Part 10 (1/2)
4. Papists' adoration of idols and images was also borrowed direct from the heathen; for all such practises were absolutely forbidden by the Mosaic law and had no place in primitive Christianity.
5. Their religious orders of monks and nuns were also in imitation of the vestal virgins of antiquity.
The beast is described as a blasphemous power. Adam Clarke has stated that ”blasphemy, in Scripture, signifies _impious speaking_, when applied to G.o.d; and _injurious speaking_, when directed against our _neighbor_.” A name of blasphemy would therefore properly signify the prost.i.tution of a sacred name to an unholy purpose. An example of this kind is given in Rev. 2:9, where we read, ”I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagog of Satan.” In this case certain wicked men blasphemed the name by calling themselves Jews, since according to Scripture 'he _only_ is a Jew who is one inwardly.' But to prost.i.tute a sacred name to an unworthy use would be no more impious or blasphemous than would the a.s.sumption by man of those rights and prerogatives which belong to G.o.d alone. This the pope has done for ages. Among the blasphemous t.i.tles which he has a.s.sumed are these: ”Lord G.o.d the Pope,” ”King of the World,” ”Holy Father,” ”King of kings and Lord of lords,” ”Vicegerent of the Son of G.o.d.” For ages he has claimed infallibility, and this claim became a dogma of the church when adopted by the General Council of 1870.
Further, he claims power to dispense with G.o.d's laws, to forgive sins, to release from purgatory, to d.a.m.n and to save. To call the Roman Catholic Church the _holy_ church of the Bible is to prost.i.tute a sacred name to an unworthy inst.i.tution. And to elevate a man to the place where ”he as G.o.d sitteth in the temple of G.o.d, showing himself that _he_ is G.o.d,” by claiming those prerogatives which belong to G.o.d only, is most flagrant blasphemy.
[Sidenote: A persecuting power]
”And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (chap. 13: 7). Here we have a direct prediction of that reign of tyranny in the Dark Ages in which millions of people suffered martyrdom at the hands of papal Rome.
I am aware that many Catholics affirm that their church never persecuted, that it was the civil power that did this dread work of slaughter. We must remember, however, that the beast of Revelation 13 signifies the imperial and the ecclesiastical power in the closest union possible; for the beast appears _as one_, the two phases being represented by the combination of symbols from the two distinct departments of life--human and animal. In the seventeenth chapter we have the same distinct characteristics again set forth, but in a different combination, the beast appearing simply as a beast, thus representing the political power of Rome; while the ecclesiastical power is represented by a corrupt woman sitting on the beast and directing its course. In that description it is stated, ”And I saw _the woman_ drunken _with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus_” (verse 6). The Romish church itself is, therefore, represented as partic.i.p.ating in the work of martyrdom.
Does this divine prediction agree with the facts of history? It is altogether impossible to compute correctly the number of those who were in different ways put to death for opposing the corruption of the Church of Rome. A million Waldenses perished in France. Nine hundred thousand Christians were slain within thirty years after the inst.i.tution of the Jesuits. The Duke of Alva boasted that he had put to death 36,000 in the Netherlands by the hands of the common executioner. The Inquisition destroyed 150,000 within thirty years. If it be a.s.serted that this was accomplished by the secular arm, I reply that sentence of death was p.r.o.nounced upon so-called heretics by the church and that the secular power was simply a tool for carrying the barbarous sentence into execution. We can not forget that the pope applauded Charles IX of France and his infamous mother, Catherine de Medici, for their part in the ma.s.sacre of St. Bartholomew, and ordered a medal struck in honor of the event; that following the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, when 300,000 were cruelly butchered during the reign of Louis XIV, Pope Innocent XI extolled the king by special letter, as follows: ”The Catholic Church shall most a.s.suredly record in her sacred annals _a work of such devotion toward her_ and CELEBRATE YOUR NAME WITH NEVER-DYING PRAISES ... _for this most excellent undertaking_.”
Popery has for ages claimed the right to exterminate by death those who were heretics. Numerous provincial and national councils have issued cruel and b.l.o.o.d.y laws for the extermination of the Waldenses and other so-called heretics. Besides these, at least six of their _General_ Councils, the highest judicial a.s.semblies of the Roman Church, with the popes themselves sometimes present in person, have by their decrees p.r.o.nounced the punishment of death for heresy: 1. The Second General Council of Lateran (1139) in its twenty-third canon. 2.
The Third General Council of Lateran (1179), under Pope Alexander III.
3. The Fourth General Council of Lateran (1215), under Pope Innocent III. 4. The Sixteenth General Council, held at Constance in 1414. This council, with Pope Martin present in person, condemned the reformers Huss and Jerome to be burned at the stake, and then prevailed on the Emperor Sigismund to violate the safe conduct which he had given Huss and signed by his own hand and in which he had guaranteed the reformer a safe return to Bohemia; and this inhuman sentence against Huss was then carried out. 5. The Council of Sienna (1423), which was afterwards continued at Basil. 6. The Fifth General Council of Lateran (1514).
That such teachings and practises were an integral part of Romanism is easily shown. St. Aquinas, the ”angelic doctor,” argued that heretics might justly be killed. Cardinal Bellarmine, in a Latin work, _De Laicis_, still extant, entered into a regular argument to prove that the church has the right of punis.h.i.+ng heretics with death and should exercise that right. Bellarmine was a nephew of one pope and a close friend and a.s.sociate of others, a champion of Romanism, and a defender of its doctrines. In the work above referred to be declares that ”_heretics were often_ _burned_ BY THE CHURCH.” ”The Donatists, Manicheans, and Albigenses were routed and annihilated by arms.”
Many timid-hearted Christians in the present age of religious toleration think that it is almost unchristianlike for us to bring up and lay to the charge of Rome such a sweeping indictment for those ma.s.sacres of Christians in a barbarous age. Such it would be had Rome ever disavowed these acts or shown any signs of true repentance. The fact is that it is the boast of Catholics that ”Rome never changes.”
Well has Charles Butler said, ”It is most true that the Roman Catholics believe the doctrines of their church to be unchangeable; and that it is a tenet of their creed, that what their faith ever has been, such it was from the beginning, _such it is now, and such it ever will be_.”
In a copy of the eleventh edition of ”The Faith of Our Fathers,” by Cardinal Gibbons, page 95, I read: ”It is a marvelous fact, worthy of record, that in the whole history of the church, from the nineteenth century to the first, no solitary example can be adduced to show that any pope or general council ever revoked a decree of faith or morals enacted by any preceding pontiff or council. Her record in the past ought to be a sufficient warrant that she will _tolerate no doctrinal variations in the future_.” So the doctrine of her inherent right to persecute and slay every one who disagrees with her, which has been enacted by popes and general councils and carried out in the past, is still in vogue.
”And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.”
In our study of Revelation 12 and 13 we have observed that Rome in its twofold form--pagan and papal--is represented by the dragon and the beast respectively. This has been established so clearly as to remove well nigh all doubt concerning the identification. It will be profitable, however, to give brief consideration to certain parallel prophecies in Daniel; for in addition to covering the same ground and describing under other symbols the same general facts of history, they furnish us an infallible starting-stake, thus establis.h.i.+ng definitely the truth of the interpretation concerning the Roman power, and giving us a solid basis from which we can proceed with logical certainty to the interpretation of other symbols in the Revelation.
[Sidenote: The image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream]
In the second chapter of Daniel we have the narrative of a dream which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had during the time of the Jewish captivity in that city. After the king awoke, he was so confused that notwithstanding the deep impression made by his nocturnal experience, he could not recall to mind the dream itself. He therefore had recourse to the Chaldeans and wise men of his realm. They failed to make known his dream, whereupon he became furious and decreed their death. At this juncture Daniel came forward and announced that if given time he would fulfil the king's desire, and shortly afterward he appeared before the king and addressed him as follows:
”Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee: and the form thereof was terrible. This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of bra.s.s, his legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the bra.s.s, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer thres.h.i.+ng-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (Dan. 2:31-35).
The interpretation of this dream, as given by the prophet, particularly concerns and interests us. Said Daniel: ”This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king.”
”Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the G.o.d of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold” (verses 36-38).
At the time of this vision the Chaldean monarchy was in the height of her power and glory. Babylon, the capital city, was the chief ”pride of the Chaldees' excellency,” containing those magnificent hanging gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world. Nebuchadnezzar was pointed out particularly as the head of gold in the image, but we should bear in mind that in the general language of prophecy, ”kings” signify not merely individual monarchs but monarchies under a succession of princes of the same nation. That the real significance of the head of gold is the Babylonian Kingdom or Monarchy is shown by the fact that in the description of the other three divisions of the same image they are referred to directly as _kingdoms_. The Babylonian Kingdom came to an end with the death of Belshazzar, and the overthrow of his father Nabonadius in 538 B.C.
”And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee”
(verse 39). This is the explanation given of that part of the image represented by the breast and arms of silver. This refers to the Medo-Persian empire, which, under Cyrus the Great, captured Babylon 538 B.C. and terminated the Chaldean empire. The Persian kingdom was in certain respects inferior to the Chaldean, just as silver is inferior to gold. It was neither as wealthy nor as prosperous, and was particularly inferior in the character of its kings, for from the death of Cyrus they are said to have been ”as vile a set of men as ever disgraced human nature.”
”And another third kingdom of bra.s.s, which shall bear rule over all the earth.” This refers to the Macedonian, or Greek, empire founded by Alexander the Great. After subduing Greece and reducing Egypt, Alexander penetrated into Asia, took Tyre, met and overthrew Darius the Persian at Arbela, in 331 B.C., thus terminating the Persian Empire. The Grecian Kingdom had less external magnificence than those which preceded it and was founded and maintained by force of arms; but it was more extensive than the others, including many dominions in Europe, Africa, and regions farther to the east in Asia than had before been penetrated. It was foretold that this kingdom should ”bear rule over all the earth”; it was the main boast of Alexander that he had subdued the whole world.
”And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise” (verse 40). This corresponds to the ”legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay,” in the dream itself. The reference is to the Roman Empire, which succeeded the Grecian. Whether or not the two legs had any special significance is not stated, but commentators frequently refer us to the two divisions into which the empire of Rome was afterwards divided--East and West. So also the ten toes of the image are often explained as signifying the ten minor kingdoms which grew out of the empire. But we should bear in mind that this is not stated either in the vision itself or in its inspired interpretation. Only four kingdoms are referred to as such. The fourth division, representing Rome (in both its strong and its weak condition), is described simply as ”the kingdom,” ”the fourth kingdom.” The Roman Kingdom was at first ”as strong as iron.” No other people have ever made such extensive conquests through a long period of time as did the Romans.
If Nebuchadnezzar's dream brought a man into prominence as a symbolic object, we should think that, in accordance with the nature of symbols, a religious power or powers only were intended; but the symbol is not a man, but only the _image_ of a man, and that image is composed of inanimate materials, which, drawn from the department of nature, refer to something political. We therefore have political kingdoms set forth. The very fact that they are represented as appearing in the form of a man, however, may at least allude to their being political powers combined with religious systems. But the combination is not such a one as would naturally lead us to conclude that reference is made to G.o.d's church.
The description of Nebuchadnezzar's dream represented ”a stone cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces” (verse 34). The interpretation of this event is given as follows: ”And in the days of these kings shall the G.o.d of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever”