Jim

Jim you are only confirming what I said. Daniel says "Confirm the covenant" not "Make a covenant" as has been repeatedly said on here.

ROMANISM AND THE REFORMATION - THE DANIEL FOREVIEW OF ROMANISM.

Let me now propose to you a puzzle. It is to condense into some brief, simple sentences, which could be read in a few minutes, an accurate, comprehensive, graphic summary of the thirteen hundred years of Papal history, Lilian's " History of Latin Christianity " is here on the table. It occupies nine octavo volumes, and would take weeks to read. Ranke's " History of the Popes " is in three volumes, and does not cover the whole subject. D'Aubigne's " History of the Reformation " is in five volumes, and takes up only one episode of, the long story. The Papacy has existed for thirteen centuries, has had to do with forty or fifty gene-rations of mankind in all the countries of Christendom. Its history is consequently extremely complicated and various. It embraces .both secular and ecclesiastical matters, and has more or less to do with all that has happened in Europe since the fall of the old Roman empire. The time is long, the sphere vast, the story exceedingly complex. I want you to tell it all, in outline at least, in a narrative that you could read in less "than five minutes or write in ten. You must bring in every point of importance : the time and circum-stances of the origin of the Papacy, its moral character, its political relations, its geographical seat, its self-exalting utterances and acts, its temporal sovereignty, and a com-parison of the extent of its dominions with those of the other kingdoms of Europe; its blasphemous pretensions, its cruel and long-con tinned persecutions of God's people, the duration of its dominion, its present decay, and the judg-ments that have overtaken it; and you must moreover add what you think its end is likely to be, and explain the rela-tion of the whole history to the revealed plan of Divine pro-vidence. You must get all this in—not in the dry style of an annual Times summary of the events of the year—but in an interesting, vivid, picturesque style, that will impress the facts on the memory, so that to forget them shall be impossible.

Can you do it ? I might safely offer a prize of any amount to the person who can solve this puzzle and write this story as I have described. But hard, even impossible, as it would be for you to do this, even if you perfectly knew the history of the last thirteen centuries, how infinitely im-possible would it be if that "history lay in the unknown and inscrutable future, instead of in the past and present! If no eye had seen, nor ear heard it; if it was an untraversed continent, an unseen world, a matter for the evolution of ages yet to come—who then could tell the story at all, mnch less in brief ?

Now this is precisely what the prophet Daniel, by inspira-tion of the omniscient and eternal God, has done. He told the whole story of the Papacy twenty-five centuries ago. He omitted none of the points I have enumerated, and yet the prophecy only occupies seventeen verses of a chapter which can be read slowly and impressively in less than five minutes. This is because it is written in the only language in which it is possible thus to compress multwm, in parvo, the ancient language of hieroglyphics. God revealed the future to Daniel by a vision in which he saw, not the events, bnt living, moving, speaking hieroglyphics of the events. These Daniel simply describes, and his description of them consti-tutes the prophecy written in the seventh chapter of his book. Our consideration of this remarkable prediction we must however postpone for the present, as we have already claimed your attention long enough for one lecture.

H Grattan Guinnress - ROMANISM AND THE REFORMATION pp19-21

I'm sorry you wrote that all out, because it has not giving me anything to think the amillennial position has any grounds.

By the by, you say premillennialism is the RCC churches invention to take the heat of old pope. How can you explain that it was Augustine, whose whole theological principle, laid the ground work for the RCC church and the amillennial belief that replaced the premillennial belief of the first 200 years of Christianity?

None of mine or Jim's questions have been answered.

I think you misunderstand me Martin. I am not an amillenialiast, neither was as far as I know Mr Guinmness.
I add the following

LECTURE II.
THE DANIEL FOREVTEW OF ROMANISM. SECOND PART.

ALLOW me to commence this lecture by reading to you Daniel's description of the divinely designed hieroglyph by which, the history of Rome -was prefigured. He has previously described the hieroglyphics of the Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian empires, and then he says:

Mr Guinness here adds Daniel 7: 7-27

In these verses you have the entire story of the Papacy, and what is more, you have its future as well as its past, the judgment of God as to its moral character and deserts.

And how vivid the colouring, how graphic the picture ! I wish I could paint, or, better still, display in action before your eyes, such a dreadful and terrible and exceedingly strong wild beast, with its brazen claws and iron teeth, and ravening, ferocious nature, with its ten horns and its strange, head-like " little horn," able to see and speak and blaspheme the Almighty, so as at last to bring down destruction on the beast itself ! I wish I could let you watch it,—rending and tearing its enemies, breaking their bones in pieces, devouring their flesh, and in wanton, fierce ferocity stamp-ing on and trampling with its brazen-clawed feet what it cannot consume ! If you had learned the A B C of the language of hieroglyphics you would at once recognize that such creatures as this are figures of godless empires, king-doms which are brutal in their ignorance of God, in their absence of self-control, in their bestial instincts; which love bloodshed and are reckless of human agony, selfish, terrible, cruel, mighty. They represent and recall proud military heroes, like Julius Caesar, who trample down all that oppose them; cruel despots, who oppress their fellows; reckless conquerors like Tamerlane and Napoleon, to whom the
slaughter of millions of mankind was a matter of no moment. This is the generic signification of all such hieroglyphs.

But we are not left to guess the meaning and application of this particular monster. The symbol has a Divine in-terpretation. "The fourth beast," we read, "shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth." That, beyond all question, was ROME, as all historians agree—the fourth and last of the great universal empires of antiquity. The monster repre-sents Rome, her whole existence as a supreme or ruling power, after the fall of the Greek or Macedonian beast before her attacks (B.C. 197). It represents therefore the history of Rome for over 2,000 years in the past, and on into a time still future ; for, be it well noted, this beast ravages and rules, and his characteristic little horn blasphemes and boasts, right up to the point when empires like to wild beasts come to an end, and "the Son of man and the saints of the Most High take the kingdom and possess it for ever."

It is important that we should clearly grasp one great historical fact; i.e. the rule of Rome has never, since it first commenced, ceased to exist, save once, for a very brief period during the Gothic invasions. It has changed in cha-racter, as we have seen, but ifc has continued. Rome ruled the known world at the first advent of Christ, and still rules hundreds of millions of mankind, and will continue so to do right up till the second advent of Christ. So this prophecy teaches; for not until the Son of man takes the dominion of the earth, and establishes a kingdom that shall never pass away, is the monster representing Roman rule destroyed. The rule of Rome, we repeat, has never ceased. It was a secular pagan power for five or six centuries ; it lias been an ecclesiastical and apostate Christian power ever since, that is to say, for twelve or thirteen centuries. There lay a brief period between these two main stages, during which professing Christian emperors ruled from Rome, followed by an interval when, for a time, it seemed as if the area* city had received a fatal blow from her Gothic captors. It seemed so; but it was not sot for the word of God cannot be broken. The rule of Rome revived in a new-form, and was as real under the popes of the thirteenth century as it had been under the Caesars of the first. It was as oppressive, cruel, and bloody under Innocent III. as it had been under Nero-and Domitian. The reality was the same, though the forms had changed. The Ceesars did not persecute the witnesses of Jesus more severely and bitterly than did the popes; Diocletian did not destroy the saints or oppose the gospel more than did the Inquisition of Papal days. Rome is one and the same all through, both locally and morally. One dreadful wild beast represents her, though the symbol, like the history it prefigures, has two parts. There was the undivided stage, and there has been the tenfold stage. The one is Rome pagan, the other Rome Papal; the one is the old empire, the other the modern pontificate; the one is the empire of the Caesars, the other is the Roman Papacy.

I speak broadly, omitting all detail for the present. We shall find more of that when we come by-and-by to John's later foreview. Daniel's was a distant view in the days of Belshazzar, too distant altogether for detail. No artist paints the sheep on the hillside if the hill be fifty miles off; he may sketch its bold outline, but he omits minor detail. So Daniel's distant foreview, dating from 2,500 years ago, shows the two great sections of Roman history—the un-divided military empire, followed by the commonwealth of Papal Christendom, the latter as truly Latin in character as the former; and he shows the end of Rome at the second advent of Christ. But he refrains from encumbering his striking sketch with confusing political details. He does not fail however to delineate fully the moral and religious fea-tures of the power ruling from Rome during the second half of the story, the power symbolized by the proud, intelligent, blasphemous, head-like " little horn" of the Roman beast. To this he devotes, on the contrary, the greater part of the prophecy; and I must ask you now carefully to note the various points that prove this horn to be a marvelous pro-phetic symbol or hieroglyph of the Roman papacy, fitting it as one of Chubb's keys fits the lock for which it is made, perfectly and in every part, while it refuses absolutely to adapt itself to any other.
The main points in the nature, character, and actings of this " little horn," which we must note in order to discover the power intended, are these :
1. It's place : within the body of the fourth empire.
2. The period of its origin: soon after the division of the Roman territory into ten kingdoms.
• 3. Its nature: different from the other kingdoms, though in some respects like them. It was a horn, but with eyes and mouth. It would be a kingdom like the rest, a mon-archy ; but its kings would be overseers or bishops and prophets.
4. Its moral character : boastful and blasphemous; great words spoken against the Most High.
5. Its lawlessness: it would claim authority over times and laws.
6. Its opposition to the saints.- it would be a persecuting power, and that for so long a period that it would wear out the saints of the Most High, who would be given into its hand for a time.
7. Its duration : " time, times and a half," or 1,260 years.
8. Its doom: it would, suffer the loss of its dominion before it was itself destroyed. " They shall take away its dominion, to consume and destroy it to the end."
Here are eight distinct and perfectly tangible features. If they all meet in one great reality, if we find them all characterizing one and the same power, can we question that that is the power intended ? They do all meet in the Roman Papacy, whose history I have just briefly recalled, and we are therefore bold to say it is the great and evil reality predicted. A few words on each of these points, to convince you that this is the case.

1. Its place. No one can question that the Papacy is a, Roman, as distinguished from a Greek or an oriental, power. Its seat is the seven-hilled city; its tongue is the Latin language of Caesar and of Pliny and of Tacitus ; its Church is the Church of Home, and is the only Church that is or ever has been named from a city. Others have been named from countries or from men; the Papal Church alone bears the name of a city, and that city is Rome. The Papacy fulfils the first condition therefore.

2. Its time. We have shown that the last Bishop of Home and the first pope was .Boniface III., A.D. 607. Now the western empire of Rome came to an end with the fall of Romulus Augustulus, A.D. 476; that is, 130 years earlier. During that time the ten kingdoms were forming in the body of the old empire, and during that time the simple pastor of the Church was transformed into a pope. The little horn grew up among the ten. The Papacy developed synchronously with the Gothic kingdoms.

3.Its nature. The power symbolized by the little horn is of course a kingdom, like all the other ten; but it is not merely this. It is " diverse," or different, from all the other ruling dynasties with which it is associated. It is a horn of the .wild beast, but it has human eyes and a human voice, denoting its pretensions to be a seer, or prophet, and a teacher. It takes the oversight of all the ten, it is an over-seer or bishop, and it has "a mouth speaking great things." Its paramount influence depends, not on its mere material power, for it is small as a kingdom, a "little horn," but on its religious pretensions. Does not this exactly portray the Papacy ? Was it not diverse or different from all the Gothic kingdoms amid which it existed ? Was it a men: kingdom? Nay, but a spiritual reign over the hearts and minds as well as the bodies of men—a reign established by means, not of material weapons, but of spiritual pretensions. It was founded not on force, but on falsehood and fraud, and the superstitious fears of the half-civilized and ignorant Gothic kingdoms.
The popedom has always been eager to proclaim its own diversity from all other kingdoms. It claims " a princedom more perfect than every human princedom," surpassing them " as far as the light of the sun exceeds that of the moon." It arrogates to itself a character as superior to secular king-doms as man to the irrational beasts. Its laws are made not with the best human wisdom; but auctoritate, scientia, ac plenitudine, with the fulness of Divine knowledge and the fulness of apostolic power. Is not the Papacy sufficiently diverse from all the rest of the kingdoms of western Europe to identify it as the little horn? What other ruling monarch of Christendom ever pretended to apostolic authority, or ruled men in the name of God ? Does the pope dress in royal robes ? Nay, but in priestly garments. Does he wear a crown ? Nay, but a triple tiara, to shew that he reigns in heaven, earth, and hell! Does he wield a sceptre ? Nay, but a crosier or crook, to show that he is the good shepherd of the Church. Do his subjects kiss his hand ? Nay, but his toe ! Verily this power is " diverse " from the rest, both in great things and little. It is small in size, gigantic in its pretensions. It is, or was for centuries, one among many temporal kingdoms in Europe. It is the only one which claims a spiritual authority and universal dominion.

4. Its moral character. The salient feature here is the " mouth speaking very great things." Great words spoken against the. Most High, and " a look more stout than his fellows." Audacious pride and bold blasphemy must charac-terize the power that fulfils this point of the symbol.
We ask then, Has the Papacy exhibited this mark also '? Time would fail me to quote to you verbatim its great words, its boastful self-glorifications, and its outrageous blasphemies against God! You will find pages of them quoted in my work on." The Approaching End of the Age," and volumes filled with them exist, for Papal documents consist of little else. The Papal claims are so grotesque in their pride and self-exaltation, that they almost produce a sense of the comic, and that feeling of pitying contempt with which one watch a frog trying to swell itself to the size of .in ox! I must however mention some of the claims contained in these " great words," which will show you the nature of Papal blasphemies. It is claimed, for instance, that " no laws made contrary to the canons and decrees of Roman prelates have any force," that "the tribunals of all kings are subject to the priests," that "no man may act against the discipline of the Roman Church," that " the Papal decrees or decretal epistles are to be numbered among the canonical Scriptures," and not only so, but that the Scrip-tures themselves are to be received only " because a judg-ment of holy Pope Innocent was published for receiving them." It is claimed that " emperors ought to obey, and not rule over pontiffs " ; that even an awfully wicked pope, who is a " slave of hell," may not be rebuked by mortal man, be-cause " he is himself to judge all men and be judged by none," and " since he was styled God by the pious prince Constantine, it is manifest that God cannot be judged by man " ! They claim that no laws, not even their own canon laws, can bind the popes; but that just as Christ, being maker of all laws and ordinances, could violate the law of the sabbath, be-cause He was Lord also of the sabbath, so popes can dispense with any law, to show they are above all law !
It is claimed that the chair of St. Peter, the see of Rome, is " made the head of the world " ; that it is not to be subject to any man, " since by the Divine mouth it is exalted above all" In the canon laws the Roman, pontiff is described as " our Lord God the pope," and said to be " neither God nor man, but both." But the climax of assumption, the keystone of the arch of Papal pretension, is probably to be found in the " extravagant" of Boniface VIII., the Tlnam Sanctam, which runs thus: "All the faithful of Christ by necessity of salvation are subject to the Roman pontiff, who judges all men, but is judged by no one." "This authority is not human, bat rather Divine. . . . Therefore we declare, assert, define, and pronounce, that to be subject to the Roman pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation." ……………………………..

……………………..It is futile to allege that the Papacy does not make these claims and speak these great words against God, but in His name and as His representative. The answer is patent. This prophecy foretells what the power predicted would do, not what it would profess to do. Does the Papacy give God the glory, or does it glorify itself P Facts cannot be set aside bv false pretences. Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. The head of a Christian Church would not overtly array himself against Christ ; if he does so, it will be under semblance of serving Him.
The Papacy has abundantly branded on her own brow this particular of the prophecy—the boastful, blasphemous claim to Divine authority and absolute dominion. It has assumed Divine attributes, and even the very name of God, and on the strength of that name claimed to be above all human judgment.

5. Lawlessness was the next feature we noted in the little horn. We have given above some specimens of the Papal claim to set aside all laws Divine and human. " The pope has also annulled the only surviving law of paradise, con-firmed by the words of Christ. The Lord ordained, ' What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.' The pope ordains, ' We decide also that, according to the sacred canons, the marriages contracted by priests and deacons be dissolved, and the parties brought to do penance.' The Papacy has farther annulled the second commandment, given on the mount by the lips of God—in theory, by the childish and false distinction between heathen idols and Christian images; and in practice, by hiding it from the people, and blotting it out from the catechisms of general instruction. The pope has further annulled the main laws of the gospel. He forbids the cup to the laity, although the Lord Himself has commanded, ' Drink ye all of it.' He forbids the people of Christ, in general, to use the word of God in their own tongue; though Christ Himself has charged them, ' Search the Scriptures.' He forbids the laity to rea-son or converse on the doctrines of the gospel; though St. Peter has commanded them, ' Be ye ready to give a reason of the hope that is in you.' The pope, finally, sanctions the invocation of Saints and angels: though St. Paul has warned us, ' Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility find worshipping -of angels'; though St. John has renewed the charge to the disciples of Christ, ' Little chil-dren, keep yourselves from idols '; and an angel from heaven renews the caution, in his words to the same holy apostle, ' See thou do it not, for I am thy fellow servant; worship God.'"

6. Systematic and long continued persecution of the saints is one of the most marked features of the little horn of the prophecy. It is predicted that he should " wear out the saints of the Most High." His first great characteristic is blasphemous opposition to GOD ; his next salient feature is oppressive cruelty towards men : and just as Christ allowed His people to suffer ten persecutions under the pagan em-perors of Rome, so he allowed His faithful witnesses to be worn out by the cruelties of Papal Home. " They shall be given into his hand." The Church has to tread in the foot-steps of Christ Himself, who resisted unto blood striving against sin, and was put to death by the power of Rome. She is called to the fellowship of His sufferings; and while they secured the salvation of our race, hers have not been unfruitful, for the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.
But we must compare the facts of history with the pre-diction of prophecy on this point, to see how deeply this mark is engraved on the Papacy as upon no other power that has ever existed in the earth. That the Church of Rome and her Papal head have persecuted largely and long, none can pretend to deny ; in fact, so far from denying it, Rome glories in it, and regards it as one of her great merits. Other nations have now abandoned as unsound " the bloody tenet of persecution," Rome retains it still, approves it theoretically, and would carry it out as vigorously as ever practically, if she could. Other powers have persecuted to a small extent and occasionally, in the past, but never syste-matically and by law throughout ages. All but Rome now hold religious liberty to be an inherent right of man. Rome has, on the other hand, persecuted on principle, and steadily from the seventh century right on to the French Revolution and to some extent almost to the present time. She does so still in the secret recesses of her nunneries and monasteries, under the name of penance. Why else does she require shops for the sale of instruments of bodily torture, such as exist this day in London ?
Rome's contention is, not that she does not persecute, but only that she does not persecute saints. She punishes here-tics—a very different thing. The first would be wicked, the last she esteems laudable. In the Rhemish New Testament there is a note on the words " drunken with the blood of saints," which runs as follows: "Protestants foolishly ex-pound this of Rome, because heretics are there put to death. But their blood is not called the blood of saints, any more than the blood of thieves or man-killers, or other malefac-tors ; and for the shedding of it no commonwealth shall give account." This is clear. Rome approves the murder of "heretics," and fully admits that she practises her principles.
The question therefore becomes this, Are those whom Rome calls "heretics" the same as those whom Daniel calls "saints"? If so, the identification of the Papacy is as complete in this respect as in all the previous points. In order to arrive at an answer to this question, let us take Bole's own definition of a heretic. The following statements are from authorized documents, laws, and decrees of the Papacy, dating from the time of Pope Pelagius in the sixth century, twelve hundred years ago. " Schism is an evil. Whoever is separated from the apostolic see is doubt-less in schism. Do then what We often exhort. Take pains that they who presume to commit this sin be brought into custody. ... Do not hesitate to compress men of this kind, and if he despise this, let him be crushed by the public powers." This, it will be observed, makes a want of perfect submission to the pope, even though no false doctrine or evil practice be alleged, a ground for persecution. Pope Damagus, whose election to the pontificate was secured by a hundred and thirty-seven murders, authorizes persecution of those who speak against any of the holy canons, and adds, " It is permitted neither to think nor to speak differently from the Roman Church." This is one of the canons which it is blasphemy to violate; and he who ventures to differ, even in thought, on any point whatever from the Roman Church is therefore a heretic. Hundreds of decisions on detailed examples of heresy are all summed up in this one. The Roman decrees everywhere supply similar definitions. Whatever is short of absolute, unconditional surrender of all freedom of act or word, or even of thought and conscience, is heresy. Every evangelical Christian in the world is there-fore, according to Romanist canons, a heretic, and as such liable to " punishment." And moreover Rome frankly ad-mits that it is only where she cannot in the nature of things carry out her ecclesiastical discipline that she is justified in refraining from persecution. The Papacy teaches all her adherents that it is a sacred duty to exterminate heresy. From age to age it has sought to crush out all opposition to its own dogmas and corruptions, and Papal edicts for persecution are innumerable. The fourth Lateran Council issued a canon on the subject, which subsequently became an awful instrument of cruelty.
For long ages it was held and taught universally that whoever fell fighting against heretics had merited heaven. Urban II. issued a decree, acted on, alas! to this day in Ireland, that the murder of heretics was excusable…………….

It must never be forgotten that all Rome's ordinances against heresy, all its statutes of persecution, remain in its canon law unabrogated, unchanged, and—as the Papacy is infallible in its own esteem—unchangeable, " irreformable." Its present disuse of persecution practically is the result of the heavy judgments which have, since the Reformation, and especially since the French Revolution, overtaken it. It has now no army and no Inquisition of its own, nor is any single kingdom in Europe willing any longer to act as its executioner. It lacks the power—it utterly lacks the power—to persecute directly or indirectly. It can only stir up sedition and revolt in Protestant countries, and thus endeavour to injure and weaken Protestant powers, as it is doing to-day in Ireland and in the United States. It is too weak politically to defy modern society by reintroducing mediaeval tortures, massacres, religious crusades, and the auto de fe. But it is as willing as ever, and awaits the opportunity only. As a drunkard may retain his vicious appetite when he has no longer the means of gratifying it, so Rome—long drunken with the blood of saints—is re-strained from further maddening and debasing draughts of her dreadful beverage by nothing but inability to procure them. The Papacy, by justifying as righteous all the hor-rible persecutions of the past, attests her readiness to renew them whenever the opportunity may serve.
As I shall have to recur to this subject when treating of St. John's foreview of Romanism, I will add nothing further on this point. I have said enough to show that this sixth mark of the little horn attaches most distinctly to the Papacy, and indicates it alone among all the powers that have ever hold sway on the Roman earth. It has martyred by millions the saints of God, the best and holiest of men. Its persecuting edicts range over the entire period of its existence; the present pope has endorsed them by his approval of the syllabus of Pius IX., and he threw over them the mantle of infallibility. •

7. Its duration. A certain definite period is assigned to i the rule of the little horn. That period is expressed in symbolic language, harmonious with the symbolic or hiero-glyphic character of the whole prophecy. It is "time, times and a half," or " 1,260 days." This is a miniature symbol of the true period, just as the beast is a miniature symbol of the empire, and the little horn of the Papacy of Rome. Scripture elsewhere gives us the scale on which it is to be enlarged, " a year for a day." It means therefore 1,260 years. The political supremacy and the persecuting power of the see of Rome were to last for this period and no longer. We have shown you that the popedom dates from the begin-ning of the seventh century. Twelve and half centuries added brings us to the end of the nineteenth century—in other words, to the days we live in, and in which Rome has ceased to be governed by its popes and has become the capital of the kings of Italy. I have no time to expound this chronological point fully to you this evening. If you wish to study it, you will find it carefully and exactly treated in my recent work, " Light for the Last Days," But it leads me to the final point in this identification.

8. The doom of the predicted power. What is the end of this symbolic little horn ? " They shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end." " The beast was slain, and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame." This last clause of the prophecy is of course not yet fully accomplished, as it is the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven that brings about the final consummation (v. 13). Speculations about the future we leave to futurists, and therefore it might at first sight seem as if we ought to say nothing on this point of the prophecy. Bat it is not so. This doom consists clearly of two parts : first, the consuming and destroying to the end; and then the end itself, symbolized by the slaughter of the beast, the committal of his body to the burning flame. Now the first part of this doom is fulfilling, and has been fulfilling ever since the Reformation, and especially ever since the French Revolution; though the second part is still future. We ask, Has there not been going on for the last few centuries a process by which the once mighty power of the Papacy has been sensibly consumed,—a weakening process, analogous to consumption in the human frame,—a wasting decay tend-ing to extinction ?

It must be borne in mind that this prophecy of Daniel takes up the political aspect of the great antichrist, not his religious character. It views him as a monarch of the Roman world, not as a bishop of the Christian Church. We come to that aspect of his career presently, when we take up Paul's foreview. Here it is one horn among ten, one kingdom among ten Latin kingdoms, though in some senses ruling over them all. The question is, Has there not been such a decay and diminution of Papal sovereignty, such a wast-ing and weakening of Papal power, such a loss of revenue, influence, and territory, as may be fairly said to fulfil this prediction ?

Now I mentioned some facts at the beginning of this lecture which indicate a very considerable growth of Papal influence in England during the last fifty years. Many so fix their gaze on these facts as to get an impression that Romanism is gaining ground in the world generally. This is very far from being the case, as a glance at the compara-tive positions of the Papacy in the thirteenth century and the two following ones, with its position now in the nineteenth, will show. Then Rome actually exercised the " dominion " which she can now only claim. Then, with the consent of his barons, the king of England agreed to hold his kingdom as the pope's feudatory, and to pay him annu-ally one hundred thousand marks as an acknowledgment. Can you imagine Queen Victoria and the lords and commons of England agreeing to that sort of thing now ? Then the great and valiant emperor of Germany stood for three winter days and nights barefoot in the courtyard of "His Holiness," waiting for the honour of an audience, in which he might beg the pope's pardon for having acted as an independent monarch ! Can you imagine the Kaiser Wilhelm, of Berlin, doing that now ? Then wherever he pleased the pope could suspend all the observances of religion, even to the burial of the dead and the marriage of the living, in any country with which he was offended. In what kingdom could he do so now ? Long after his absolute dominion was gone, the pope had what were called concordats with different nations, in which it was agreed that, in return for the pope's spiritual support, they would uphold him by their armies and navies. All these have come to an end; not a nation in Europe lifted a finger to help him when the last vestige of his temporal dominion was violently taken away.

Direct political power he now has none, though his position as head of the apostate Roman Church gives him still immense indirect influence. The ten kings as such have entirely shaken off his yoke, and he himself has no longer any sovereign jurisdiction. His territories are taken away, as well as his dominion. The wealth, which was once enormous, is equally gone; the immense landed estates belonging to the convents are, for the most part, confiscated to secular uses. But the greatest fact of all in this con-nexion is the number of those who have rejected his religious pretensions. At the Lateran Council, in 1513, after all the so-called heretics had been silenced by fire and sword, an orator, addressing the pope, said, "The whole body of Chris-tendom is now subject to one head, even to thee; no one now opposes, no one now, objects." To-day there are about a hundred and fifty millions of Protestants in the world ! Has not the dominion of the Papacy been consumed ? Can a few thousand perverts in England weigh much against this stu-pendous fact, that 150,000,000 of mankind are no more subject to the Pope of Rome than to the Lama of Tibet ? When we take into account all the twelve centuries of Papal history, and remember that this emancipation belongs to the last three only, we must admit that the predicted con-sumption has made considerable progress. The political dominion and the temporal possessions are gone; the Papacy is no longer a kingdom, but only an ecclesiastical power, and, counting the Greek Church, there are far more so-called' Christians outside than inside the pale of the apostate Latin Church, of which it is the head.
This feature of the prediction is then as clearly applicable to Romanism as all the rest.
Let me inquire, can any one suggest any other power in which all these marks, or the majority of them, meet ? They are eight in number, and definite in character. The prophecy lays its finger on the place where we are to find the great enemy—ROME ; on the point of time in the course of history at which we may expect to see him arise—the division of the Roman territory into a commonwealth of kingdoms; it specifies the nature of the power—politico-ecclesiastical ; its character—blasphemously self-exalting, lawless, and persecuting; it measures its duration—1,260 years; and specifies its doom—to have its dominion gradually consumed and taken away, and then to be suddenly destroyed for ever, because of its blasphemous assumptions, by the epiphany in glory of the Son of man, introducing the king-dom of God on earth.
The proof that the Papacy is the power intended is strictly cumulative. If it answered to one of these indications there would be a slight presumption against it; if to several, a strong one; if to the majority, an overwhelming one ; while if it answer to all, then the proof that it is the power intended
becomes to candid minds irresistible. There is not a single clause in the prophecy that cannot be proved to fit the Roman Papacy exactly, except the last, which is not yet fulfilled.
Rome, which in her pagan phase defiled and destroyed the literal temple of God at Jerusalem, in her Papal days defiled and destroyed the anti-typical spiritual temple of God—the Christian Church. Was it not worthy of God to warn that Church beforehand of the coming of this dreadful antichristian power, and to cheer her in all the sufferings she would have to endure from its tyranny by a knowledge of the issue of the great and terrible drama ? Was it not right that the Roman power, pagan and Papal, should occupy as paramount a place on the page of Scripture as it has actually done on the page of history ? The eighteen Christian centuries lay open before the eye of the omniscient God, and no figure stood out so prominently in all their long course as that of the great antichrist. The pen of inspiration sketched him in a few bold, masterly strokes ; and there is no mistaking the por-trait. In subsequent lectures I shall have much to say to you of the antichristian doctrines and practices of the Papacy. To-night we have but studied the broad outline drawn in the days of Belshazzar, which forms a broad foundation for what must follow.

Notice, in conclusion, the evidence of inspiration afforded by this wonderful prophecy. Could Daniel foresee the things that were coming on the earth ? How should he happen to light on the notion that there would be four universal em-pires, and four only, and that after the fourth there would arise—what the world had never seen before—a common-wealth of ten kingdoms ? How could he depict so strange and peculiar a power as the Papacy ? How could he con-ceive it ? A little, weak kingdom, yet controlling all king-doms !—a human dynasty like any other, yet exalting itself against God, and slaughtering His saints !—a power so wicked that heaven itself is moved for its destruction, and the whole Roman earth ruined on its account! Supposing for a moment this was a sketch from imagination: how comes it that history has so wonderfully realized it? The prediction did not produce its own fulfilment, for they who fulfilled it denied its application to themselves. It was not concocted to fit the events, for the events did not begin for a thousand years after it was published. The events were not arranged by men to fit the prophecy, for they extend over forty suc-cessive generations. There is no solution of the problem save the true one: " Holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost " ; " He revealeth the deep and secret things : He knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with Him."
Let me then solemnly charge you, reverence this "holy volume, heed its warnings, dread the judgments it denounces, believe its promises, obey its precepts, study its sacred pre-dictions ; for be ye very sure it is the inspired word of the only living and true God, who is, as Nebuchadnezzar declared of old, " a God of gods, a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets.'*

Grattan Guinness - Romanism and the reformation.

I have been accused of being a praeterist and an amillelialist. I am neither.

I believe that those who are saved will meet the Lord in the air, according to the scripture, I believe that we will return to Earth with the Lord, and the millenial state will begin.

David

Some time ago I mentioned that in his book "Light for the Last days", Dr Grattan Guinness said that the year 1917 would be a year which marked some point in the fall of the Turkish Empire. He deduced this from the last book af Daniel and the 1335 days, representing the 1335 years of the Muslim calendar. In this year The Turkish Empire fell when Allenby marched into Jerusalem. The Turkes dropped the Arabic script and adopted the Roman in its place, they also dropped the Arabic Callendar, and adopted the Roman. The 1335 in the old Turkish calendar was 1917 in the new. Turkish coins at the time had 1335 on one side and 1914 on the reverse.

Since then I have borrowed a book entitle "The Guinness Legend" by Michelle Guinness. Michelle was a Jewess and I believe a Christian, who also wrote "Child of the Covenant" and "Promised land".

The Legend covers the Brewing Line, the Banking Line but mostly the Grattan Line. Henry Grattan, grandson of the founder of the Brewery, received a £400 inheritance but gave it away to his mother. He was teetotal. The Guinnesses wanted to Join Hudson Taylor in China, but Hudson advised them to train missionaries in London, which they didd and sent many to China and Congo. One daughter, Lucy married Dr Kahl Kuhm who was a missionary in Sudan. He tried to get young people interested in going to Sudan as the Muslims were at that time spreading their influence in that Country. He was unsuccessful as sudan did not have the appeal of Africa or China. If same had taken notice the situation may have been different today.

But I digress. to get back to the historical interpretation of Daniel I attache a part of one chapter from Michelle's book.

1914-

Tragedy and Triumph

It was London, June 1917. General Sir Beauvoir de Lisle, KCB, KCMG, DSO, on leave for ten days, was reading The Times over breakfast, enjoying a return to his normal home routine, now dis-rupted by his command in the trenches. An announcement caught his eye. His old friend Field Marshal Sir Edmund Allenby had been appointed Commander-in-Chief of the forces in the Middle East.

This was no comfortable sinecure. The British were determined to establish their supremacy in all territories around the Suez Canal. Allenby's brief was to deliver the Holy Land from over a hundred years of domination by a now crumbling Ottoman Empire. Those who had thought it would be a relatively simple task after the conquest of the Sinai Peninsula had quickly changed their minds. With German support the Turks held on to their precious possession with the iron grip of a drowning man. The Allies under the command of Sir Archibald Murray had fought a long, bitter campaign and suffered an exceedingly painful defeat at Gaza.
Few would envy Allenby his appointment or rush to congratulate him. Beauvoir de Lisle thought differently. That was why he dressed in a hurry and with his wife went at once to the Grosvenor Hotel, where Allenby was staying. He recounted the details of their meeting in his autobiography: Reminiscences of Sport and War - Eyre aand Spottiswoode, London, 1939, pp. 229-230

"No cause for congratulation," Allenby said in his gruff way. "Had to give up a jolly fine army to take over a rotten show. Archie Murray is a good man and if he could not succeed, I don't see how I can."

"My dear Allenby," I replied, "you are on velvet. You may
make all the mistakes in tactics or strategy, but nothing can prevent you from being in Jerusalem by the 31st December."

"How do you make that out?" he asked. I told him of the book, Light for the Last Days by Dr Grattan Guinness in 1886, in which he had stated that the interpretation of the three prophecies in Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation all pointed to the same year, 1917, as the end of the Gentile Times, a period of 1260 years - Time, times and a half a time.
"At the same time," I added, "don't forget your big guns."

Beauvoir de Lisle said goodbye to Allenby and was about to go, when a sudden thought occurred to him and he turned back. "When you get to Jerusalem, Allenby, I hope you will not ride in state, for that is reserved in the future for One higher than you."

The significance of the advent of the year 1917 had not passed unnoticed. In January a correspondent in the Daily Mail reminded readers that Henry Grattan Guinness had said, "There can be no doubt that those who live to see this year will have reached one of the most important, perhaps the most momentous, of these terminal years of crisis."

Light for the Last Days was reissued for the sixteenth time in July and reprinted again in August. In the fourth year of a disheartening war the people needed a sense of eternal destiny, a glimmer of hope.

Arthur James Balfour, the Foreign Secretary, had in all probabil-ity been introduced to Henry Grattan Guinness' books during one of his many visits to Elveden. His host, Lord Iveagh, was the author's cousin. On November 2nd he signed his historic Declaration:

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish People and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

On December 11th Sir Edmund Allenby rode at the head of his victorious troops up to the gates of Jerusalem. Then he stopped, got down from his horse, and leading her by the bridle, walked into the Holy City.

And Geraldine Guinness Taylor (daughter of Henry and daughter in law of Hudson Taylor) opened her Bible and read to her fourteen-year-old nephew, Gordon, words he never forgot: "Therefore say to the house of Israel: Thus says the Lord God: It is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I am about to act, but for the sake of my holy name . . . For I will take you from the nations, and gather you from all the countries, and bring you into your own land."

With her dying words, Lucy Guinness Kumm had said her boys would live to see, "those unutterable days" and she was right. But there were several more dates to which Henry Grattan Guinness had referred, the last being 1948. He had scribbled it in pencil in his large black Bible, beneath the final paragraph of the book of Ezekiel.

On May 15th, 1948 the British mandate in Palestine came to an end. The independent Jewish State of Israel was born. Geraldine Taylor, sitting in her armchair, heard the announcement on her wireless. She was eighty-five and it seemed she had waited all her life for this moment. She picked up her pen and to her niece, Joy, who was writing her biography, she wrote, "From a full heart words will hardly come this morning; yet I long to write to you. It is like trying to express the inexpressible."

The news of Israel's independence may have been the culmination of Geraldine's hopes and aspirations, the fulfilment of her father's vision, the sign that she could die in peace; for the brewing side of the family it was at best bitter-sweet. On November 6th, 1944 Walter Guinness, Lord Moyne, had been assassinated by a group of Jewish terrorists known as the Stern Gang.

Brother, David can't and won't answer them. He is content to post other peoples' works which support his incorrect views.

And not only that Brother Jim, does he really believe I want to read all of that? Not only that I want to but I am not going to take the time to attempt to wade through all of that. My goodness David, who are you trying so desperately to convince? I am not convincible myself. I believe the Bible not the writings of some man.

In Christ,
George

Martin

You wrote

I have never said that I said futurism and pretribulationism is a RCC invention. The early church were historicists not futurists. They may not have got it completely right as there wasn't a history to compare it with. They did however all teach that the let or hinderence which paul referred to was The Roman Emperor (he) and the Empire (what). The NKJV is wrong here when it says "He" and puts "or he" in the margin.

Augustine was born at Tagaste on 13 November, 354. according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia. (Just googled Augustine) As I am not an amillenialist I dont think the question applies to me. However I will say that I don't think Augustine was the first a-millenialist.
It seems that there were some in St Paul's day, see 2 Tim 2: 16-18. Amillenialists say that the first resurrection is salvation, and that Paul here is referring to the second resurrection. I think that Paul would say plainly if he meant the second resurrection. They also seem to believe a mixture of historicism and futurism, and do not believe (as far as I can understand) that the meek shall inherit the earth. I asked one about this point and he said "the meek shall inherit the Land, as NIV, by which they mean heaven. None of this do I agree with.

Returning to Daniel 9. Please can you answer this as I don't understand your reasoning on this chapter. Which of these were in this verse were not fulfilled atb the time of the Lord or by Him or in Him ? Daniel 9: 24.Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

I am so tired of people invoking the "Early Church Fathers", or the Early Church, as if anyone could be a expert on the matter. The fact that there is few writings on the early church other than God's Word attests to the fact that the bible is our soul authority during that time period. Remember that during the time of the "Early church fathers"(Christ is our only father) that God's Word existed then too.

The historicist viewpoint of eschatology simply doesn't add up or make any sense. It is a futile attempt to disprove the thought of the Lord coming to take away His bride before the 70th week. The thought of the rapture, as we call it, is so far from the historicist viewpoint, they misinterpret what God's Word says as much as possible to disprove it.

Then since you believe this, then you are saying that Jesus will confirm the sacrificial covenant with the Jews.

Love in Christ,

Jim

Just a brief post. Sorry for getting some wrong labels on you Davo. Just to clarify, you believe in the rapture and a literal millennium, but not the pre-trib position?

Regarding Augustine: I have read some of the ancient writings and before 250AD the literal-historical-grammatical method was the accepted means of interpreting Scripture.

When Augustine, Origen and others came in they brought bucket loads of their Greek philosophy methods.

Now, at the time the Greeks were civilising and could not merge their ancient beliefs of gods who had committed incest and ohter "uncivilised" acts with their modern way of thinking. So, they began to see symbols and allegories in order to explain away the plain reading of their historical beliefs in the gods.

So in comes these men to the church and carry over over the method of interpreting literature.

In a sense, if Augustine had not started the, "Its not what it says, its something else" method of reading the Bible, the RCC could never have started.

Brother Martin, I believe Davo's position would be considered a historicist premillennialist position(even though his eschatological views tend to be iterated in amillennial fashion).

Ours would be considered the dispensational/pre-tribulational-premillennialist position.

This post was last modified: Thu May 08, 2008 11:58 AM by Jim.

Bro Martin

I think Jim has got it about right in his last post although I did not believe that I expressed any a-mil views.

David

Davo's views would also be considered Partial-Preterist.