. 18, 1562; cited inHistory of the Councils,” Labbe and Cossart, Vol. XIV, cols. 1253, 1254.SBBS 561.1

    Tradition, Unreliable Character of.—If all the testimony of Christ were to be resolved into those who heard some say that others told them, that they had it from such, who saw those who conversed with them who saw Christ in the flesh-at such a distance the authority of a testimony is extremely lessened-which is not like a river which grows greater by running; but like a mineral water, which loses its strength by being carried too far.—Extract from a Sermon by Bishop Stilingfleet, preached at the Guildhall Chapel (London), Nov. 27, 1687; cited inRomanism: A Doctrinal and Historical Examination of the Creed of Pope Pius IV,” Rev. R. C. Jenkins, M. A., p. 68. London: The Religious Tract Society.SBBS 561.2

    Tradition, the Bible, and the Ancients.—Thus while we leave the Bible to gad after the traditions of the ancients, we hear the ancients themselves confessing that what knowledge they had at this point was such as they had gathered from the Bible.SBBS 561.3

    Since therefore antiquity itself hath turned over the controversy to that sovereign book which we had fondly straggled from, we shall do better not to detain this venerable apparition of Leontius [the representative of apostolical tradition] any longer.—“ The Works of John Milton in Verse and Prose,” Vol. III, “Of Prelatical Episcopacy,” pp. 76, 77. Boston: Charles 10. Little and James Brown, 1851.SBBS 561.4

    You may take it as a general rule that there is not a Father who, if his own belief is demanded for something not contained in Scripture which he is not disposed to accept, will not reply in some such language as St. Jerome: “This, because it has not authority from the Scriptures, is with the same easiness despised as approved.” “As we accept those things that are written, so we reject those things that are not written.” “These things which they invent, as if by apostolic tradition, without the authority of Scripture, the sword of God smites.” You will see, then, that if we were at the desire of the Romish advocates to leave the Scriptures and resort to the Fathers of the early church for a decision of our controversies, these very Fathers would send us back to the Scriptures as the only guide to truth, the only safeguard against heresy.—“The Infallibility of the Church,” George Salmon, D. D., p. 147. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1914.SBBS 561.5

    Tradition, Protestants Charged with Inconsistency Concerning.—But is it not the fact that Protestants are obliged to allow, at least by their practice, that the absolute rejection of tradition is absurd and impracticable? They admit the Scriptures and a multitude of doctrinal or moral truths, which, as Luther acknowledges, they could not have received except from tradition. Whence do they learn that the Old and New Testaments are inspired?-From tradition. Who taught them that a multitude of texts of Scripture are to be understood in a sense quite opposed to their literal meaning? for instance, that Sunday is to be set apart for the worship of God, and not the Sabbath; that receiving the eucharist is not absolutely necessary for the salvation of infants, notwithstanding those words of our Saviour: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man ... you shall not have life in you;” that baptism conferred on infants even by heretics is valid, although Jesus Christ has associated baptism and faith as inseparable means of salvation: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;” that the washing of feet is not obligatory, in spite of that formal precept: “You also ought to wash one another’s feet;” and that terrible sanction, “If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me.”SBBS 561.6

    Who has told them that the command to abstain from eating blood and things strangled, which was published by the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem, no longer affects us?-Tradition. The Protestants called Episcopalians regard episcopacy as a divine institution, and by divine right superior to the priestly order: from what source have they derived this doctrine?-From tradition. In reality it is tradition alone which has given Protestants all they yet possess of Christianity. They cannot then reject this same tradition without placing themselves in flagrant contradiction with themselves.—“Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent,” Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. (R. C.), pp. 152, 153. Philadelphia: Peter F. Cunningham, 1869.SBBS 562.1

    Tradition, Not Apostolic.—There is not the slightest historical evidence that the apostles transmitted to posterity any rule, but what is recorded in the New Testament. The Fathers therefore are precisely on the same footing with respect to the authority of their interpretations, as the commentators of the present age. Nor in fact are they uniform in their interpretations even in regard to doctrine, notwithstanding the agreement alleged by the Church of Rome; though some commentators may be selected, as well ancient as modern, which agree on particular points. The regula fidei, therefore, set up by the Church of Rome, was justly discarded by our Reformers, who contended for the right of Biblical interpretation unfettered by the shackles of tradition.—“A Course of Lectures,” Herbert Marsh, D. D., F. R. S., part 3, pp. 13, 14. Boston: Cummings and Hilliard, 1815.SBBS 562.2

    Whatever be the rule of faith adopted by any Protestant community, it is so far from being considered as independent of Scripture, or as resting on authority derived through another channel, that its validity is acknowledged on the sole condition of its being a fair and legitimate deduction from Scripture. This total and absolute dependence of the regula fidei on the Bible (not the refusal to admit one at all) is that which characterizes Protestants.—Id., p. 15.SBBS 562.3

    Tradition, Foundation of Roman Catholic Faith.—In the words of the Roman author [Perrone] just quoted, “The Tridentine Fathers knew well that there are certain articles of faith which rest on tradition alone; they sanctioned tradition as a rule and foundation of faith wholly distinct from Scripture.”-“Letters to M. Gondon,” Chr. Wordsworth, D. D., p. 131. London: Francis and John Rivington, 1848.SBBS 562.4

    Tradition, a Second Bible.—Let me entreat you to reflect, whether the Church of Rome, by assigning equal and independent authority to tradition, of which she herself is the only channel, or rather the only source, has not only developed a second, unwritten Bible, but invalidates the first written one? whether what Tertullian says of the heretics of his day is not true of her, “Credis sine Scripturis, ut credas contra Scripturas?” [You believe without the Scriptures, in order that you may believe contrary to the Scriptures], and whether in this way also she does not abrogate the laws of God, and impose her own in their place?-Id., p. 133.SBBS 562.5

    Tradition, Word of God vs. Word of the Devil.—Cardinal Hosius says, “That which the Church (of Rome) teaches is the express word of God; and that which is held contrary to the sense and consent of the church, is the express word of the devil.”-Id., p. 158.SBBS 563.1

    Tradition, Necessity of.—The objectivity of Christianity would have necessarily disappeared, if, besides the Bible, there had not been a rule of faith, to wit, universal tradition. Without this rule, it would ever be impossible to determine with positiveness, safety, and general obligation, the peculiar doctrines of Christianity. The individual, at best, could only hazard the assertion, This is my view, my interpretation of Scripture, or in other words, without tradition there would be no doctrine of the church, and no church, but individual Christians only; no certainty and security, but only doubt and probability.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), p. 284. London: Thomas Baker, 1906.SBBS 563.2

    Tradition, Definition of.—What then is tradition? The peculiar Christian sense existing in the church, and transmitted by ecclesiastical education; yet this sense is not to be conceived as detached from its subject matter-nay, it is formed in and by this matter, so it may be called a full sense. Tradition is the living word, perpetuated in the hearts of believers. To this sense, as the general sense, the interpretation of Holy Writ is intrusted. The declaration which it pronounces on any controverted subject, is the judgment of the church; and, therefore, the church is judge in matters of faith (judex controversiarum). Tradition, in the objective sense, is the general faith of the church through all ages, manifested by outward historical testimonies; in this sense, tradition is usually termed the norma-the standard of Scriptural interpretation-the rule of faith.—Id., p. 279.SBBS 563.3

    Tradition, Church of England’s Article Against.—It is not lawful for the church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written; neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree anything against the same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.—“Letters to M. Gondon,” Christopher Wordsworth, D. D., p. 39. London: Francis & John Rivington, 1848.SBBS 563.4

    Tradition, Protestant Appeal to.—The first precept in the Bible is that of sanctifying the seventh day: “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.” Genesis 2:3. This precept was confirmed by God in the ten commandments. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Exodus 20. On the other hand, Christ declares that he is not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:17. He himself observed the Sabbath: “And, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day.” Luke 4:16. His disciples likewise observed it after his death: “They rested on the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. Yet with all this weight of Scripture authority for keeping the Sabbath or seventh day holy, Protestants of all denominations make this a profane day, and transfer the obligation of it to the first day of the week, or the Sunday. Now what authority have they for doing this? None whatever, except the unwritten word, or tradition, of the Catholic Church, which declares that the apostles made the change in honor of Christ’s resurrection, and the descent of the Holy Ghost on that day of the week.—“The End of Religious Controversy,” Rev. John Milner, D. D. (R. C.), p. 71. New York: P. J. Kenedy.SBBS 563.5

    I will confine myself to one more instance of Protestants’ abandoning their own rule, that of Scripture alone, to follow ours, of Scripture explained by tradition. If an intelligent pagan, who had carefully perused the New Testament, were asked which of the ordinances mentioned in it is most explicitly and strictly enjoined, I make no doubt but he would answer that it is “the washing of feet.” To convince you of this, be pleased to read the first seventeen verses of St. John 13. Observe the motive assigned for Christ’s performing the ceremony there recorded, namely, his “love for his disciples:” next, the time of his performing it, namely, when he was about to depart out of this world. Then remark the stress he lays upon it, in what he said to Peter: “If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.” Finally, his injunction at the conclusion of the ceremony, “If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.” I now ask, On what pretense can those who profess to make Scripture alone the rule of their religion totally disregard this institution and precept? Had this ceremony been observed in the church when Luther and the other first Protestants began to dogmatize, there is no doubt but they would have retained it; but, having learned from her that it was only figurative, they acquiesced in this decision, contrary to what appears to be the plain sense of Scripture.—Id., pp. 71, 72.SBBS 564.1

    Tradition, A Roman Catholic View of.—The Fathers had spoken of the unwritten teaching of the apostles, which was to be sought in the churches they had founded, of esoteric doctrines, and views which must be of apostolic origin because they are universal, of the inspiration of general councils, and a revelation continued beyond the New Testament. But the Council of Trent resisted the conclusions which this language seemed to countenance, and they were left to be pursued by private speculation. One divine deprecated the vain pretense of arguing from Scripture, by which Luther could not be confuted, and the Catholics were losing ground; and at Trent a speaker averred that Christian doctrine had been so completely determined by the Schoolmen that there was no further need to recur to Scripture.SBBS 564.2

    This idea is not extinct, and Perrone uses it to explain the inferiority of Catholics as Biblical critics. If the Bible is inspired, says Peresius, still more must its interpretation be inspired. It must be interpreted variously, says the Cardinal of Cusa, according to necessity; a change in the opinion of the church implies a change in the will of God. One of the greatest Tridentine divines declares that a doctrine must be true if the church believes it, without any warrant from Scripture. According to Petavius, the general belief of Catholics at a given time is the work of God, and of higher authority than all antiquity and all the Fathers. Scripture may be silent, and tradition contradictory, but the church is independent of both. Any doctrine which Catholic divines commonly assert, without proof, to be revealed, must be taken as revealed. The testimony of Rome, as the only remaining apostolic church, is equivalent to an unbroken chain of tradition. In this way, after Scripture had been subjugated, tradition itself was deposed; and the constant belief of the past yielded to the general conviction of the present.—“The History of Freedom,” John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton (R. C.), pp. 513, 514. London: Macmillan & Co., 1909.SBBS 564.3

    Transubstantiation, Decree of.—And because that Christ our Redeemer declared that which he offered under the species of bread to be truly his own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the church of God, and this holy synod doth now declare it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and of the wine a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood; which conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church suitably and properly called transubstantiation.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” p. 74. New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 565.1

    Transubstantiation, Canons Concerning.—Canon I. If any one denieth that, in the sacrament of the most holy eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that he is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.SBBS 565.2

    Canon II. If any one saith that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood-the species only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation; let him be anathema.SBBS 565.3

    Canon III. If any one denieth that, in the venerable sacrament of the eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema.SBBS 565.4

    Canon IV. If any one saith that, after the consecration is completed, the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable sacrament of the eucharist, but (are there) only during the use, whilst it is being taken, and not either before or after; and that, in the hosts, or consecrated particles, which are reserved or which remain after communion, the true body of the Lord remaineth not; let him be anathema.—Id., pp. 81, 82.SBBS 565.5

    Transubstantiation, Roman Catholic Teaching Concerning.—SBBS 565.6

    20. How does our Lord become present in the eucharist?SBBS 565.7

    Our Lord becomes present in the eucharist by transubstantiation; i. e., by the changing of the whole substance of the bread into the body of Jesus Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into his blood.SBBS 565.8

    21. Is it then true that after consecration there is neither bread nor wine on the altar?SBBS 565.9

    Yes; after consecration nothing remains but the body and blood of Christ.SBBS 565.10

    22. What remains of the bread and the wine after consecration?SBBS 565.11

    After consecration nothing remains of them but the species or appearances. The substance of the bread and the substance of the wine have been changed into the substance of the body of Jesus Christ and the substance of his blood.SBBS 565.12

    23. Are the substance of the bread and the substance of the wine annihilated when the host is consecrated?SBBS 565.13

    No, but they are changed into the true body and the true blood of Jesus Christ. If they were annihilated, there would be no change. Now, the church expressly teaches that there is a change.SBBS 565.14

    24. Is Jesus Christ, whole and entire, present in the eucharist?SBBS 565.15

    Yes, Jesus Christ, whole and entire, is present under the appearance of bread, as he is also whole and entire under the appearance of wine.SBBS 565.16

    26. Is Jesus Christ contained whole and entire under each particle of the species of bread and wine, when these species have been divided?SBBS 566.1

    It is of faith that, if the sacred species be divided into several parts, no matter how great their number, Christ is present, whole and entire, in each particle of the host and in each drop of the precious blood.SBBS 566.2

    28. Do the eucharistic species retain their natural properties?SBBS 566.3

    The sacred species have the same properties as their substance had before transubstantiation. In other words, they are sensible, divisible, nutritive, corruptible, and, in a word, susceptible of all those changes of quality which bread and wine undergo.SBBS 566.4

    29. When do the species cease to be sacramental?SBBS 566.5

    They cease to be sacramental species when they have become so altered that, if their substances did exist, these substances would no longer be bread and wine.SBBS 566.6

    30. What then occurs?SBBS 566.7

    Christ withdraws from the sacrament, and the species return to the ordinary course of nature’s laws.SBBS 566.8

    33. What worship ought we to pay to Jesus in the tabernacle?SBBS 566.9

    It is of faith, as defined by the Council of Trent, that Jesus in the tabernacle should be adored with a worship of latria [” that which is given to God alone”].SBBS 566.10

    34. Should we adore nothing but Christ present under the species?SBBS 566.11

    We should adore the entire sacrament, which contains both our Lord and the consecrated species.—“Manual of Christian Doctrine,” by a seminary professor (R. C.), pp. 419-422. Philadelphia: John Joseph McVey, 1914.SBBS 566.12

    Transubstantiation, Dogma of, Established in 1215.—Before the Lateran Council [of 1215] transubstantiation was not a dogma of faith.—John Duns Scotus (R. C.), quoted by Bellarmine in his treatise, “On the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” book 3, chap. 23.SBBS 566.13

    Transubstantiation Not Proved by Scripture.—Secondly, he [Scotus] says that there is not any passage of Scripture so clear that, apart from the declaration of the church, it plainly compels one to admit transubstantiation. And this is not at all improbable. For even though the scripture which we have cited above seems to us so clear that it can compel any man who is not refractory [to believe this doctrine], nevertheless it so happens that it can be reasonably doubted, since most learned and acute men, such as was Scotus before all, think the contrary.—Bell., “De Sacramento Eucharistia,” lib. iii. cap. xxiii [Bellar-mine (R. C.), “On the Sacrament of the Eucharist,” book 3, chap. 23].SBBS 566.14

    Transubstantiation, Catechism of Trent on.—There are three things most deserving of admiration and veneration, which the Catholic faith unhesitatingly believes and confesses to be accomplished in this sacrament by the words of consecration. The first is, that the true body of Christ the Lord, the very same that was born of the Virgin, and sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven, is contained in this sacrament; the second, that, however alien to, and remote from, the senses it may seem, no substance of the elements remains therein; the third, which is an easy inference from the two preceding, although the words of consecration express it principally, that the accidents which are discerned by the eyes, or perceived by the other senses, exist in a wonderful and ineffable manner without a subject. All the accidents of bread and wine we indeed may see; they, however, inhere in no substance, but exist by themselves; whereas, the substance of the bread and wine is so changed into the very body and blood of the Lord, that the substance of bread and wine altogether ceases to exist.—“Catechism of the Council of Trent,” translated by Dr. J. Donovan, D. D. (R. C.), p. 200. Dublin: James Duffy, Sons & Co. [This is the most authoritative catechism issued by the Roman hierarchy.—Eds.]SBBS 566.15

    Let pastors ... first of all, teach them [“the faithful”] that the mind and understanding must, as much as possible, be withdrawn from the dominion of the senses; for, were the faithful to persuade themselves that in this sacrament is contained nothing but what they perceive by the senses, they must be led into the greatest impiety, when, discerning by the sight, the touch, the smell, the taste, nothing else but the appearance of bread and wine, they would come to the conclusion that in the sacrament there is only bread and wine. Care must, therefore, be taken that the minds of the faithful be withdrawn, as much as possible, from the judgment of the senses.—Ib.SBBS 567.1

    Transubstantiation, the Evident Meaning of the Words, “This is My Body.”—There is no figure more usual in every language than that whereby we give to the sign the name of the thing signified.... As this is an ordinary figure in common speech, it is peculiarly so in the language of Scripture. In the Hebrew, Chaldee, and Chaldeo-Syriac languages, there are either no words which express to mean, signify, or represent, or else such words are of very rare occurrence. Thus, “The seven kine are” (that is, represent) “seven years.” Genesis 41:26. “This is” (that is, represents) “the bread of affliction which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.” “The ten horns are” (that is, signify) “ten kings.” Daniel 7:24. “That rock was” (that is, represented) “Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:4. We also find this idiom running through the Greek language. Thus, “the seven stars are” (that is, represent) “the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are” (that is, represent) “the seven churches.” Revelation 1:20. “I am the vine, ye are the branches.” John 15:5. Our Lord did not say, “Hoc est corpus meum,” as he did not speak in the Latin tongue, though so much stress has been laid upon this quotation from the Vulgate Version, as if the original had been uttered in Latin. Now as our Lord spoke in the Chaldee or Chaldeo-Syriac, he spoke according to the idiom of that tongue. And any man speaking in that language would say, “This is my body,” “This is my blood,” when he intended to convey the meaning that the bread and wine represented the body and blood of Christ.—“Delineation of Roman Catholicism,” Rev. Charles Elliott, D. D., p. 136. London: John Mason, 1844.SBBS 567.2

    Transubstantiation, First Mention of.—Up to the time of Walafridus Strabo (who wrote about a. d. 840), no change of substance was admitted in the eucharist. For he writes plainly: “Christ delivered his body and blood to the disciples in the substance of bread and wine.” The very first writer (it is believed) who used the barbarous term adopted at Trent was Stephanus Eduensis, who flourished a. d. 950, and paraphrased the words of our Lord-“Panem quem accepi in corpus meum transubstantiavi [The bread which I have taken I have changed into my body].”-“Romanism: A Doctrinal and Historical Examination of the Creed of Pope Pius IV,” Rev. Robert Charles Jenkins, M. A., p. 146. London: The Religious Tract Society.SBBS 567.3

    Transubstantiation, Adoration of the Host.—Catholics firmly hold that in the sacrament of the altar Christ is truly present, and indeed in such a way that Almighty God, who was pleased at Cana, in Galilee, to convert water into wine, changes the inward substance of the consecrated bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. We therefore adore the Saviour mysteriously present in the sacrament.—“Symbolism,” John Adam Moehler, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 235, 236. London: Thomas Baker, 1906.SBBS 567.4

    Transubstantiation, Father of the Doctrine of.—The doctrine of the real presence in the Lord’s Supper, as enunciated by Pope Innocent III, was dogmatically propounded and proclaimed for the first time in the history of Christianity in the year 831, as far as any existing records show, by Paschasius Radbertus, a monk of Corbey, and this, because he became the first pronounced apologist and exponent of an interpretation of the Lord’s Supper which already existed in the minds of many Christian believers, makes him virtually the father of the doctrine of transubstantiation.—“Modernism and the Reformation,” John Benjamin Rust, Ph. D., D. D., p. 102. New York: Fleming H. Revell Company.SBBS 568.1

    Trent, Council of.See Bible, 75; Canon, 100; Celibacy, 107; Censorship of Books, 108; Confession, 116; Council of Trent; Councils, 118, 120, 121; Creed, 126-128; Heretics, 205, 207; Justification, 276, 277, 278, 279; Mass, 295, 296; Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 304; Penance, 370; Pope, 379; Purgatory, 404; Tradition, 559, 560, 561, 563, 565.SBBS 568.2

    Triple Crown.—Three periods may be distinguished in the development of the tiara. The first period extends to the time when it was adorned with a royal circlet or diadem; in this period the papal ornament for the head was, as is clear from the “Constitutum Constantini” and from the ninth Ordo of Mabillon (ninth century), merely a helmet-like cap of white material.... During the pontificate of Boniface VIII a second crown was added to the former one.... What led Boniface VIII to make this change, whether merely love of pomp, or whether he desired to express by the tiara with two crowns his opinions concerning the double papal authority, cannot be determined.... The earliest representation of a tiara with three crowns ... is offered by the effigy of Benedict XII (d. 1342), the remains of which are preserved in the museum at Avignon.... Since the fifteenth century the tiara has received no changes worthy of note.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, art.Tiara,” pp. 714, 715.SBBS 568.3

    Turkish Empire.See Eastern Question; Seven Trumpets.SBBS 568.4

    Twelve Hundred and Sixty Years.See Advent, Second, 15, 16; Papal Supremacy, 362, 363.SBBS 568.5

    Twenty-Three Hundred Days, of Daniel 8:14; The Correct Text Assured.—There is no number in the Bible whose genuineness is better ascertained than that of the 2300 days. It is found in all the printed Hebrew editions, in all the MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi’s collations, and in all the ancient versions, except the Vatican copy of the Septuagint, which reads 2400, followed by Symmachus; and some copies noticed by Jerom, 2200; both evidently literal errors in excess and defect.—“A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,” Rev. William Hales, D. D., Vol. II, p. 512, footnote. London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830.SBBS 568.6

    Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Symbolic Time.—It is plain at once that this [the 2300 days] is not the usual and literal expression for a space of between six and seven years. There are only three instances in all Scripture history where a period of above forty days is expressed in days only. Genesis 7:3 [24]; Nehemiah 6:15; Esther 1:4. And it is without any precedent in Scripture, or in common usage, that periods of more than one year should be thus described.—“First Elements of Sacred Prophecy,” Rev. T. R. Birks, chap. 13, p. 357. London: William Edward Painter, 1843.SBBS 568.7

    Notes.—The beginning of the seventy weeks, or 490 years of Daniel 9:24, 25, fixes also the beginning of the 2300 years of Daniel 8:14. The angel had come to Daniel, in the eighth chapter, to explain the vision of which the 2300 years was part. Daniel fainted before the time period was reached in the explanation. Still the angel was under the command of God to explain the vision. So as he came to Daniel in the ninth chapter, he said he had now come to give Daniel understanding, and asked him to “consider the vision” (verse 23),-of necessity, the vision whose explanation had been interrupted a few months before. The marginal dates in our versions show fifteen years between these chapters. That was because it was formerly supposed that Belshazzar, in whose third year the vision was given, was the Nabonidus of history, who reigned seventeen years. The discovery of the buried records, however, has shown that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus, associated with him as king in the last years of his reign. Hence the explanation of Daniel 9 may have followed but a few months after the vision of Daniel 8.—Eds.SBBS 569.1

    The angel’s explanation began with the time period, which had been left unexplained; and it was said that seventy weeks, or 490 years, were “cut off” and allotted to the Jewish people. The only inference is that this time was cut off from the 2300 year period, which was to be explained; and therefore the starting-point of the seventy weeks, a. d. 457, must of necessity be the starting-point of the 2300 days.—Eds.SBBS 569.2

    Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Explained by “Seventy Weeks.”—This chronological prophecy [seventy weeks] ... was evidently designed to explain the foregoing vision, especially in its chronological part of the 2300 days.—“A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography,” Rev. William Hales, D. D., Vol. II, p. 517. London: C. J. G. & F. Rivington, 1830.SBBS 569.3

    Note.—Dr. Hales, who wrote this in the 18th century, says that he got the idea of the seventy weeks “as forming a branch of the 2300 days” from a commentary on the “Revelation of St. John,” by Hans Wood, of Ireland, published in London, 1787 (Hales, Vol. II, p. 518, footnote). But these early writers failed to see that the beginning of the period was the going forth of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem. Dr. Hales arrived at the date of the beginning of the periods by the rough method of counting back 490 years from the fall of Jerusalem, a. d. 70. “The destruction of Jerusalem, therefore, divides the whole period into two unequal parts; the former consisting of 490 years, beginning b. c. 420; the latter, of 1810 years, ending a. d. 1880.” (Hales, Vol. II, p. 518.) In that early time the idea of the seventy weeks as an explanation of the 2300 days was thus beginning to dawn upon the minds of students of prophecy, to be seized upon and properly applied as the days of 1844 drew near.—Eds.SBBS 569.4

    Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Apparently the Earliest Works Fixing Common Beginning with Seventy Weeks, b. c. 457.—I have lately seen a small pamphlet, which was first published in America, by the Rev. William E. Davis, South Carolina, and republished in 1818, at Workington in the north of England. This author asserts that the two thousand three hundred days commenced with Daniel’s seventy weeks which are mentioned in chap. 9:24. In this opinion I am constrained to concur.... Having mentioned my obligation to this author, I shall now endeavor to avail myself of the ideas which he has suggested.—“Two Essays on Daniel’s Prophetic Number of Two Thousand Three Hundred Days, and on the Christian’s Duty to Inquire into the Church’s Deliverance,” Archibald Mason (minister of the gospel, Wishawton, Scotland), p. 9. Newburgh: printed from the Glasgow edition, Ward M. Gazlay, 1820. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 569.5

    Notes.—Until this book came over the sea to America, in 1842, William Miller’s associates had never heard of Mr. Davis’s book (Midnight Cry, June 15, 1842; cited in “Great Second Advent Movement,” p. 87). On inquiry they decided that “Davis’s book must have been written about 1810.” Archibald Mason expected the fall of the Papacy and the cleansing of the church in 1843-44.—Eds.SBBS 569.6

    It is to be noted that 2300 full years from within b. c. 457 must end within A. D. 1844. The exact month need not be considered in these periods that deal with years. However, the Scripture record gives two definite seasons within the year 457, connected with the going forth of the decree of Artaxerxes,-the first month, April, when Ezra’s expedition started, and the fifth month, August, when he reached Jerusalem. Ezra 7:9. Soon after arriving, the important incident of Ezra 8:36 must have occurred: “They 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.” Certainly not later than this official delivery of the decree, in the autumn of 457, the commandment may be considered as having fully gone forth or into effect.—Eds.SBBS 570.1

    Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Beginning of.—See Artaxerxes, Seventh Year of; Ptolemy’s Canon; Seventy Weeks; Year-Day Principle.SBBS 570.2

    Twenty-Three Hundred Days, Close of.—See Advent Movement.SBBS 570.3

    Two Laws.See Law, Ceremonial; Law of God.SBBS 570.4

    Two Witnesses, Old Expositor (1619) on the Period and Their Identity.—It is common with the Holy Ghost in prophecies to set down a day for a year, so Antichrist must reigne 1260 yeares.—“A Revelation of the Revelation,” Thomas Mason, p. 46. London, 1619. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 570.5

    The two witnesses are the Olde and New Testaments, and all that preach and teach them all the time of Antichrist.—Id., p. 49.SBBS 570.6

    Two Witnesses, The Old and New Testaments.—Where then shall we find in the world the “two witnesses” here introduced by the angel? For they must be of great antiquity; they must be only two in number, and these two must have but one “mouth,” and be the witnesses of God, or of his revealed word and will to mankind. They are, I will venture to pronounce, and can be nothing else, but the two Testaments, the Old and New. These two holy prophets and oracles of God, alone, among all the variety of living things upon the earth, can satisfy and fulfil the figurative description of the text.... Indeed the very name of these books, or witnesses, affords an unerring clue to the discovery. A testament, from the plain definition and common acceptation of the word, is a writing, or record, which testifies and bears witness to the mind and will of man.... Have not these two witnesses alone given the clearest testimony of his omnipotence, his infinite wisdom, his justice and mercy?-” Brief Commentaries on Such Parts of the Revelation and Other Prophecies as Refer to the Present Times,” Joseph Galloway, p. 46. London, 1802.SBBS 570.7

    Two Witnesses, As Dr. Goodwin Foresaw Events by the Prophecy (in 1639).—The saints and churches belonging to the kingdom of France, God hath made a wonder to me in all his proceedings, first and last; and there would seem to be some great and special honor reserved for them yet at the last.... They bore and underwent the great heat of that morning of persecution, which was as great, if not greater, than any since.... And so as that kingdom had the first great stroke [of persecution], so now it should have the honor to have the last great stroke in the ruining of Rome.—“The French Revolution Foreseen in 1639,” p. 12, being extracts from writings of Thomas Goodwin, D. D. London, 1796. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 570.8

    I believe that some one kingdom or state will more eminently be made the seat of this war, the field of this battle, the shambles of this slaughter; for where the witnesses rise from their dead conditions, there an earthquake shakes the tenth part of the city, or one of those ten European states that have given up their kingdoms to the beast, but shall now in this slaughter, begin to fall from, and cease to be a part of the city, no longer belonging to the jurisdiction of Rome.—“Expositions of the Famous Divine, Thomas Goodwin, D. D.,” p. 661. London (reprint), 1842. (Dr. Goodwin died in 1680.)SBBS 571.1

    The voice which calls these witnesses up to heaven may yet proceed from the throne of France, where the witnesses have ever prophesied in sackcloth; so that that kingdom may have the first stroke in the ruin of Rome.—Id., p. 670.SBBS 571.2

    Two Witnesses, “The Great City,” in Early Expositors.—In respect of the place, our Lord Jesus was crucified at Jerusalem; but if we respect the power and authority that put him to death, he was crucified at Rome: for Christ was put to death by a Roman judge, by Roman laws, by Roman authority, by a kind of death proper only to the Romans, and in a place which then was within the Roman Empire; and for this cause it is here said that Christ was crucified at Rome.—“The Ruine of Rome,” Arthur Dent (Preacher of the Word of God at South Shoobury in Essex), p. 185. London, 1656. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 571.3

    Two Witnesses, Jurieu (1687) on “Tenth Part of City.”—The bodies of the two witnesses “shall lie in the street of the great city.” ‘Tis to be observed that in the text ‘tis not “in the streets,” in the plural, as the French translation reads; ‘tis “in the street,” in the singular. And I cannot hinder myself from believing that this hath a particular regard to France, which at this day is certainly the most eminent country which belongs to the popish kingdom. Her king is called the eldest son of the church, the most Christian king, i. e., the most popish, according to the dialect of Rome. The kings of France have by their liberalities made the popes great at this day; it is the most flourishing state of Europe. It is in the middle of the popish empire, betwixt Italy, Spain, Germany, England, exactly as a street or place of concourse is in the middle of a city. ‘Tis also foursquare, as such a place, i. e., almost as long as broad. In a word, ‘tis the place or “street of the great city.” And I believe that ‘tis particularly in France that the witnesses must remain dead, i. e., that the profession of the true religion must be utterly abolished.—“The Accomplishment of the Scripture Prophecies,” Peter Jurieu (of the French Church at Rotterdam), Part II, chap 12, pp. 247, 248. London, 1687.SBBS 571.4

    Two Witnesses, Mather (1710) on France as Scene of.—At the time when the second woe passeth away there is to be a great earthquake. In that earthquake one of the ten kingdoms over which Antichrist has reigned, will fall. There is at this day a great earthquake among the nations. May the kingdom of France be that tenth part of the city which shall fall, may we hear of a mighty Revolution there; we shall then know that the kingdom of Christ is at hand.—“Discourse Concerning Faith and Fervency in Prayer,” Dr. J. Mather, p. 97, London, 1710; cited inSigns of the Times,” J. Bicheno, part 2, p. 85. London: 1799. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 571.5

    Two Witnesses, Early Expositor (1742) on France as Scene of.—Before Antichrist’s fall, one of the ten kingdoms which supported the beast shall undergo a marvelous Revolution. Revelation 11:13. “The same hour there was a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell.” By which tenth part, is to be understood one of the ten kingdoms into which the great city Romish Babylon was divided. This many take to be the kingdom of France, it being the tenth and last of the kingdoms as to the time of its rise, and that which gave to Rome the denomination of a beast with ten horns, and also its being the only one of the ten that was never conquered since its rise. However unlikely this and other prophesied events may appear at the time, yet the almighty hand of the only wise God can soon bring them about when least expected.—“A Prophecy of the French Revolution,” Rev. John W. Willison, Minister at Dundee, p. 23, reprinted from the original, first published in 1742. London, 1793. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 571.6

    Two Witnesses, An Interpretation of 1748.—And the tenth part of the city, or of the Romish jurisdiction, shall fall; that is, one of its ten horns, kings or kingdoms belonging to it, and perhaps the kingdom of France is meant, and seven thousand men of name will be slain.—Sermon by Dr. Gill, 1748; cited inSecond Advent Library,” No. I, Jan. 1, 1842. Boston.SBBS 572.1

    Two Witnesses, Sir Isaac Newton’s Conjecture as to Part of Atheism in Marking End of Papal Supremacy.—Sir Isaac Newton had a very sagacious conjecture, which he told Dr. Clarke, from whom I received it, that the overbearing tyranny and persecuting power of the antichristian party, which had so long corrupted Christianity, and enslaved the Christian world, must be put a stop to, and broken to pieces by the prevalence of infidelity, for some time, before primitive Christianity could be restored; which seems to be the very means that is now working in Europe, for the same good and great end of Providence. Possibly he might think that our Saviour’s own words implied it: “When the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?” ... or possibly he might think no other way so likely to do it in human affairs. It being, I acknowledge, too sadly evident, that there is not at present religion enough in Christendom to put a stop to such antichristian tyranny and persecution, upon any genuine principles of Christianity.—“Essays on Revelation,” Wm. Whiston, p. 321, edition 1744. (Whiston was Newton’s successor in Mathematics at Cambridge.)SBBS 572.2

    Two Witnesses, The Atheistic Uprising from “the Bottomless Pit.”—I stand convinced of the importance and necessity of disclosing to the world the dark recesses from whence it burst into being.—“Memoirs Illustrating the History of Jacobinism,” Abbé Burruel, Vol. I, “Preliminary Discourse,” p. xi. London, 1797.SBBS 572.3

    Were France, like hell, a bottomless pit, impenetrable to every voice, ... still it is not too late to acquaint other nations of their danger.—Id., p. xviii.SBBS 572.4

    When the ignorant people no longer saw God between them and annihilation, they plunged into the bottomless abyss of atheism.—“Atheism Among the People,” Alphonse de Lamartine, p. 41. Boston, 1850.SBBS 572.5

    We are now, therefore, got to that black precipitous abyss, whither all things have long been tending.—“French Revolution,” Thomas Carlyle, book 7, chap. 1.SBBS 572.6

    Two Witnesses, The Spirit from the “Bottomless Pit.”—The talent developed was too great, the wickedness committed too appalling, to be explained on the usual principles of human nature. It seemed rather as if some higher powers had been engaged in a strife in which man was the visible instrument; as if the demons of hell had been let loose to scourge mankind, and the protection of Heaven for a time withdrawn.—“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., F. R. S. E., “Introduction,” par. 7 (Vol. I, p. 3). Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853.SBBS 572.7

    Two Witnesses, The Scriptures “Slain.”—a. d. 1793. The Bible had passed out of the hands of the people, in all the dominions of Popery from the time of the supremacy. The doctrines had perished, and left their place to human reveries. The converts were martyred. At length, the full triumph of the old spirit of corruption and persecution terribly arrived. In the year 1793 twelve hundred and sixty years from the letter of Justinian declaring the Pope “Universal Bishop,” the gospel was, by a solemn act of the legislature and the people, abolished in France. The indignities offered to the actual copies of the Bible were unimportant after this; their life is in their doctrines, and the extinction of the doctrines is the extinction of the Bible. By the decree of the French government, declaring that the nation acknowledged no God, the Old and New Testaments were slain throughout the limits of republican France.—“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., pp. 175, 176, 2nd edition revised. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828.SBBS 573.1

    Two Witnesses, Put to Death in Symbol.—That the prophecy respecting the conquest and death of the two witnesses might literally as well as figuratively be fulfilled, the commissioners of the Convention dressed up an ass, and loading it with the symbols of Christianity, led it in mock procession with the Old and New Testaments tied to its tail, and burned them to ashes amidst the blasphemous shouts and acclamations of the deluded multitude.—“Brief Commentaries on Such Parts of the Revelation and Other Prophecies as Refer to the Present Times,” Joseph Galloway, Vol. I, p. 113. London, 1802.SBBS 573.2

    Two Witnesses, Slaying the Witnesses.—On the 10th of November [1793] an ass, dressed out in a sacerdotal habit, was led in procession through the town by two sans culottes, carrying a sacred cup, out of which they gave the animal drink; and when they arrived at one of the public edifices, Bibles, books of devotion, etc., were piled up in a heap, which was set on fire amidst horrid shouts from a vast concourse of people, “Long live the Sans Culottes!” ...SBBS 573.3

    Wherever a Bible could be found it might be said to be persecuted to death; so much so that several respectable commentators interpret the slaying of the two witnesses in the eleventh chapter of the Apocalypse, of the general suppression, nay, destruction, of the Old and New Testaments in France at this period. The fall of the witnesses is to be accompanied with national rejoicings; and it is a remarkable circumstance that twenty-six theaters in Paris were open and filled to overflowing at a season when, in a single month (July, 1794) not less than eight hundred persons of chief consideration, perished by the guillotine in the metropolis alone.—“An Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church of France,” J. G. Lorimer, pp. 530-532.SBBS 573.4

    Two Witnesses, Frenzied Festivities.—A very remarkable and prophetic distinction of this period was the spirit of frenzied festivity which seized upon France. The capital and all the republican towns were the scene of civic feasts, processions, and shows of the most extravagant kind. The most festive times of peace under the most expensive kings were thrown into the shade by the frequency, variety, and extent of the republican exhibitions. Yet this was a time of perpetual miseries throughout France. The guillotine was bloody from morn till night.—“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., p. 176. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828.SBBS 573.5

    Two Witnesses, Believers Suffered with the Word.—Indeed, the Protestants who would not go the length of the Revolutionists were subjected to the cruelest treatment. In the department of Gard alone the slaughter was widespread. During the Reign of Terror the Protestants were as much oppressed and persecuted as the Roman Catholics. This is apparent from the religious profession of those who were guillotined. Of one party of sufferers Lauze de Paret gives the following summary: 91 Roman Catholics, 46 Protestants, and 1 Jew.... Out of 150 guillotined in the district of Gard 117 were Protestants.—“An Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church of France,” J. G. Lorimer, p. 531.SBBS 574.1

    Two Witnesses, The Spiritual Egypt and Sodom.—Rome is called spiritually Zodome because they exceed Zodome in the sinnes thereof, and it is called Egypt, because they have oppressed the children of God more than the Egyptians did the Israelites; and Christ was slain in Rome, in that Pilate a Romane judge condemned him, and the Romane officers crucified him.—“A Revelation of the Revelation,” Thomas Mason, p. 49. London, 1619. (British Museum Library.)SBBS 574.2

    Two Witnesses, Slain, but Not Buried.—The Truth shall be slain, but it shall not be buried. Burial is a degree beyond death, and is always joined with a total corruption and destruction. And so ‘tis not an office of charity, which is denied to these two witnesses; but a degree of ruin, from which they are exempted. And observe who they are who hinder their burial; they are not the same with those who killed them. Those who killed them are the inhabitants of the street of the great city, i. e., those who dwell in the most eminent part of the popish kingdom; which at this day is France. Those who hinder their burial are the tribes, languages, people, and nations, i. e., several neighbor nations.—“The Accomplishment of the Scripture Prophecies,” Peter Jurieu, Part II, chap. 12, p. 248. London, 1687.SBBS 574.3

    Two Witnesses, Jurieu on Three and a Half Years.—I am persuaded that these three days and a half are three years and a half; a day standing for a year, as the three years and a half are 1260 years, taking a year for a day. ‘Tis therefore three years and a half, during which the external profession of the truth must be altogether suppressed; and after which it shall be raised again to life.—Id., Part II, chap. 13, p. 252.SBBS 574.4

    Two Witnesses, Revived after Three and a Half Years.—a. d. 1797. On the 17th of June, Camille Jordan, in the “Council of Five Hundred,” brought up the memorable report on the “Revision of the laws relative to religious worship.” It consisted of a number of propositions, abolishing alike the republican restrictions on popish worship, and the popish restrictions on Protestant....SBBS 574.5

    From that period the church [Protestant] has been free in France, and it now numbers probably as large a population as before its fall. It is a striking coincidence, that almost at the moment when this great measure was determined on, the French army under Bonaparte was invading and partitioning the papal territory. The next year, 1798, saw it master of Rome, the popedom a republic, and the Pope a prisoner and an exile.SBBS 574.6

    The church and the Bible had been slain in France from November, 1793, till June, 1797. The three years and a half were expended, and the Bible, so long and so sternly repressed before, was placed in honor, and was openly the Book of free Protestantism!-“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., 2nd edition revised, pp. 181-183. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828.SBBS 575.1

    Two Witnesses, Camille Jordan’s Declaration for Religious Freedom.—Declaring that religion should no longer be proscribed, but protected, he [in National Convention, June 15, 1797] reiterated the solemn promise that worship should be free in France. In his peroration he called for the restoration of all the outward symbols of faith.—“French Revolution and Religious Reform,” W. M. Sloane, p. 229.SBBS 575.2

    Two Witnesses, Exalted Before All.—Infidelity, produced in a great measure by the unfaithfulness of the church, is pictured forth in blood before her eyes. The event is sanctified to many. Thousands begin to turn to God for safety, and to think seriously of religion.... The consequence is that at the very time when Satan is hoping for, and the timid are fearing, an utter overturn of true religion, there is a revival, and the gospel expands its wings and prepares for a new flight. It is worthy of remembrance that the year 1792, the very year of the French Revolution, was also the year when the Baptist Missionary Society was formed, a society which was followed during the succeeding, and they the worst, years of the Revolution, with new societies of unwonted energy and union, all aiming, and aiming successfully, at the propagation of the gospel of Christ, both at home and abroad. What withering contempt did the great Head of the church thus pour upon the schemes of infidels! And how did he arouse the careless and instruct his own people, by alarming providences, at a season when they greatly needed such a stimulus!-“An Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church of France,” J. G. Lorimer, p. 522.SBBS 575.3

    Two Witnesses, Greater Liberty.—The death of Christianity was local and limited; no nation of Europe joined in the desperate guilt of the French Republic; and within three years and a half, the predicted time, it was called up from the grave to a liberty which it had never before enjoyed; the church in France was proclaimed free.—“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., p. 427, 2nd edition revised. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828.SBBS 575.4

    Two Witnesses, The Scriptures to the World.—The stupendous endeavors of one gigantic community [British Bible Society organized 1804] to convey the Scriptures in every language to every part of the globe, may well deserve to be considered as an eminent sign even of these eventful times. Unless I be much mistaken, such endeavors are preparatory to the final grand diffusion of Christianity; which is the theme of so many inspired prophets, and which cannot be very far distant in the present day.—“Dissertation on the Prophecies,” G. S. Faber, D. D., Vol. II, p. 406. London, 1814.SBBS 575.5

    Two Witnesses, The Sackcloth Stage Passed.—The papal hostility to the church was, from the 13th century, exerted in two ways,-the suppression of the Scriptures, and the torture and death of their preachers and converts by the Inquisition. The French Revolution was the close of its power in both. The French armies abolished the Inquisition in Rome (1798), and in Spain (1808); it has been revived, but is inactive. The extraordinary circulation of the Scriptures commenced during the French Revolution, and they are now beyond suppression by man.—“The Apocalypse of St. John,” Rev. George Croly, A. M., p. 210, 2nd edition revised. London: C. & J. Rivington, 1828.SBBS 575.6

    Two Witnesses, Protestants Set Free, Catholics Wickedly Persecuted by Revolution.—We might add to the weight of benefits which France unquestionably owes to the Constituent Assembly, that they restored liberty of conscience by establishing universal toleration. But against this benefit must be set the violent imposition of the constitutional oath upon the Catholic clergy, which led afterwards to such horrible massacre of innocent and revered victims, murdered in defiance of those rules of toleration, which, rather in scorn of religion of any kind than regard to men’s consciences, the Assembly had previously adopted.—“Life of Napoleon,” Sir Walter Scott, Vol. I, p. 227; cited inThe Signs of the Times,” Alexander Keith, Vol. II, p. 115, 3rd edition. Edinburgh: William Whyte and Co., 1833.SBBS 576.1

    Two Witnesses, Political Earthquake and French Break with Rome Long Foreseen.—There shall be an earthquake, and a tenth part of the city shall be overturned. Mark that the earthquake, i. e., the great alteration of affairs in the land of the Papacy, must for that time happen only in the tenth part of the city that shall fall: for this shall be the effect of this earthquake.SBBS 576.2

    Now what is this tenth part of this city, which shall fall? In my opinion we cannot doubt that ‘tis France. This kingdom is the most considerable part, or piece, of the ten horns, or states, which once made up the great Babylonian city.... This tenth part of the city shall fall, with respect to the Papacy; it shall break with Rome, and the Roman religion.—“The Accomplishment of the Scripture Prophecies,” Peter Jurieu, Part II, chap. 13, pp. 264, 265. London, 1687.SBBS 576.3

    Two Witnesses, The “Earthquake” Preparing.—“Already,” it was said by Mr. Burke in the year 1790, “in many parts of Europe there is a hollow murmuring under ground; a confused movement that threatens a general earthquake of the political world.”-“Hora Apocalyptica,” Rev. E. B. Elliott, A. M., Vol. III, p. 300, 3rd edition. London: Seeley, Burnside, and Seeley, 1847.SBBS 576.4

    Two Witnesses, Fall of Feudalism as by Earthquake.—“In a single night,” said the Moniteur, “the whole fabric of feudal power has fallen to the ground, and the glorious edifice of general liberty emerged in its stead.” It has been truly said that this night [Aug. 4, 1879] changed the political condition of France. It delivered the land from feudal domination, the person from feudal dependence, secured the property of the poor from the rapacity of the rich, the fruits of industry from the extortion of idleness.... The odious distinctions of noble and roturier, patrician and baseborn, the relics of Gothic conquest, were forever destroyed. Had these changes been introduced with caution, or had they gradually grown out of the altered condition of society, there can be no doubt that they would have been highly beneficial; but coming as they did, suddenly and unexpectedly, upon the kingdom, they produced the most disastrous consequences.... Nothing could be regarded as stable in society after such a shock; the chimeras of every enthusiast, the dream of every visionary, seemed equally deserving of attention with the sober conclusions of reason and observation, when all that former ages had done was swept away in the very commencement of improvement. All that the eye had rested on as most stable, all that the mind had been accustomed to regard as most lasting, disappeared before the first breath of innovation.—“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., F. R. S. E., chap. 5, pars. 31, 32 (Vol. I, p. 294), 9th edition. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853.SBBS 576.5

    Two Witnesses, Old Author (1663) on the “Names of Men.”—Whence we may understand what is meant by these “seven thousand names of men;” for neither seven nor thousand signify any determinate number, but only the nature or property of these names of men that are said to be slain, namely, that they are titles, dignities, offices, or orders of men belonging to the state of Christendon.”-Dr. H. Moore, 1663; quoted inProphetical Extracts,” London, 1793. (A bound volume of tracts and papers, reprints. British Museum Library.)SBBS 577.1

    An earthquake signifies political commotions and change of affairs, is obvious to any one to note; and that whore of Babylon is nothing but the body of the idolatrous clergy.—Ibid.SBBS 577.2

    Two Witnesses, Names of Dignities Annihilated.—In the fervor of innovation [1790] titles of honor could not long be maintained. M. Lamboin proposed, and Charles Lameth seconded a decree, “That the titles of duke, count, marquis, viscount, baron, and chevalier, should be suppressed.” “Hereditary nobility,” said the latter, “wounds equally reason and true liberty. There can be no political equality, no virtuous emulation, where citizens have other dignities than those belonging to their office, or arising from their virtues.” “Let us annihilate,” said M. de Noailles, “those vain titles, the arrogancy of pride, and ignorance, and vanity. It is time that we should have no distinctions save those arising from virtue. What should we say to Marquis Franklin, Count Washington, Baron Fox? Will such titles ever confer the luster attaching to the simple Franklin, Fox, Washington? I give my warmest support to the motion, and would add to it that liveries should be abolished.” “A nobility,” replied the Abbé Maury, “is part of our constitution: destroy the nobility, and there is no monarchy.” So determined were the Assembly to extinguish honors, that the decree was passed in an evening sitting with very little discussion. The noblesse and the clergy made vain efforts to prevent the sacrifice; but it was carried by an overwhelming majority.—“History of Europe,” Sir Archibald Alison, Bart., F. R. S. E., chap. 6, par. 35 (Vol. I, p. 330). Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1853.SBBS 577.3

    Two Witnesses, Titles Abolished.—1. Hereditary nobility is forever abolished; in consequence the titles of prince, duke, count, marquis, viscount, vidame, baron, knight, messire, écuyler, noble, and all other similar titles shall neither be taken by any one whomsoever nor given to anybody....SBBS 577.4

    2. A citizen may take only the true name of his family; no one may wear liveries nor cause them to be worn, nor have armorial bearings....SBBS 577.5

    3. The titles of monseigneur and messeigneurs shall not be given to any society nor to any person; likewise, the titles of excellency, highness, eminence, grace, etc.—Law of June 19, 1790, Lois I, 217, 218, in J. B. Duvergier’sCollection complete des lois, décrets, etc.,” Vol. I: 31; cited inConstitutions and Select Documents Illustrative of the History of France,” Sir Robert Anderson, p. 33. Paris, 1834.SBBS 577.6

    Two Witnesses, Earthquake Convulsion.—The state system that in its pursuit of absolute power had ruined the institutions of the past, was in its turn threatened with ruin when the sudden outbreak in France transformed a progressive revolution into a cataclysm which overwhelmed, in a marvelously brief space of time, the whole European order. Beginning as a national movement, the French Revolution took the form of a great convulsion.—“Historical Development of Modern Europe,” Charles M. Andrews, Vol. I, p. 9.SBBS 577.7

    Two Witnesses, The “Great Convulsion” Long Shook Europe.—Its [the Holy Roman Empire, 1806] fall in the midst of the great convulsion that changed the face of Europe marks an era in history, an era whose character the events of every year are further unfolding: an era of the destruction of old forms and systems and the building up of new.—“The Holy Roman Empire,” James Bryce, D. C. L., chap. 21, p. 392. London: Macmillan & Co., 1892.SBBS 578.1

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents