“Daniel spake and said, I saw in my vision by night, and, behold, the four winds of the heaven strove upon the great sea. And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another” (Daniel 7:2,3).

We now come in our study to what is very generally termed by scholars the second part of the Book of Daniel, commonly called the prophetical. The first part, which concludes with Chapter Six, is historical; that is, it gives a history of certain important events that occurred in Daniel’s life in Babylon — from the time, when as a youth of less than twenty years, he was carried a captive, to nearly seventy years after, when the great city of Babylon was captured by the Medes and Persians. Daniel at this time was almost ninety years of age.

The events recorded in the first six chapters are few in number, but are given in chronological order — some of them occurring at widely separated periods. Even the prophetic dream — vision of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in Chapter Two, comes in incidentally as a part of that history. The events recorded in these six chapters occurred during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, and Darius the Mede. The much larger portion of the historical part of the book was written in the Aramaean or Chaldee language — the language spoken at Babylon; while nearly all of the last six chapters, the prophetic portion, was written in the Hebrew language. The question has been one of more or less conjecture as to why certain portions of the prophetic part (Chapters Seven and Eight) which relate to events that occurred in Belshazzar’s reign should be placed in the second or prophetic portion of the book. The reason seems to be in order that all the prophetic visions and revelations given to Daniel might be grouped together. It is very generally believed by reverent students of the Bible that Daniel himself is the author of the entire book.

When Daniel was given his first vision, in the first year of Belshazzar, as recorded in this seventh chapter, he must have been about seventy years of age. The receiving of these visions was a wonderful privilege. To be given such a privilege would require that he be tried and tested to the uttermost, and thus be proved worthy of so great an honor. May it not have been as a reward for his faithfulness to his God during the long period of his life at the court of Babylon. Long years of faithfulness had proved his worthiness.

This vision came to Daniel in a dream while he was on his bed at night — “visions of his head upon his bed.” He had reached the time in life when the words of his ancestor, David, “The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength, labor, and sorrow,” would come home to him with deep significance. It is most reasonable to believe that the aged saint of God had been meditating upon the Lord’s dealings with him and his beloved people. And now that he would scarcely expect, in the natural course of things, to live much longer — What would be the future of his people? Would he live to see them return to their native land? He evidently knew that the great empire of Babylon could not last much longer. He knew that its fall would witness at least a temporary deliverance of his people. It had been revealed to him in his youthful days that another mighty empire was to succeed Babylon; and that two more in successive order would follow that one (Daniel 2). What would be the future of his beloved countrymen, the chosen people, during the reign of these great empires? How long would the great Jehovah permit these heathen powers to rule the world?

To his mind at that time, it may not have seemed very far distant when God’s Kingdom would be established. While realizing, undoubtedly, that he would not live to see it, yet it was with eager, anxious longing that the aged seer looked forward to the time when the Kingdom of the God of heaven would be set up and earthly kingdoms pass away. This much of future things was made known to him when a youth, long, long years before. It was the goal of his hopes, as also that of his own beloved people.

It is when meditating upon the words of the Lord, when this present evil world is shut out from our thoughts and attention, that the sacred influences from another world, flow in upon us. And it was so with Daniel, when he received this Divine communication. He tells us that he wrote it all down at the time. He did not wait, nor trust it to be handed down by tradition, but he made a record of it immediately, so that when it met its fulfilment, the Lord’s people of future generations might compare the events with the predictions. It was the common custom for the Hebrew prophets to record their predictions. “What thou seest write in a book,” was said to the aged St. John long centuries after Daniel had fallen asleep.

It is said that he “told the sum of the matters.” In the Chaldean tongue, we are informed, this would mean that he “spake the head of the words.”

“[The word sum in this passage] means head; and would properly denote such a record as would be a heading up, or a summary — as stating in a brief way the contents of a book, or the chief points of a thing without going into detail … or perhaps that he did not enter into a minute description of all that he saw in regard to the beasts that came up from the sea, but that he recorded what might be considered as peculiar, and as having special significancy. It is well remarked by Lengerke, on this place, that the prophets, when they described what was to occur to tyrants in future times, conveyed their oracles in a comparatively dark and obscure manner, yet so as to be clear when the events should occur. The reason of this is obvious. If the meaning of many of the predictions had been understood by those to whom they referred, that fact would have been a motive to them to induce them to defeat them, and as the fulfilment depended on their voluntary agency, the prophecy would have been void. It was necessary, therefore, in general, to avoid direct predictions, and the mention of names, dates, and places, and to make use of symbols whose meaning would be obscure at the time when the prediction was made, but which would be plain when the event should occur. A comparison of verses 4, 9, 11, 14, will show that only a summary of what was to occur was recorded.”

That which first attracted the attention of the Prophet was the sea; it may have been the Mediterranean Sea — at least some great sea. It was in a disturbed, troubled condition. The winds from the four points of the compass were fiercely blowing upon it, tossing it with fury, and driving it hither and thither. “The four winds  strove upon the great sea.” The word translated “strove” means to burst or rush forth; that is, the winds seemed to be in conflict with one another. They seemed to rush from all quarters, throwing the sea into wild commotion. This evidently has reference to some wild commotion among the peoples and nations of the earth. It would have its fulfilment in nations agitated by internal conflicts, or by the invasions and conquests of armies from all quarters of the earth.

Four Beasts Emerge From Troubled Waters

While observing doubtless with wonder and awe the storm tossed sea, Daniel beheld four great beasts emerge from its troubled waters — not all at the same time, but in successive order — one at a time. The first was like a lion, differing from that wild beast, however, in that it had eagle’s wings. Observing with deep interest the movements of this beast, he records that he “beheld till the wings thereof were plucked,” that is, its feathers were torn off. Then “it was lifted up from the earth and made to stand upon the [hind] feet as a man”; and instead of the ferocious beast heart, there was given to it the timid, fearful heart of a fallen, degenerate man. We know of course that there is no such animal in nature as a winged lion, but this was the appearance to the Prophet, and it had a special significance.

After he had seen the lion come forth from the sea, and had beheld it undergo these strange and surprising transformations, the Prophet’s attention was called to another equally strange and startling sight. It was that of another, a second beast, which was “like to a bear.” It also emerged from the troubled, tempestuous sea, and assumed at first a crouching attitude on the shore. It then raised itself up on one side, and Daniel observed in its mouth three ribs of some mutilated creature, “and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh.”

After he had beheld the bear, and its strange actions, etc., Daniel’s attention was suddenly attracted to a third beast, like a leopard, which, like the others, came up from the great sea. It differed, however, from the leopard in that it had upon its back four wings, like the wings of some strong bird or fowl. A still more strange, weird, and startling feature about this beast was that it had four heads. Of this beast, the Prophet states that it was given dominion, or power.

The Prophet next saw in the night visions another, a fourth beast, of which he gives no name, whose appearance and actions were more strange and terrible than even the three preceding. This, as in the case of the others, came up out of the great storm tossed sea. He describes it as “dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth,” and “nails of brass” He observed doubt- less with astonishment that “it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it.” Furthermore, he noted that it differed from all the beasts that preceded it; and that on its head were ten horns.

While considering the action of this terrible beast, and the coming to view of these ten horns, he beheld coming up among them another little horn, before whom were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and he beheld with astonishment that “in this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great things.” Later on in the vision when he asks of a heavenly being an explanation of this little horn, he says that “his look was more stout than his fellows,” and that this “horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of Days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom” or dominion. It is very apparent that this fourth beast, with its ten horns, and especially the strange movements, actions, and words of the “little horn,” attracted the attention of the Prophet and awakened his interest and anxiety far more than any of the others. The reason for this, doubtless, was that this horn was directed especially to persecuting the saints of God, and in prevailing against them.

But while gazing with rapt attention, astonishment, and amazement upon these strange and mysterious manifestations taking place upon the agitated sea and land, and contemplating what could be the meaning of the terrible actions of these monsters and particularly of the last one, who acted so evilly against the people of God, another scene, one of an entirely different nature, opened before the Prophet’s view. While the fourth beast was operating in its “little horn,” the Prophet saw “till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit … the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” This scene seems evidently to be associated with a particular event in connection with the “little horn’s” career, for the Prophet says, “I beheld then [“I was looking for that time,” another translates it] because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake.” He says further that he continued looking until “the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame”; all of which things are very meaningful, and are explained by the heavenly revealer to Daniel.

It is at this point that the Prophet relates what occurred to the first three beasts. He tells us that, “As concerning the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away: yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time.” This evidently means that as one beast succeeded another, it would have its world-wide dominion taken away, but would continue to exist, and would be under the sway of the one which conquered it.

After describing the closing scenes connected with the career of the fourth beast and its little horn, the Prophet tells of another, a most important, indeed, a special vision, which must have cheered and encouraged him:

“One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” The effect of the vision upon Daniel was depressing. He says, “I was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.” This doubtless means that his heart was made heavy and sad. One reason for this evidently was that he could not fully understand the meaning of the vision; another, and perhaps the greatest reason, was that of the fearful and momentous nature of some of the things indicated. Very like this was the condition of St. John when he beheld the wondrous vision of the sealed scroll; not understanding it and fearful that it might not be made known to him, he “wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book” (Revelation 5:4). How unlike Daniel and St. John are many of the Lord’s people today. How few there are who are in the least measure troubled, or even concerned about understanding either the visions of Daniel or those of St. John. But it has doubtless always been thus; only the few even of the Lord’s people desire to know what is revealed in these specially important revelations of the Most High.

The sacred narrative informs us that after he became able to control his grief somewhat, Daniel came near to one of them who stood by and inquired of him the meaning of what he had seen. The angel, for such doubtless he was, graciously acceded to the Prophet’s request and explained the meaning of the wonderful vision. He gave first a general outline of the meaning of the entire vision, and afterwards, at Daniel’s inquiry for further information, explained further the details.

It will be seen from the first, the outline explanation of the angel, that the vision in its fulfilment covers the entire period from the Prophet’s day down to the establishment of the Kingdom of God over the world: “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings [kingdoms — see verse 23] which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever” (verses 17,18). This was doubtless clearly understood by the Prophet, although he would not be able to realize the long centuries that would elapse before the goal of his hopes would be reached. It is for the “wise” of the Lord’s people in these days to understand this, and to be able to lift up their heads knowing “the day is near, and the fulfilment of every vision,” when not only we shall experience deliverance, but Daniel also shall “stand in his lot at the end of the days.”

It will be recalled that in verse 2 the beasts are represented as coming up from the sea, which represents the agitated, troubled, disturbed state of the peoples and nations. In the angel’s explanation we have it expressed more literally — that the great empires represented by these beasts would spring up in the world when the peoples and lesser governments were in great commotion, because of wars, revolutions, etc. The Prophet does not have revealed to him how long these wild- beast kingdoms would bear rule in human affairs, but it is made plain to him that their dominion was limited by Divine decree, and that they would be succeeded by the dominion of the Son of Man and the saints.

From this Divine explanation we are enabled to see that the vision of the four wild beasts covers the same period and refers to the same things as that of the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, which was explained to the heathen monarch some half century before. In the two visions the four great empires of the world are depicted by strangely contrasted symbols. The great and splendid image of gold, silver, brass, iron, and clay, represents the way that a worldly idolater like Nebuchadnezzar would look upon these great empires. The four ferocious beasts, treading down the earth and breaking everything in pieces, picture the same empires as a man of God sees them. While the great metallic image of the king’s dream refers to the same great empires as do the four beasts in Daniel’s vision, the latter is far more explicit in details, and seems to have been given more especially to describe the history of the world subsequent to 476 AD. Of this we shall say more later. Our purpose at this time will be to locate in history the four empires symbolized by the four beasts, and to note how fitting are the symbolic descriptions.

We first note that the captivity of God’s representative people in Babylon was the occasion of this vision, as also the one in Chapter Two, given over a half century prior to this. The object was to cheer, encourage, and sustain God’s people, the seed of faith, both Jewish and Christian. The long period of delay, the frequent times of tribulation that the Lord’s people were to encounter before the Kingdom of Messiah would be set up, required this. Daniel, as well as his fellow associates, must have been greatly encouraged by this Divine prediction. They would know that the pagan, wild-beast empires, and their ignorance of the true God, were to come to an end at last. They would be comforted with the thought that God had not forgotten His covenant; that the cruel, brutal, and destructive empires of earth had their divinely appointed time; that the dark and trying experiences of the people of God were only for a season; and that “the sure mercies of David” were not to fail, though there was to be ample time for God’s people to manifest the “patience of hope.”

There was nothing in the vision of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream that would enable them to understand how long the period would be before the realization of their hopes; and though it is true that there is a mystical period — a period which has its application to the “little horn,” mentioned in this vision of Daniel, yet it did not convey to their minds any idea as to the duration of the four empires or the “little horn” that would hinder their believing that the time might be comparatively short. Daniel was well aware that the kingdom symbolized by the first beast was Babylon, that its duration would be only seventy years, and that these years, at the time he had this vision, had nearly run their course. Whether the three succeeding empires would be longer or shorter could not have been known by Daniel.

The vision of Daniel and that of Nebuchadnezzar agree in the assertion that the period of Gentile dominion would be marked out by four successive empires bearing rule; and that the fourth, after a time, would be divided into a commonwealth of ten separate but associate kingdoms. Even the enemies of Divine inspiration cannot dispute this. Over twenty-five hundred years have passed since this inspired foreview of history was revealed to the aged Prophet; and what have these long centuries witnessed? Has there actually and conspicuously occurred such a succession of empires — empires exercising by right of conquest a rulership over many other kingdoms — “empires universal, as far as the known world of their day extended — empires that brooked no rival, but lorded it over all during their span of supremacy”? Furthermore, has the course of history up to the present time shown that the fourth was divided into a ten- kingdomed commonwealth?

The first significant thing to be noted in replying to these questions is that the Scriptures themselves name four kingdoms that have borne universal rule in the earth since Daniel’s day. The first is that of Babylon, so stated by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar in the words: “Thou [that is thy kingdom] art this head of gold.” The second is named by the angel Gabriel in a succeeding vision (Daniel 8:20): “The ram which thou sawest having two horns [corresponding to the bear of Chapter Seven] are the kings of Media and Persia.” The third, the one like a leopard, is described under another symbol, that of a “rough goat,” and is stated to be the “king of Grecia.” The fourth is called by name over five centuries after Daniel had the vision. It is mentioned in connection with the narrative in the Gospel of Luke concerning the birth of the great Redeemer: “There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.” Caesar Augustus ruled over the Roman Empire. The records of secular history are equally clear.

“One of the most invaluable relics of antiquity which we possess is the Syntaxis or Almagest of Ptolemy, an astronomer and chronologist, who lived at the time of Hadrian’s destruction of Jerusalem [135 AD]. This accurate writer records in his Canon (in connection with astronomic data verified by modern observations and absolutely certain) the names and dates of fifty five successive sovereigns whose reigns extended over 907 years, from Nabonassar, the first king of Babylon (BC 747), to Antoninus Pius, the emperor of Rome, in whose days Ptolemy wrote. He traces thus the succession of the greatest monarchs in the world from before Daniel’s time to his own, a period of nine centuries, and presents in one unbroken line imperial rule as it was administered by different dynasties of monarchs from various centres of government, in Asia, Africa, and Europe. This Canon of Ptolemy is an unquestioned and unquestionable authority both as to history and chronology. He was not a Jew or a Christian, and had probably no knowledge of the prophecies of Daniel. How did the world’s history for those nine centuries present itself to him? He divides it into four successive parts, and enumerates twenty Babylonian kings, ten Persian (terminating with Alexander the Great, eleven in all), twelve Grecian, and ends with twelve Roman emperors, thus bringing the list down to his own time, which was that of the early Roman Empire. He could not, of course, go any further, or foretell [as Daniel did] the fall of the [fourth] empire, and the rise of the Gothic kingdoms of the Middle Ages. …

“Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome; this was the order Ptolemy saw in looking back; this was the retrospect of the historian, and it accords absolutely with the outline seen beforehand by the Prophet” (H. G. Guinness).

A Picture of Unbroken Imperial Rule

Mr. Faber, an eminent Bible expositor, has called attention to the fact that Ptolemy in his Canon clearly and definitely fixes the very point in history where the different metals of the “image of empires” (Daniel 2) begin and end. He says:

“In each case [that of Daniel and that of Ptolemy] the principle of continuous arrangement is identical. Where Ptolemy makes the Persian Cyrus the immediate successor of the Babylonic Nabonadius [more frequently spelled Nabonnedus] or Belshazzar [his son] without taking into account the preceding kings of Persia or Media, there, in the image, the silver joins itself to the gold; where Ptolemy makes the Grecian Alexander the immediate successor of the Persian Darius [III] without taking into account the preceding kings of Macedon, there, in the image, the brass joins itself to the silver; and where Ptolemy makes the Roman Augustus the immediate successor of the Grecian Cleopatra [the last ruler of the fourth head of the leopard, Egypt] without taking into account the long preceding roll of the consular Fasti [of Rome] and the primitive Roman monarchy, there, in the image, the iron joins itself to the brass. In short, the Canon of Ptolemy may well be deemed a running comment upon the altitudinal line of the great metallic image. As the parts of the image melt into each other, forming jointly one grand succession of supreme imperial domination, so the Canon of Ptolemy exhibits what may be called a picture of unbroken imperial rule, though administered by four successive dynasties, from Nabonassar [grandfather of Nebuchadnezzar] to Augustus and his successors.”

How true, how wonderfully true, is it that the Almighty One who gave these remarkable predictions that portray the general outlines of the world’s history, also raised up historians, and strange to say, unbelieving historians to make a correct record of the fulfilment of these predictions! In the Divine providence Herodotus and other Greek historians were raised up to carry on the records of the past, from the point to which they had been brought by the writings of the Prophets; and the same Divine providence raised up Josephus, at the termination of New Testament history to make a record of the events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem, which was also foretold in one of Daniel’s visions. The same Divine providence raised up Ptolemy to record the fulfilment of the wonderful predictions contained in Daniel 2 and 7. And this is not all by any means.

“The ancient Jewish Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, written shortly before the First Advent; the writings of Josephus, who was born during the lifetime of our Lord, the Commentary of Jerome, and the writings of other Fathers of the early centuries of our era, the histories o f Sulpicius — all give the same outline. In fact, ancient history is written on this principle; all the best writers divide this subject thus, and the experience of school and college teaches us the truth of Daniel’s outline. Do we not study as four separate branches the histories of Rome, of Greece, of Persia, and of Babylon?”

We next take up the consideration of the meaning of the tributary symbols attached to these four wild beasts, the wings of the lion, those of the leopard, together with the latter’s four heads, etc. We will find that they describe most minutely the peculiar characteristics of these great empires of the world. The lion, with its eagle wings, is a most fitting symbol of the great empire of Babylon; it being the king of beasts, and the eagle the king of birds. Both the lion and the eagle are employed by the Prophets to symbolize Babylon. The wings on the lion describe the rapidity with which this kingdom, under Nebuchadnezzar, conquered the world. Its being made to stand on its feet as a man, and a man’s heart being given to it, describes the fearful, timid spirit shown by the successors of Nebuchadnezzar, especially Belshazzar. This was pre-eminently the characteristic displayed by him. He ceased to extend his conquests, and shut himself up in the city of Babylon, which was finally captured by Cyrus and Darius. Thus ended the dominion of the empire symbolized by the first beast.

While the expression in Daniel 2:38, in reference to Babylon, denotes universality, it must be understood with reference to the world then known. As is generally understood by students of the Bible, there are occasional statements where unlimited terms are used in a limited sense, and so it is in this prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar’s empire never extended at all into Europe. During the period when Nebuchadnezzar was making his conquests, and his exploits were occupying the attention of men, Greece and Rome, and even to a much greater extent, France, Spain, and Britain, were peopled merely by nomadic tribes, which were not known at all by the kingdoms of the East. It was in that region where the human family had its beginning, and the first empires were developed, that Nebuchadnezzar was monarch. Even over some Asiatic countries that he conquered, his dominion was not that of an actual administration of government, but rather the exaction of tribute.

The second beast, the bear, symbolizes the great Medo-Persian Empire. The unwieldy, clumsy movements of the bear are a fitting symbol of the manner in which this kingdom made its conquests. Nothing of the agility of the winged lion is seen. The Medo-Persian army even in its less important conquests, numbered not less than a third of a million men. Xerxes came against Greece with an army of two and a half million men. Never in ancient history do we hear of any kingdom bringing such masses of men together and causing the wholesale slaughter of so many individuals as did the Persian power.

It is further said of the bear that “it raised itself on one side.” Various interpretations have been given this as applying to the Persian power. The true meaning seems to be found by keeping in mind that the expression has reference to the bear’s rising from a recumbent position, as if it had been lying down, indicating a state of repose. As applied to the empire, its rising up would seem to represent its arousing itself, after a period of quiet, to make further conquests.

It is difficult to discover the exact time that this feature met its fulfilment, though it seems most reasonable to place it after the conquest of Babylon. Understanding it thus, the three ribs in the mouth of the bear, would represent Lydia, Babylon and Egypt, these powers being conquered in the order given.

“The bidding of it to devour much flesh was likewise fulfilled in the great waste of human life which characterized the ponderous aggressions of this power, which never had the speed and agility of a winged lion, but always moved with the huge heaviness and massive strength of the awkward animal here made to represent it.”

The third beast, like unto a leopard, symbolized the Grecian or Macedonian Empire. The leopard, while not considered one of the noblest or greatest of animals, belongs to the lion order more than to the bear. The peculiar traits of this animal are fierceness and cruelty. It is also noted for its insidious and watchful lying in wait for its prey, and its sudden pouncing upon the objects of its attack. Added to this, its having on its back four wings, made it exceedingly agile and quick in its movements. These are all peculiar and striking characteristics of the Grecian Empire, preeminently so under Alexander the Great. It is written of him that he was impetuous and fierce in his warring expeditions, even as a leopard or panther after his prey. History relates that he “came upon his enemies with that speed as if he flew with a double pair of wings.” He began his conquests at the age of twenty years, and in twelve years from this time the whole world had been brought to bow under his scepter. In a most emphatic and very special sense did the words of the revealing angel, “dominion was given to him,” meet their fulfilment. However, he did not live to enjoy the fruit of his conquests, or to put his vast dominion into a fixed or settled state. The historian informs us:

“The plans of Alexander were brought to an end by the sudden death of their projector, at Babylon at the age of thirty-three (BC 323). Thus cut off in the vigor of early manhood, he left no inheritor either of his power or his projects. When asked on his death bed to whom he left the empire, he said, ‘To the strongest.’ But there was none strong enough. Thus the vast dominion broke into fragments soon after his death … and the generals who had fought under him contended fiercely during twenty years for the fragments. In the year 301 a decisive action took place at Ipsus in Phrygia, the result of which gave Syria and the East to Seleucus, Egypt to Ptolemy, Thrace to Lysimachus, and Macedonia to Cassander” (Swinton, Outlines of the World’s History).

It was these four powers thus springing out of the one empire founded by Alexander that were clearly represented by the four heads on the leopard beast.

Thus were fulfilled these parts of the prophetic vision seen by Daniel and explained by the angel some two hundred years prior to this event. As the Grecian or Macedonian Empire is referred to in later visions and revelations given to Daniel, we reserve further consideration of this empire until we come to those predictions. The nondescript beast, representing the Roman Empire, will next engage our attention.

The Fourth Beast, The Iron Monarchy of Rome

“Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast, which was diverse from all the others, exceeding dreadful, whose teeth were of iron, and his nails of brass; which devoured, brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with his feet; and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows. I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (Daniel 7:19-21).

It was this fourth beast that attracted most the attention of the Prophet. Especially was he anxious to understand concerning its career and end; and it is to this that the very much larger portion of the description and explanation of the angel is devoted.

We have previously seen that both sacred and secular history agree that the fourth great world empire, reckoning from the rule of Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar, was that of Rome. That this power does not come to view in this prophecy until Egypt, the last head of the third or leopard beast, was conquered by the Romans, in 31 BC, is important to understand. This will be seen by keeping in mind that the third beast not only refers to the Grecian or Macedonian Empire which lasted but a brief period, but that it also refers to the territorial division of the Grecian Empire under four dynasties of kings or rulers, symbolized by the four heads, the last one being the Egyptian kingdom under Cleopatra. While Egypt became a Roman province about 31 BC, Rome continued as a republic until 27 BC. The naval battle fought between Octavius (Augustus) Caesar, and Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, practically decided the fate of Egypt. The historian, after giving an account of this naval battle and the death of both Cleopatra and Mark Anthony, thus describes the gradual merging of the Roman Republic into the Empire:

“There was now no one left to withstand Octavius Caesar, who thus remained sole master of the great dominion which the mighty Julius had prepared for him. The senate [of the Republic], in fact, was ready to concede to him the entire authority. He indeed went through the farce, soon after his return to Rome, of resigning the imperatorship; but he was prevailed on to resume it for ten years, and every ten years after to re-resume it. Gradually all the great offices were united in his person, and he became in fact Emperor of the Roman world. We may count the Roman Empire as beginning with the year BC 27, when Octavius was saluted with the new and peculiar title of Augustus” (Swinton, Outlines of the World’s History).

It is at this time that the brass of the metallic image of the king’s dream, which symbolized the Grecian Empire and its divisions, melts into the iron, the great Roman Empire, as historians, without realizing that they were recording the fulfilment of prophecy, show. Most marvelous indeed is this wonderful prophecy concerning the Roman power. When this vision was given to the Hebrew Prophet,

Italy was the home of only a few feeble and constantly warring tribes. Even two hundred years later, in 330 BC, Rome was so little known that the historian, Herodotus, in giving a description of the earth with all its towns and cities, does not even mention it. “Even when the empire of Alexander was falling into decay, Rome was nearly brought to destruction by the Punic wars; and not until just before the end of the Macedonian monarchy, were the Romans sufficiently free from domestic enemies to enter on a career of conquest.” Swinton, the historian, says, “The Macedonian kingdom [one of the heads of the leopard] was over- thrown at the battle of Pydna, 168 BC, and Perseus, the last of the Macedonian kings, adorned as a captive the triumph of a Roman general.” Thus did the third division of the Grecian Empire fall. It was not long after the birth of Christ that all nations had become mere vassals to the Roman government. Gibbon, refer- ring to the vast extent of the Roman dominion of this time, said:

“The empire was above two thousand miles in breadth, from the wall of Antoninus and the northern limits of Dacia, to Mount Atlas and the tropic of Cancer. It extended, in length, more than three thousand miles from the Western Ocean to the Euphrates. It was supposed to contain about sixteen hundred thousand square miles, for the most part of fertile and well cultivated land. The arms of the Republic, sometimes vanquished in battle, always victorious in war, advanced with rapid steps to the Euphrates, the Danube, the Rhine, and the ocean; and the images of gold, or silver, or brass, that might serve to represent the nations and their kings, were successively broken by the iron monarchy of Rome.”

Beyond the frontiers, Gibbon states, there lay “nothing except the ocean, inhospitable deserts, and hostile tribes of barbarians of fierce manners and unknown language, or dependent kings, who would gladly purchase the emperor’s favor by the sacrifice of an obnoxious fugitive.”

We have already noted that the iron and clay of the great metallic image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, as well as the fourth beast of Daniel’s vision, pictures the Roman power in some form, as continuing in existence up to the time of the Second Advent, when it is represented as meeting its destruction by Divine power. These Divine predictions also represent the fourth or Roman power as coming to view on the fall of Egypt, the fourth division of the Grecian. It occupies in the prophecies the whole interval between the overthrow of Cleopatra, 31 BC, and the very close of Gentile dominion. It was, however, to exist in two distinct forms: first, as a universal empire; and second, in a divided form or state. Both predictions, that of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and that of Daniel’s vision, present five separate conditions — four empires and a tenfold commonwealth. It is a fact that is apparent to even the youth of our public schools that the four empires (that is the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman) long since ceased. The fourth or old empire of Rome ended in the fifth century, 476 AD.

A most important question which has a very significant bearing on the understanding of not only the remaining portion of this vision of Daniel, but also on the understanding of the visions of the Revelation, most naturally comes to  mind, namely Was the Roman world divided into ten kingdoms on the fall of the Empire? Before this question can be answered correctly, it will be necessary that we determine first where, or in what part of the world we are to look for these ten kingdoms. Shall we seek for them in the territory occupied by Rome when it had reached the widest extent of its dominion? or “in that part of its territory which was properly Roman as distinguished from the countries belonging to previous empires subjugated by Rome?” The importance of this matter will be seen when it is known that it is really here, at this point, that the correctness or incorrectness of the Historical and Futurist interpretations of the most noted prophecies of God’s Word is determined. The Futurist position is that the ten kingdoms have not yet appeared; and of course if this be true, the “little horn,” which comes up among the ten and which is universally understood by Histor- ical expositors to describe the political aspect of the Antichrist, has not yet made its appearance. It is generally understood by the Futurist that the ten kingdoms must be looked for on the territory which was covered by the Roman Empire at the time of its widest dominion. We believe that this is not the correct thought. As one has truthfully said:

“A very little consideration will show that prophecy regards the four empires as being as distinct in territory as in time; as distinct in geographical boundaries, as in chronological limits. They rise in a definite sequence; the supreme dominion of one does not in point of time overlap the supreme dominion of the following one, nor is the territory of a former ‘beast’ or empire ever regarded as belonging to a later one, though it may have been actually conquered. Each has its own proper theatre or body, and the bodies continue to exist after the dominion is taken away. This is distinctly stated, both in connection with the fourfold image and with the four beasts. In the first case the stone falls upon the clay and iron feet only, but the iron legs, the brazen body, the silver breast, and the golden head, are all by it ‘broken to pieces together.’ Now the empires represented by these have long since passed away. They [as universal empires] cannot therefore be ‘broken to pieces’ by the Second Advent. But the territory once occupied by them is still existing and still populous, and exposed to the judgments of the day of Christ just as much as Rome itself.

“Similarly we read that the three earlier beasts did not cease to exist when the fourth arose. ‘Their dominion was taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and time’ (Daniel 7:12). That is to say, the first three empires are regarded as co-existing with the fourth, after their dominion has ended. This proves that they are regarded as distinct in place as well as in time. They continue to be recognized as territorial divisions of the earth after the disap- pearance of their political supremacy. Now the eastern empire of Rome which it acquired by conquest occupied precisely the same territory as the Grecian Empire had done, and its conquests in Asia occupied the territories which originally formed the Babylonian and Medo-Persian empires. None of this territory belongs to ‘the legs of iron.’ It constitutes the golden, silver, and brazen portions of the image. It cannot be regarded as forming any part of the empire proper and peculiar to Rome.

“The ten horns or kingdoms of the fourth empire must none of them be sought in the realms of the third, second, or first, but exclusively in the realm of the fourth, or in the territory peculiar to Rome, and which had never formed part either of the Grecian, Medo-Persian, or Babylonian empires” (H. G. Guinness).

This was long ago seen by Sir Isaac Newton. In his Observations on Daniel, we read:

“Seeing the body of the third beast [Grecian Empire] is confined to the nations on this side the river Euphrates, and the body of the fourth beast [Roman Empire] 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 the river Euphrates; and for all the eleven horns of the fourth beast among the nations on this side of Greece … 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.”

It will then be seen that the question resolves itself into this, Was the terri- tory that was peculiarly the Roman — commonly called in history the Western Empire, and of which Rome was the capital — divided into ten kingdoms when the Roman government fell? There can be no doubt that this was the case. A noted Futurist writer has said that “it cannot be clearly shown that just so many divisions of the Roman dominion have occurred, either contemporaneously or successively in the past.” Our reply to this is simply an appeal to the historian. Before quoting, however, we will endeavor to show that the prophecy does not require this, but distinctly states that the number would not be constantly and invariably ten. The prophecy represents that when the ten are all formed on the head of the beast, the Prophet sees another, a little horn, springing up among the ten. Surely then when the little horn appeared there must have been eleven. Furthermore, it is stated that three of the first horns were “plucked up by the roots” by this “little horn.” Now if it be true that these were all removed out of the way at one and the same time by the “little horn,” which was not the case, then of course there would be for a time only eight. Or if they were removed one at a time there would be even a greater variation. It is a fact apparent to even the child of history that since its fall as an empire, Western Rome “has been broken up into many independent sovereignties, bound together into the one family of Latin Christendom by a common submission to the popes of Rome. The number of distinct kingdoms has always been about ten — at times exactly ten, sinking at intervals to eight or nine, rising occasionally to twelve or thirteen, but aver- aging on the whole ten.”

History tells us that in 476 AD, the Roman Empire fell, Romulus Augustulus being the last of the emperors. The variations on the part of scholars in naming these ten kingdoms is because of their lists being made up at different periods in history. The lists would of necessity have to be changed from time to time, because of the short periods in which some of the kingdoms had their exisqtence. The Roman Catholic historian, Machiavel, gives a list of the kingdoms which occupied the territory of Western Rome at the time Romulus Augustulus was dethroned. It is worthy of note that this writer did not at all have in his mind this prophecy of Daniel. The list of kingdoms given by him is as follows: The Lombards, the Franks, the Burgundians, the Ostrogoths, the Visigoths, the Vandals, the Heruli, the Sueves, the Huns, and the Saxons; ten in all. The changes that occurred prior and following this were incessant. As the years rolled on horde after horde of the barbarians pressed into the Roman territory for spoils.

We learn from Mr. Guinness that in a work by the Revelation T. R. Birks, enti- tled The Four Prophetic Empires, written full 75 years ago, is contained a list of kingdoms made by this writer for each century from the ninth to the nineteenth. Mr. Birks introduces his enumeration with the remark that “it is sometimes doubtful whether a kingdom can claim an independent sovereignty on account of the complex and varying nature of its political relations.” Those kingdoms in the various lists, where an interrogation is inserted by Mr. Birks, are the ones he thinks contain some elements of doubt as to whether they should be included. This list is as follows:

“AD 860. Italy, Provence, Lorraine, East France, West France, Exarchate, Venice, Navarre, England, Scotland. Total, 10.

“AD 950. Germany, Burgundy, Lombardy, Exarchate, Venice, France, England, Scotland, Navarre, Leon. Total, 10.

“AD 1050. Germany, Exarchate, Venice, Norman Italy, France, England, Scot- land, Arragon, Castile, Normandy (?), Hungary (?). Total, 9 to 11.

“AD 1150. Germany, Naples, Venice, France, England, Scotland, Arragon, Castile, Portugal, Hungary, Lombardy (?). Total, 10, perhaps 11.

“AD 1250. Germany and Naples, Venice, Lombardy, France, England, Scot- land, Arragon, Castile, Portugal, Hungary. Total, 10.

“AD 1350. Germany, Naples, Venice, Switzerland (?), Milan (?), Tuscany (?), France, England and Scotland, Arragon, Castile, Portugal, Hungary. Total, 9 to 12.

“AD 1453. Austria, Naples, Venice, France, England, Scotland, Arragon, Castile, Portugal, Hungary, Switzerland (?), Savoy (?), Milan (?), Tuscany (?). Total, 11 to 14.

“AD 1552. Austria, Venice, France. England, Scotland, Spain, Naples, Portugal, Hungary, Switzerland (?), Lombardy (?). Total, 9 to 11.

“AD 1648. Austria, Venice, France, Britain (?), Spain and Naples, Portugal, Hungary, Switzerland (?), Savoy, Tuscany, Holland. Total, 8 to 11.

“AD 1750. Austria and Hungary, France, Savoy and Sardinia, Venice, Tuscany, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland (?), Naples (?), Britain (?), Holland. Total, 8 to 11.

“AD 1816. Austria, Bavaria, Wurtemburg (?), Naples, Tuscany, Sardinia, Lombardy (?), France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Britain (?), Switzerland (?). Total, 9 to 13.”

The language of Mr. Guinness concerning this enumeration appeals to us with great force:

“An examination of this list reveals the surprising fact, which would only become more apparent were the list lengthened ten times, so as to present a census of each decade instead of each century, that, 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 re-unite the broken fragments has ever succeeded; when such have arisen, they have been invariably dashed to pieces. Witness the legions of Napoleon buried beneath the snows of Russia, the armadas of Spain wrecked by Atlantic storms, and all the futile royal marriage arrangements by which monarchs vainly sought to create a revived empire. In spite of all human effort, in defiance of every attempt at reunion, the European commonwealth for thirteen or fourteen centuries has numbered on an average ten kingdoms.¹

“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. The Franco-Prussian war and the unification of Italy have once more developed distinctly the normal number of the kingdoms of Europe.”

The map of Europe issued since the great World War shows the various kingdoms or governments on this territory existing as they were before. While in Germany at the present time divisions are threatening, the situation remains as the Franco-German war left it. It should be remembered that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, are among the places from which the Northern tribes came when they invaded the old Roman Empire, and of course constituted no part of the territory of the fourth beast, or Roman Empire.

(1) We might say in addition to this that in the beginning of the ninth century, Charlemagne, assisted by the pope of Rome, succeeded in a measure in uniting these kingdoms, this union being designated as the Holy Roman Empire; but after Charlemagne’s death, this union broke in pieces, although a certain portion left, continued to be called the Holy Roman Empire until 1806 AD. The Historian Myers in referring to this matter says: “Like the kingdom of Alexander, the mighty empire of Charlemagne fell to pieces after his death. ‘His sceptre was the bow of Ulysses which could not be drawn by any weaker hand.’ ”

The persistent reappearances of the number ten, in connection with the many wars and revolutions on this fateful territory, has attracted the special notice of both Protestant and Roman Catholic expositors and historians. Even the unbe- lieving historian, Gibbon, denominated ten as the “Fatal Number.”

While it is of vast importance to establish as a fact of history the fulfilment of the tenfold division of the Roman earth, this is not by any means the great and important matter portrayed in this vision of empires. The most marked, the most noted feature of the great prophecy is the rise of the “little horn” with eyes and mouth, that is represented as coming up among them. This little horn, representing certainly a most singular and supremely influential dynasty that for a long period is associated with these kingdoms — a power that wickedly blasphemed God and persecuted and wore out the saints of the Most High — is the great and remarkable feature of the whole prophetic vision of Daniel.

Concerning when the little horn was to appear, the angel informed the Prophet that this “little horn” power would come up among the ten after they had all formed, and that it would pluck up by the roots three of the first horns that stood in its way. It is most worthy of notice that the Scriptures present still another way to discover the exact time in history for the appearance of this little horn. It is very generally agreed by all expositors, Protestant and Catholic alike, that the “man of sin” of 2 Thessalonians 2, refers to the same power of evil as the “little horn.” St. Paul, who gave the prediction of the coming of the “man of sin,” mentions a hindrance to his manifestation. That hindrance is evidently the reign of the emperors in the city of Rome. Therefore it is very apparent that we are not to look for the “little horn” power to appear until the dethronement of the last emperor. This emperor was Romulus Augustulus who was dethroned in 476 AD. The end of the Empire in the West, and the stupendous significance of this event in the history of the world, is thus described:

“At last the Roman senate voted that one emperor was enough, and that the Eastern emperor, Zeno, should reign over the whole empire; but at the same time Zeno was made to trust the government of Italy to Odoacer, chief of the German Herulians, who took the title of Patrician of Italy. The last of the Western Roman emperors was Romulus Augustulus, a handsome but feeble youth. Him they pensioned off in AD 476.   Modern history, in a comprehensive sense, begins with the downfall of the Western Roman Empire; for with that event the volume of ancient history was closed” (Swinton, Outlines of the World’s History).

It seems important at this point to call attention to a mistaken idea that is held concerning the expressions Eastern and Western Roman Empires. We mention it because it leads to a wrong interpretation of one feature of this prophecy of Daniel. The error that this mistake leads to is the making of the Empire in the West one of the horns. At present, it will be sufficient to notice the mistake. It is generally the custom even by many historians to use the terms, Eastern Roman Empire and Western Roman Empire as applying to the period beginning with the removal by Constantine of the seat of government to Constantinople, early in the fourth century, or as some others, after the death of Honorius. The impression obtained by some is that the empire was divided at this time in the sense that thereafter there were two empires. The fact of the matter is, however, that there was only one empire existing down to the dethronement of Romulus Augustulus in 476 AD. It should be kept in mind that it is simply the administrative division of the one, single empire that is referred to by the expressions Eastern and Western Roman Empires. It was not until the ninth century that it can be said that there were two distinct empires. Myers, the historian, thus explains:

“From this time [ninth century] on it will be proper for us to use the terms Western Empire and Eastern Empire. These names should not, however, be employed before this time, for the two parts of the old Roman Empire were simply administrative divisions of a single empire; we may, though, properly enough speak of the Roman Empire in the West, and the Roman Empire in the East, or of the Western and Eastern Emperors.”

The importance of this matter will be seen when we come to consider that part of the prophecy which speaks of the “little horn” power, as “plucking up by the roots,” three of the “ten horns.”

It would seem that the exact place in history to locate a crisis epoch in the rise of Papacy — which is very generally understood by Historical expositors to fulfil the prediction regarding the appearance of the “little horn” — is when, by an official decree of Justinian, whose seat of government was at Constantinople, the bishop of Rome was made head of all the churches in Christendom. This was in 533 AD, although the decree was not enforced until about 539 AD.

The Vision of the Little Horn

“I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots.

… Then I would know the truth … of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows” (Daniel 7:8,19,20).

In explaining this part of the vision to the Prophet, the angel said: “Another will arise after them [that is, after the ten kingdoms have all come to view], and it will differ from these kingdoms, and will depose three kings” (verse 24).

There is probably no portion of sacred prophecy that has so much engaged the attention of expositors as this one; and there is no other prophecy concerning which there has been such universal agreement as to what power is referred to. It will be understood of course, that we do not refer to Roman Catholic writers in this statement; nor to those Protestant Futurist writers who have adopted Rome’s interpretations. It was not until the beginning of the Gospel Age that this prophecy began to be understood.

In our endeavor to identify from history the power referred to as the little horn, it will be essential to keep in mind the conclusions we arrived at concerning what constituted the kingdoms referred to as the ten horns; it was not until after these ten kingdoms had all made their appearance on the territory of the Roman Empire in the West that the power symbolized by this little horn should be looked for as coming up amongst them. It was while the Prophet was reflecting on the significance of the ten, that the little horn was seen rising among them. This implies that when he first saw the beast with its ten horns, it had no such little horn, but that it sprang up, seemingly a considerable time after he first saw the beast with its ten horns. This seems to intimate that its fulfilment would occur at a period in the history of the Roman power after its division.

The little horn’s springing up on the head of the beast implies that it was a further development of the history of the Roman Empire. Its history, therefore, belongs to the territory of the Roman Empire in the West, that is, the influence of the little horn power would be exerted or felt in the West, and not in the East. It is impossible to emphasize this too strongly, for the reason that it is at this point in the prophecy, as previously shown, that the Historical interpretation of what constitutes the Antichrist, begins to meet its fulfilment. It will be recalled that in our consultation of history we discovered that these kingdoms symbol- ized by the ten horns were all existing on the territory of the Roman Empire in the West, at the time the last emperor that ruled in the city of Rome was dethroned. This event took place in 476 AD.

Considering carefully the particular features of the little horn mentioned by the Prophet and also the explanation by the revealing angel, it would seem that even the slightest acquaintance with the history and claims of the Papal power should make manifest that the prediction has met its fulfilment in this great hierarchy. Indeed it would be utterly impossible for any one who is acquainted with the long eventful history and doings of this great religious system to select symbols more apt and descriptive of its doings. The prophetic vision contains several very peculiar and striking features which give evidence that they were divinely chosen in order that the true Christian may not mistake the identity of the great evil, religious system which more than any other has perverted and distorted the truth and become the most bitter enemy and persecutor of the true Church. It has built up a counterfeit of the true Church, and as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses — by imitation — so it has withstood Christ.

The Scriptures contain several distinct prophecies concerning this power, each viewing it from a different standpoint, and what is lacking in the description in the one is found in another. In 2 Thessalonians 2, and in several chapters in the Book of Revelation, other prophecies referring to this power are found. Careful attention to these shows that they all very clearly locate the seat of government of this little horn power in the city of Rome.

In a vision seen by St. John over six centuries subsequent to the time Daniel saw this vision, the ecclesiastical influence exerted over the ten kingdoms is described. The vision is that of a harlot woman having on her forehead a name written, “Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.” The woman is represented as riding on a scarlet colored beast, having ten horns. In explaining the vision, the revealing angel said to St. John, “The woman which thou sawest is that great city, that reigneth over the kings [kingdoms] of the earth” (Revelation 17:18). This could not possibly refer to any other city than that of Rome. Furthermore, it was the very general understanding from St. Paul’s day on until the fall of the Roman emperors in the West (476 AD), that the “man of sin” mentioned by the Apostle in 2 Thessalonians 2, has reference to the same power of evil as does that of the little horn of Daniel; although having a more special reference to it as an ecclesiastical, a religious power. And as bearing on the time and place it would come, it was also very generally understood that the one great hindrance to the revelation of the “man of sin,” was that of the emperors’ occupying the throne of the Caesars at Rome.

It is also very clearly stated in all these predictions, that this evil power, represented in Daniel by the little horn, would be small in its beginnings, that it would gradually develop, and that it would become even stronger in influence and power than the other ten kingdoms. Indeed, the Apostle Paul states that the “mystery of iniquity,” an expression describing the incipient beginnings of this evil system, had already begun to work in his day. This “mystery of iniquity” has reference evidently to the beginning and development of a desire, an unholy ambition for self-exaltation or lordship in the Church. Likewise the little horn when first seen was small in comparison with the ten amongst which it came up. The Prophet describes it as having become later on “more stout that its fellows.”

In the Revelation visions this evil system is represented at first as gradually assuming a power or control over the ten horns or kingdoms; or, stated in another way, the ten horns or kingdoms are represented as gradually giving a voluntary support to the beast in its ten-horned state. In one vision of the Revelation it is represented as being a controlling “head” of the “beast” in its same ten-horned state. In another it is represented as riding on the beast, as if controlling it with bit and bridle. All of which things are very significant.

The gradual rise of the Papacy to influence and power has been noted by all historians, whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or secular. As distinctly portrayed in the vision, there have been several stages in connection with its rise and complete development. The first stage covered the period in which the Bishop of Rome was seeking to become head over all other bishops — indeed, to become the universal sovereign, the supreme ecclesiastical head of the professed Christian Church. These ambitious, selfexalting endeavors of the Roman Bishop, covering the period beginning in the fourth and ending with the close of the fifth century, culminated in his being recognized by the emperor, Justinian, as the supreme bishop, or head of the churches of the world. The edict of Justinian, and the letter to the bishop of Rome, in which he acknowledged him to be the supreme head of the Church, were made public in AD 533. “This occurred under John II, reckoned as the fifty-fifth bishop of Rome.”

While some have questioned whether Justinian intended to confer such an honor on the Roman Bishop or not, it is certain that it was about this time he became very generally recognized as the supreme bishop and head of the Church. This decree of Justinian, while not conferring upon him territorial possessions and jurisdiction, did cause the Roman Bishop to become more generally recognized as the ruler in the Church in all matters involving conscience before God; and as will readily be seen, invested him with higher power over individuals in the professed Church, when he chose to exercise it, than the secular rulers had. Indeed, it was in the assuming of such power that he became a usurper of the power that belongs to God alone. His claim to be the regulator of the consciences of men, is an example of this. Cardinal Manning, a worthy representative and vassal of the pope, a little more than a half century ago, put the following words into the mouth of the pope: “I claim to be the Supreme Judge, and director of the consciences of men.” It is to this kind of power, that is, spiritual power, that the chronological feature of this prophecy — “And they [the saints] shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time,” seems to have its application.

The second stage in connection with the development of this little horn of Papacy covers the period during which the Roman bishop aspired and sought to secure temporal power; that is to obtain possession of a territory absolutely his own, and in which he might be able to exercise undisputed authority over all the people residing in such territory. It seems very apparent that it was in connection with the attainment of this ambition that the Roman bishop or pope became in the full sense a temporal monarch — a “horn” on the beast. At this time he would be recognized by the other ten sovereigns as their “fellow.” Furthermore, it seems equally apparent that at this time also three of the former horns would be “plucked up by the roots”; in other words, at this time the pope would come into possession of the territory formerly possessed by the three horns, or king- doms. These possessions would, of course, include the city of Rome.

We are indebted to Mr. Guinness for the following extract from a Roman Catholic, whose name he does not give, which could hardly have been differently worded had the writer intended to point out the fulfilment of the prophecy regarding the little horn’s attainment of temporal power

“The rise of the temporal power of the popes, presents to the mind one of the most extraordinary phenomena which the annals of the human race offer to our wonder and admiration. By a singular combination of concurring circumstances, a new power and a new dominion, grew up, silently but steadily, on the ruins of that Roman Empire which had extended its sway over, or made itself respected by, nearly all the nations, peoples, and races, that lived in the period of its strength and glory; and that new power of lowly origin, struck a deeper root, and soon exercised a wider authority than the empire whose gigantic ruins it saw shivered into fragments, and mouldering in dust. In Rome itself, the power of the successor of Peter, grew side by side with and under the protecting shadow of the emperor; and such was the increasing influence of the popes, that the majesty of the Supreme Pontiff was likely ere long to dim the splendor of the purple. The removal by Constantine of the seat of empire from the West to the East, from the historic banks of the Tiber to the beautiful shores of the Bosphorus, laid the first broad foundation of a sovereignty, which in reality commences from that momentous change. Practically, almost from that day, Rome which had witnessed the birth, the youth, the splendor, and the decay, of the mighty race by whom her name had been carried with her eagles to the remotest regions of the then known world, was gradually abandoned by the inheritors of her renown; and its people, deserted by the emperors, and an easy prey to the ravages of the barbarians, whom they had no longer the courage to resist, beheld in the Bishop of Rome, their guardian, their protector, their father. Year by year the temporal authority of the popes, grew into shape and hardened into strength; without violence, without blood- shed, without fraud, by the force of overwhelming circumstances, fashioned as if invisibly by the hand of God.”

The above is as a learned Roman Catholic views it. Macaulay, the historian, viewing it from another standpoint, thus describes it:

“It is impossible to deny that the polity of the Church of Rome is the very masterpiece of human wisdom. In truth nothing but such a polity could against such assaults have borne up such doctrines. The experience of twelve hundred eventful years, the ingenuity and patient care of forty generations of statesmen, have improved that polity to such perfection, that among the contrivances which have been devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind, it occupies the highest place. The stronger our conviction that reason and Scripture were decidedly on the side of Protestantism, the greater is the reluctant admiration with which we regard that system of tactics against which reason and Scripture were employed in vain.”

Gibbon, the unbelieving historian, gives a description of the events which were associated with the rise of Papal influence and power:

“About the close of the sixth century Rome had reached the lowest period of her depression. By the removal of the seat of empire [to Constantinople], and the successive loss of the provinces, the sources of public and private opulence were exhausted; the lofty tree under whose shade the nations of the earth had reposed was deprived of its leaves and branches, and the sapless trunk was left to wither on the ground.   Like Thebes, or Babylon, or Carthage, the

name of Rome might have been erased from the earth, if the city had not been animated by a vital principle which again restored her to honor and dominion. Under the sacerdotal monarchy of St. Peter, the nations of the earth began to resume the practice of seeking on the banks of the Tiber their kings, their laws, and the oracles of their fate.”

Our object at present is to discover when the bishop of Rome actually became a temporal monarch. In doing this we must appeal to the secular historian. There is a very general agreement as to the exact time in history when this took place. We quote:

“On the overthrow of the Western Empire the bishop of Rome, as the first personage in what had been the capital of the world, was naturally invested with great influence, and looked up to, not only in religious matters, but even [as an adviser] in political affairs. Indeed, in the universal wreck, it was the Church alone that kept up the organization of society. The very barbar- ians who overthrew the Roman Empire were themselves brought under the sway of the Church; for, barbarians though they were, the Teutons had a deep vein of earnestness in their character. Again, the state of affairs in Italy had much to do with giving the Roman bishops great influence. When, under Justinian, the Ostrogoths were overthrown [about 552 AD] and Italy came under the dominion of the Eastern Empire, the representatives of the Byzantine [Eastern] Emperor did not live at Rome, but at Ravenna. [He is commonly called the Exarchate of Ravenna.] This caused the power of the bishops of Rome to grow greater and greater. The Roman bishop or pontiff,¹ was called Pater, or Papa, father (whence English Pope²) and he had a vast moral influence, though as yet no temporal power. How temporal power was first acquired will now be told.

“The Lombards, who in the eighth century had fully established their kingdom in Northern Italy, took every opportunity to enlarge their territory at the expense of the Eastern Empire [that is, the territory still held by the Eastern emperors in Italy]. They made themselves masters of Ravenna, Rome, etc. [See International Encyclopedia, under Lombards.] But this was not a change that was at all agreeable either to the popes or to the Roman people; hence the aid of Pepin, father of Charlemagne, was asked. Pepin came and saved Rome, and won from the Lombards the territory of the Exarchate of Ravenna. He then took a step that led to mighty results: he bestowed this territory on the popes, and this was the beginning of the temporal power of the Catholic Church. When Charlemagne had overthrown the Lombard kingdom, and was crowned king of Italy and afterwards Emperor of the West [by the pope] (AD 800), he confirmed the grant which his father Pepin had made to the popes” (Swinton, Outlines of the World’s History).

(1) “The name ‘pontiff’ is derived from Pontifex Maximus, the chief officer of the old pagan religion of Rome.”

(2) “Till the time of Pope Gregory VII, the title of pope was given to all bishops alike; he, however, in 1076 decreed that thenceforth it should be applied only to the Roman ‘papa,’ or pontiff, prefixing at the same time the epithet sanctus, whence the modern style, ‘His Holiness the Pope.’ ”

The Historian Gibbon thus describes this important event:

“The ancient patrimony of the Roman Church, consisting of houses and farms, was transformed by the bounty of these kings [Pepin and Charlemagne], into the temporal dominion of cities and provinces; and the donation of the Exarchate to the pope was the first fruits of the victories of Pepin.  The splendid donation was granted in supreme and absolute dominion, and the world beheld for the first time, a Christian bishop, invested with the prerogatives of a temporal prince; the choice of magistrates, the exercise of justice, the imposition of taxes, the wealth of the palace of Ravenna.”

Mr. Barnes says on this point:

“We have here properly the beginning of the temporal dominion, or the first acknowledged exercise of that power in acts of temporal sovereignty — in giving laws, asserting dominion, swaying a temporal sceptre, and wearing a temporal crown. All the acts before had been of a spiritual character, and all the deference to the bishop of Rome had been of a spiritual nature. Hence forward, however, he was acknowledged as a temporal prince, and took his place as such, among the crowned heads of Europe.”

The Three Horns Plucked Up

At the time in history when the bishop of Rome attained temporal power, we believe it is clear that Papacy at the same time became in the fullest sense a “horn” of the Roman beast. It was at this time that the Roman bishop began to be looked upon as a “fellow” king with the other kings. It was later on, that “his look was more stout than his fellows.”

The significance of the three horns being “plucked up” — removed, in order to make room for the little horn to have a place on the beast’s head — is the next thing for consideration. We shall also endeavor to discover what powers or governments are referred to by the “three horns.” This will be required in order to establish the interpretation that applies the “little horn” to the Papal kingdom. It is well known to students of prophecy that there have been various views held respecting what three governments or powers are referred to. We believe that it will be admitted by all students of prophecy that only that application which meets all the requirements of the various features of the vision can be the correct one. It is quite certain that the powers or governments symbolized by the three horns that were rooted up by the “little horn” should not be looked for until after the fall of the last of the Roman emperors in the West. It was the fall of this government in the West that fulfilled the prediction of St. Paul, “He who now letteth [hindereth] will let [hinder] till he be taken out of the way.” It would be only then, that is, when the Empire in the West ceased, that it would be possible for that wicked one to be revealed.

One interpretation makes the Roman Empire in the West to be a horn on the fourth beast; and it makes the fall of the Empire in the West to fulfil the prediction of the plucking up of the first horn by the roots. The fact of the matter is, this great event of history ended not the career of a horn but of a beast in its empire state. It is a mistake to suppose that the Roman Empire had been divided into two empires before this time. All that had occurred up to 476 AD was simply that of administering the affairs of the one empire in two places — in the East and in the West. The territory of the Empire in the West constituted, as all Historical interpreters agree, the body of the beast of Daniel 7; it was not, therefore, a horn.

An important requirement that will need to be kept in mind — a requirement which the prophecy seems clearly to teach — is that the power symbolized by the little horn would acquire by its rooting up the three, the territorial dominion that the three possessed; in other words it would secure temporal power by uprooting the others. Temporal power is invariably understood as possessing territory with authority to rule in civil affairs, such as making laws, imposing taxes, indeed, everything supposed to be required in the administration of a civil government over the people in the territory possessed. Would not this require that the people in the territories ruled over by the three horns (kingdoms, governments) that were plucked up, come under the control of the little horn or Papacy? Mr. Barnes, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, and others so interpret this feature of the vision. Mr. Barnes says:

“This one power [little horn] absorbed into itself three of these sovereignties— annihilating them as independent powers, and combining them into one most peculiar dominion, properly represented by ‘plucking them up.’ ”

This requirement, if we are correct in our interpretation of the transaction, would also exclude the kingdom of the Heruli, under Odoacer, from being one of the three horns; because when Odoacer’s government in Italy was overthrown, the Roman bishop did not come into possession of the territory and people of the fallen government of Odoacer. The Roman bishop did not have given to him at this time the authority of a civil ruler to tax the people, or administer laws, etc.

And for the same reason, the Ostrogothic kingdom, which overthrew the kingdom of Odoacer of the Heruli (489 AD), could not be one of These horns. The Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy was destroyed in the year 552 AD. Its end was accomplished by Narses, the imperial general of the Eastern Empire.

“The Ostrogoths, broken and dispersed by their calamities, hence forward disappear from history as a distinct nation, their throne in Italy being filled by the Exarchs of Ravenna” International Encyclopedia, under Goths.

“Narses was the first who bore the title of Exarch; and the district over which he ruled was called the exarchate. The seat of the exarchs was Ravenna, the different towns and territories belonging to them being governed by subordinate rulers, styled duces or dukes” International Encyclopedia, under Exarchs.

Neither did the kingdom of the Lombards fulfil this particular feature of the vision. Events occurred, however, in connection with the overthrow of the Lombards in the eighth century, by Pepin and Charlemagne, that meet in this as well as in every other particular, the requirements of the vision. The overthrow of the Lombard kingdom in Italy, at the instigation of the Roman bishop, caused the pope to come into possession of territory in Italy, including the city of Rome, which was formerly possessed by three governments.

There was at one time a disposition on the part of the popes to claim an earlier date for this transaction. They once sought to prove that at the time Constantine the Great removed his capital from Rome to Constantinople, he donated temporal possessions to the pope. However, it has been proved conclusively that the purported deed and decretals recording this were forgeries and that the temporal authority of the pope really dates back no farther than the eighth century.

Referring to this, the Historian Gibbon says: “Before the end of the eighth century, some apostolical scribe, perhaps the notorious Isidore, composed the ‘decretals,’ and the ‘donations of Constantine,’ the two magic pillars of the spiritual and temporal monarchy of the popes.” The donations claimed in these fictitious letters and deed, are thus defined by Gibbon:

“According to the legend, the first of the Christian emperors [Constantine] was healed of leprosy, and purified in the waters of baptism by St. Sylvester, the Roman bishop; and, never was physician more gloriously recompensed [if this were true]. His royal proselyte [Constantine] withdrew from the seat and patrimony of St. Peter; declared his resolution of founding a capital in the East [Constantinople]; and resigned to the popes the free and perpetual sovereignty of Rome, Italy, and the provinces of the West.”

Concerning this purported transaction, Mr. Gibbon says:

“In the revival of letters and liberty, this fictitious deed was transpierced by the pen of Laurentius Valla, the pen of an eloquent critic and a Roman patriot. His contemporaries of the fifteenth century were astonished at his sacrilegious boldness; yet such is the silent and irresistible progress of reason, that before the end of the next age, the fable was rejected by the contempt of historians and poets, and the tacit or modest censure of the advocates of the Roman Church.”

There has been a disposition on the part of certain Protestant writers on prophecy to claim (but not to prove) that the Roman bishops possessed temporal power in the early part of the sixth century. However, we do not know of a single historian that records this; all agreeing that it was not until the eighth century that the Roman bishops attained temporal possessions and authority.

In locating and identifying the three horns that were plucked up by the little horn, it is fair to say that if the angel’s explanation of this transaction does not require that the territories and peoples ruled over by these three horn powers, came into the possession of and were ruled over by the Roman bishops, then the Odoacean kingdom of the Heruli, which fell 493 AD, the Ostrogothic kingdom, which fell 552 AD, and the Lombard kingdom, which fell 773 AD, meet all the requirements of that feature of the vision — the “plucking up of the three horns by the roots.” On the other hand, if the rooting up or removal of the three horns or governments contains the thought that these peoples and territories came under the control of the bishop of Rome, then it will not be until the eighth century that we should look for the fulfilment of this feature of the vision — the “plucking up by the roots.” Mr. Albert Barnes says:

“If there were three of these powers [the ten kingdoms] planted in regions that became subject to the Papal power, and that disappeared or were absorbed in that one dominion constituting the peculiarity of the Papal dominion, or which entered into the Roman Papal state, considered as a sovereignty by itself among the nations of the earth, this is all that is required.  The material fact to be made out in order to show that this description of the ‘little horn’ is applicable to the Papacy is that at the commencement of what was properly the Papacy — that is, as I suppose, the union of the spiritual and temporal power, or the assumption of temporal authority by him, who was bishop of Rome, and who had been before regarded as a mere spiritual or ecclesiastical ruler, there was a triple jurisdiction assumed or conceded, a threefold domination; or a union under himself of what had been three sovereignties, that now disappeared as independent administrations, and whose distinct governments were now merged in the one single sovereignty of the pope.”

To Make Way for the Little Horn

The conclusion of this writer in regard to the requirement necessary to fulfil the vision of the three horns or powers being plucked up or removed to make way for the little horn power, seems to us perfectly reasonable and satisfactory. And this requirement was fulfilled to the very letter in connection with the events associated with the commencement of the temporal power of the popes in the eighth century. The first authority we cite is Archibald Bower in his voluminous work, The History of the Popes. According to this writer the temporal dominions granted by Pepin to the pope, or which the pope possessed in conse- quence of the interventions of the kings of France, Pepin and Charlemagne, were the following:

“(1) The Exarchate of Ravenna, which comprised, according to Sigonius, the following cities: Ravenna, Bologna, Imola, Fienza, Forlimpoli, Forli, Cesena, Bobbio, Ferrara, Commachio, Adria, Servia, and Secchia.

“(2) The Pentapolis, comprehending Rimini, Pesaro, Concha, Fano, Sinigalia, Ancono, Osimo, Umona, Jesi, Fossombrone, Monteferetro, Urbino, Cagli, Lucoli, and Eugubio.

“(3) The city and dukedom of Rome, containing several cities of note, which had withdrawn themselves from all subjection to the emperor, had submitted to St. Peter ever since the time of Pope Gregory II.”

The historian says further: “The pope had, by Charlemagne, been put in possession [as has been related above], of the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and the dukedom of Spoleti [embracing the city and dukedom of Rome].” And again in a footnote on the same page: “The pope possessed the Exarchate, the Pentapolis, and the dukedom of Spoleti, with the city and dukedom of Rome.”

Gibbon gives precisely the same facts as Bower. When speaking of the donations conferred on the pope by Pepin and Charlemagne, making reference to the relations between these kings and the pope, Gibbon says: “The mutual obligations of the popes and the Carlovingian family [Pepin, Charlemagne, et al] form the important link of ancient and modern, of civil and ecclesiastical history.” Proceeding next to specify the gifts, which Pepin and Charlemagne bestowed on the popes, in return for favors received by them, he says:

“The gratitude of the Carlovingians was adequate to these obligations, and their names are consecrated as the saviors and benefactors of the Roman Church. Her ancient patrimony of farms and houses was transformed by their bounty into the temporal dominion of cities and provinces, and the donation of the Exarchate was the first fruits of the conquests of Pepin. Astolphus [king of the Lombards] with a sigh relinquished his prey; the keys and the hostages of the principal cities were delivered to the French ambassador; and in his master’s name he presented them before the tomb of St. Peter. The ample measure of the Exarchate might comprise all the provinces of Italy which had obeyed the emperor or his vicegerent; but its strict and proper limits were included in the territories of Ravenna, Bologna, and Ferrara; its inseparable dependency was the Pentapolis, which stretched along the Adriatic from Rimini to Ancona, and advanced into the midland country as far as the ridge of the Apennine. In the dissolution of the Lombard kingdom, the inhabitants of the duchy of Spoleti sought a refuge from the storm, shaved their heads after the Ravenna fashion, declared themselves the servants and subjects of St. Peter, and completed by this voluntary surrender, the present circle of the Ecclesiastical State.”

The following matters are apparent from these quotations from Gibbon: First, that these events marked the beginning of the temporal dominion of the Roman bishops. Second, that in these donations of Pepin and Charlemagne to the popes, there were three temporal sovereignties that ceased their independence, and united under the pope, which in the language of Gibbon were:

(1) The Exarchate;
(2) The Pentapolis; and
(3) The duchy of Spoleti, which included the city and dukedom of

These three in the words above quoted “constituted the present circle of The Ecclesiastical State.” Mr. Gibbon goes on to say that this territory was afterwards “greatly enlarged.” There seems to be no doubt that it was at this time, and in this manner, that the Papacy first made its appearance among the temporal sovereignties of Europe. Mr. Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, and Bishop Newton, all agree with the main facts of this application of the prophecy. They differ only in making the kingdom of the Lombards to be one of the three horns plucked up. Mr. Barnes makes reference to this matter as follows:

“I do not find, indeed, that the kingdom of the Lombards was, as is commonly stated, among the number of the temporal sovereignties that became subject to the authority of the popes, but I do find that there were three distinct temporal sovereignties that lost their independent existence, and that were united under that one temporal authority — constituting by the union of the spiritual and temporal power that one peculiar kingdom. In Lombardy the power remained in the possession of the kings of the Lombards themselves until that kingdom was subdued by the arms of Pepin and Charlemagne, and then it became subject to the crown of France, though for a time under the nominal reign of its own kings.”

It is true that in the two centuries following this the popes lost and regained several times some of these territories, yet as the years passed, they continued to add to them, until the territories were constructed into what became known as the Ten Papal States. Bower in his History of the Popes relates that Lewis, a successor of Charlemagne, in 817 AD, not only confirmed the donations of his father and grandfather, but added to them. The Emperor Lewis assured the pope “of his inviolable attachment to the Apostolic See, and declared himself unalterably determined to maintain, if necessary, with the whole strength of his kingdom, the prince of the Apostles and his successors, in the quiet possession of all his father and grandfather had, by their religion and piety, been prompted to give him.”

The following from the International Encyclopedia is interesting and instructive on this matter:

“In 726 Pepin le Bref compelled the Lombard king to hand over Ravenna, Rimini, Pesaro, Fano, Cesena, Urbino, Forli, Commachio, and 15 other towns to the pope, who now assumed the state of a temporal sovereign. In the eleventh century the Normans greatly aided to increase the Papal temporal authority, and in 1053 the duchy of Benevento was annexed. In 1102 the Countess Matilda of Tuscany left to the pope her fiefs of Parma, Mantua, Modena, and Tuscany; but these were immediately seized by the German emperor, and of this magnificent bequest only a few estates came into the pope’s hands. Between this period and the end of the thirteenth century the popes succeeded, often by unscrupulous means, in obtaining from many of the free towns of Italy an acknowledgment of the superiority of the Roman See over them; and in 1278 the Emperor Rudolf I confirmed the popes in the acquisitions thus obtained, defined authoritatively the boundaries of the Papal States, and acknowledged the pope’s exclusive authority over them by absolving their inhabitants from their oath of allegiance to the empire.”

That which makes this application of this particular feature of the prophecy most significant and worthy of acceptance is that these historians who recorded the fact that these three dominions were absorbed by Papacy, and that this event was the beginning of the temporal power of the popes, had in their minds not the slightest thought that it fulfilled this or any prophecy. They were simply referring to these events as facts occurring in the regular course of history.

Indeed, all historians agree that these events occurred exactly as related by those above quoted. The reason some interpreters apply the fulfilment of the “plucking up” of these three horns to an earlier date than the eighth century, seems to be that they suppose the “time, times and a half,” 1260 years, which began 539 AD, must also have commenced when the last of the three horns was plucked up. The prophecy, however, does not require this. The 1260 years have reference to the period of the Roman bishops’ spiritual authority over the saints. “They shall be given into his hand for a time, times and a half,” the prophecy reads. This, we believe, began in 539 AD. Further consideration will be given to this feature of the prophecy in its due order.

The attainment of Papal authority over the ten kings (kingdoms) who occupied the territory of the old Roman Empire, is another development which fulfils certain requirements of the prophecy of the little horn power. This requirement is implied in the words of the Prophet regarding the little horn, “whose look was more stout than his fellows,” that is his fellow kings. In the Book of Revelation this feature is described with emphatic definiteness. There it is stated that these ten horns “have one mind, and shall give their power and strength to the beast” (Revelation 17:13). Up to the eighth century, when the popes became temporal sovereigns, they were restrained by both kings, bishops, and councils, from the exercise of despotic power even in the Church. Mosheim says:

“Adrian I [the pope] in a council of bishops assembled at Rome, conferred upon Charlemagne and his successors the right of election to the See of Rome; and though neither Charlemagne, nor his son Lewis, were willing to exercise this power in all its extent, by naming and creating the pontiff upon every vacancy, yet they reserved the right of approving and confirming the person who was elected to that high dignity by the priests and people; nor was the consecration of the elected pontiff of the least validity, unless performed in presence of the emperor’s ambassadors. … “It is true that the Latin emperors did not assume to themselves the administration of the Church, or the cognizance and decision of controversies that were purely of a religious nature. They acknowledged on the contrary, that these affairs belonged to the tribunal of the Roman pontiff and to the ecclesiastical councils. But this jurisdiction of the pontiff was confined within narrow limits; he could decide nothing by his sole authority, but was obliged to convene a council when any religious differences were to be terminated by an authoritative judgment.  Thus was the spiritual authority of Rome wisely bounded by the civil power; but its ambitious pontiffs fretted under the imperial curb, and eager to loosen their bonds, left no means unemployed for that purpose. They even formed projects which seemed less the effects of ambition than of frenzy; for they claimed a supreme dominion, not only over the Church, but also over kings themselves, and pretended to reduce the whole universe under their ghostly jurisdiction. However extravagant these pretensions were, they were followed by the most vigorous efforts; and the wars and tumults that arose in the following [ninth] century, contributed much to render these efforts successful.”

The first important event that occurred which gave opportunity to the Roman pontiff to begin the exercise of his ambition, was that of a war that broke out after the death of Lewis II. Mosheim thus describes this event:

“After the death of Lewis II, a fierce and dreadful war broke out between the posterity of Charlemagne, among which there were several competitors for the empire. This furnished the Italian princes and Pope John VIII [about 872 AD], with an opportunity of assuming the right of nominating to the imperial throne, and of excluding from all concern in this election the nations who had formerly the right of suffrage; and as the occasion was favorable, it was seized with avidity, and improved with the utmost dexterity and zeal. Their favor and interest were earnestly solicited by Charles the Bald, whose entreaties were rendered effectual by rich presents, prodigious sums of money, and most pompous promises, in consequence of which he was proclaimed, in AD 876, by the pope and by the Italian princes assembled at Pavia, king of Italy and emperor of the Romans. Carloman and Charles the Gross, who succeeded him in the kingdom of Italy, and in the Roman Empire, were also elected by the Roman pontiff and the princes of Italy. After the reigns of these princes, the empire was torn in pieces; the most deplorable tumults and commotions arose in Italy, France, and Germany, which were governed or rather subdued and usurped by various chiefs; and in this confused scene, the highest bidder was, by the aid of the greedy pontiffs, generally raised to the government of Italy, and to the imperial throne. Thus the power and influence of the pontiffs in civil affairs arose in a short time to an enormous height, through the favor and protection of the princes, in whose cause they had employed the influence which superstition had given them over the minds of the people.”

Thus the pontiff labored with indefatigable zeal to cause the kings, emperors, and princes of the world to submit to his jurisdiction, and to render their dominions tributary to the See of Rome. As an illustration of the power at this time assumed by the Roman pontiff, history records that the emperors Rodolphus and Otho, of Germany, not only received their crowns as a Papal grant, on the pope’s deposition of previous emperors, but they resigned, at his bidding, the crowns so received. “Peter II, of Arragon, and John, King of England, and other monarchs also, gave up their independence that they might receive back their realms as vassals of the pope.” Gibbon thus describes this state of affairs: “Under the sacerdotal monarchy of St. Peter, the nations began to resume the practice of seeking on the banks of the Tiber their kings, their laws, and the oracles of their fate.”

In the twelfth century, Mosheim says, “the power of erecting new kingdoms, which had been claimed by the pontiffs from Gregory VII [1073 AD] was not only assumed, but also exercised by [Pope] Alexander III [1159 AD] in a remarkable manner; for in the year 1179 he conferred the title of king, with the ensigns of royalty, upon Alphonso I, duke of Portugal, who under the pontificate of Lucius II had rendered his province tributary to the Roman See.” It was in this same year “that in order to put an end to the confusion and dissensions which so often accompanied the election of the Roman pontiffs, the right of election should not only be vested in the cardinals alone, but also that the person in whose favor two- thirds of the college of cardinals voted, should be considered as the lawful and duly elected pontiff.” It was in this same year that “a spiritual war was declared against heretics.” The condition of the affairs of the popes in the opening years of the sixteenth century are thus described by the same historian: “About the commencement of this century the Roman pontiffs lived in the utmost tranquility; nor had they, as things appeared to be situated, the least reason to apprehend any opposition to their pretensions, or rebellion against their authority.”

Thus tracing the gradual rise of the Roman bishop’s influence and power in the Church and the world up to the time of its highest exaltation, we find that this succession of ecclesiastical rulers has filled all the particular requirements thus far specified of the little horn.

Prevailed Against the Saints

“I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them” (Daniel 7:21).

The next feature in the vision of the little horn is described in the words: “And, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man.” Eyes here would denote intelligence; and considered in connection with the other descriptions of the power symbolized by the little horn, cunning and foresight would also be denoted. The thought would be that the little horn power would be looking out and watching for all opportunities to promote its own interests. The policy of the Papacy in this particular is proverbial. The pope is an overlooker or overseer.

The Greek word translated “See,” which is commonly applied to the pope, has the same thought as is contained in the word “episcopacy,” which literally means oversight, watchfulness, or careful inspection.

“This would denote that the power here referred to, would be remarkably sagacious. We should naturally look for the fulfilment of this in a power that laid its plans wisely and intelligently; that had large and clear views of policy; that was shrewd and far-seeing in its counsels and purposes; that was skilled in diplomacy, or that was eminent for statesman-like plans. This part of the symbol, if it stood alone, would find its fulfilment in any wise and shrewd administration; as it stands here, surrounded by others, it would seem that this [little horn], as contrasted with them [the other horns], was characteristically shrewd and far-seeing in its policy” (Albert Barnes).

That which in a very special way attracted the attention of the Prophet was the “mouth speaking great things.” This is mentioned in verse 8, and explained in verse 25 in the expression, “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” The Prophet speaks of this peculiar feature again, when he beheld a throne upon which sat the Ancient of Days, and before whom was brought one like the Son of Man, to whom was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all nations and languages should serve and obey Him. The Prophet says, “I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake” (see verses 9-14).

The explanation of this throne vision seems to show that it was a judgment assize, the judgment being one especially of the little horn. The angel’s explanation reads, “But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end” (verse 26). This explanation seems clearly to teach that the result of this judgment assize is not to destroy this little horn power in an instant, but rather by a gradual process, first, to “take away its dominion,” and second, to “consume and to destroy it unto the end.”

This great judgment assize, and the decision, “they shall take away his dominion,” met its fulfilment in 1870, when the Papacy lost every vestige of temporal dominion. The world has witnessed this event, but it is only revealed to the eye of faith in the sure word of prophecy that the loss of temporal dominion in 1870 was the fulfilment of this prediction. That feature of the prophecy which describes its consumption and destruction is all that awaits fulfilment.

It is very evident that the mind of the Prophet was greatly agitated by the words of the little horn, because its words were against the Most High. The word tsad, translated “against,” signifies concerning. These words against the Most High, have their fulfilment in the decrees, bulls, and canons issued by the popes. In 2 Thessalonians 2, where the same power is portrayed, it is said that he “exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.” In Revelation 13:5, similar words to that of Daniel’s vision are employed. It is there represented as having “a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies.”

“Blasphemy in Scripture means not so much a speaking against God, as it does the assumption of Divine attributes and Divine power where no rightful claim exists. Thus in Matthew 9, the scribes said of Jesus, ‘this man blasphemeth,’ because he said to the sick of the palsy, ‘thy sins be forgiven thee.’ ”

As Jesus possessed this power, their charge against him was untrue. The Papacy, through its priesthood, cannot truthfully say that it has Divine power, therefore the charge that it blasphemes God’s name is true.

When we read of the blasphemous, self-exalting utterances made by the popes at different times in the past, and even up to the present time, it seems almost incredible that a human being could ever make such claims; indeed were it not so serious a matter, it could in these enlightened times have only the effect of producing in the intelligent mind a sense of the ridiculous. We cite some of these claims which are set forth in Roman bulls and decretals, and quoted by the author of Romanism and the Reformation:

“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 Scriptures them-elves are to be received only ‘because a judgment 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 may not be rebuked by mortal man, because ‘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 pope; but that just as Christ, being maker of all laws and ordinances, could violate the law of the sabbath, because 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 celebrated ‘extravagant’ of Boniface VIII, the Unam 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, but 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.’ ”

“He Shall Think to Change Times and Laws”

Another has said:

“This power has also invaded the courts of heaven and filled them with a host of imaginary mediators. It is by the act of the pope that deceased persons are in a formal and solemn manner declared to be saints, and in the Catholic Church they become objects of worship and to be invoked in order to obtain their intercessions with God in our behalf. The Canonization is one of the most gorgeous, ostentatious and costly of the entire ceremonials of that Church. The decorations of St. Peter’s Church and other expenditures on such occasions have been estimated at not less than twenty thousand pounds sterling.”

“All these claims were incessantly and universally urged all down the centuries by the popes of Rome, and are still advanced as boldly as ever, in official decretals, bulls, extravagants, decisions of canonists, sentences of judges, books, catechisms, sermons, and treatises of all kinds.”

“As we read all this, let it be with bowed heads and with weeping eyes, while we ponder the lesson once more of the terrible consequences of pride, and ambition, and worldliness, when permitted to run their course in the Church of God.”

Another remarkable feature of the doings of this little horn that identifies it with the Papal power is stated in the words, “And he shall think to change times and laws.” The times and laws here mentioned do not have reference to secular or human times and laws. It would not be strange or uncommon for any power to do this; for the powers symbolized by the other horns were continually changing and making new secular laws. The times and laws referred to are Divine times and Divine laws — those that were given at different periods in history by God for the benefit of mankind, and enjoined especially upon His own people to observe.

It is well known to all that Papacy has appointed fasts and feasts, granted pardons and indulgences for sins, instituted new rules for the worship of God, imposed new doctrines to be believed, canonized saints, and changed at its own pleasure the laws of God. The times and laws referred to, therefore, have reference to the laws and institutions of religion. The meaning of the expression evidently is that its purpose would be to control, or claim the right to control, human beings in religious matters. It would, as far as lay in its power, abolish laws that existed, and substitute new ones in their place; and this it would do in order to further its own interests or ends.

We are indebted to Mr. Guinness for a quotation on this point from a work of Mr. Birks, an eminent writer on prophecy:

“The pope has also annulled the only surviving law of paradise, confirmed 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 further 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 reason 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 and worshiping of angels’; though St. John has renewed the charge to the disciples of Christ, ‘Little children 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.’ ”

It is taught by some that Papacy changed the sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. The fact of the matter is, however, that Constantine, nearly two hundred years prior to Papacy’s existence, legalized the first day of the week as a sabbath. The teaching of the Scripture on this matter is that the Christian is not obligated to keep any day of the week as a sabbath. The first Christians were from the Jews, and realized only gradually their freedom from the Jewish Law Covenant. They continued for a time to observe the seventh day, and also met on the morning of the first day, in remembrance of Christ’s resurrection. The first day became sacred to them, not only because he arose on that day, but because it was on that day that he appeared to his disciples during the forty days after his resurrection. Gradually they ceased to observe the seventh day under the teachings of St. Paul, but continued to meet on the first day, early in the morning, but not to observe it as a sabbath day. As the Church gradually fell away from primitive doctrines and practices, the first day began to be erroneously looked upon as a sabbath day.

“Whatever may have been the opinion and practice of these early Christians in regard to cessation from labor on the Sunday, unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 AD, of which the following is a translation: ‘Let all judges, inhabitants of the cities, and artificers rest on the venerable Sunday. But in the country, husbandmen may freely and lawfully apply to the business of agriculture; since it often happens that the sowing of corn and planting of vines cannot be so advantageously performed on any other day; lest, by neglecting the opportunity, they would lose the benefits which the Divine bounty bestows on us’ ” (International Encyclopedia).

One of the most marked features of this little horn is described in the words, “And he shall wear out the saints of the Most High.” The significance of these words is plain and clear. They teach that by wars and massacres and inquisitions this power would persecute and destroy the saints of God, that the true worshipers, who would protest against Papacy’s innovations and refuse to comply with its idolatrous rites and practices would be persecuted unto death. This feature has an awful fulfilment in Papacy. As stated by another:

“Rome’s contention is, not that she does not persecute, but only that she does not persecute saints. She punishes heretics — 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’ [Revelation 17], which runs as follows: ‘Protestants foolishly expound 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 male-factors; 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 practices 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. … 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 doubtless 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.’ … Pope Damasus … 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.’ … Every evangelical Christian in the world is, therefore, according to Romanist canons, a heretic, and as such liable to ‘punishment.’  … 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. … ‘We do not count them murderers who, burning with the zeal of their Catholic mother against the excommunicate, may happen to have slain some of them.’ If not absolutely murdered, heretics might be ill treated ad libitum, according to an ordinance of Gregory IX, who writes to the Archbishop of Milan: ‘Let those understand themselves to be absolved the debt of fidelity, homage, and all manner of service, who were bound by any compact, however firmly ratified, to those who have fallen into heresy.

“Bellarmine [a most noted Roman Catholic theologian of the sixteenth century] argues for the necessity of burning heretics, a practice which Luther had asserted to be contrary to the Spirit of God. He [Bellarmine] says: ‘Experience teaches that there is no other remedy; for the Church has proceeded by slow steps, and tried all remedies. First, she only excommunicated. Then she added a fine of money, and afterwards exile. Lastly, she was compelled to come to the punishment of death. For heretics despise excommunication, and say that those lightnings are cold. If you threaten a fine of money, they neither fear God nor regard men, knowing that fools will not be wanting to believe in them, and by whom they may be sustained. If you shut them in prison, or send them into exile, they corrupt those near to them with their words, and those at a distance with their books. Therefore the only remedy is to send them betimes into their own place.’ …

“Sismondi, the historian, writes: ‘To maintain unity of belief the Church had recourse to the expedient of burning all those who separated themselves from her; but although for two hundred years the fires were never quenched, still every day saw Romanists abjuring the faith of their fathers and embracing the religion which often guided them to the stake. In vain Gregory IX, in AD 1231, put to death every heretic whom he found concealed in Rome. His own letters show that the heretics only increased in numbers’ ” (H. G. Guinness).

Drunken With Blood of Martyrs

Another symbolic vision, seen by St. John and recorded in the Apocalypse (17:6), referring to the horrible persecutions of this same power reads: “I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” In concluding the consideration of this feature of the vision we quote the words of the late A. J. Gordon:

“It has been estimated that the Papacy has directly or indirectly slain fifty millions of martyrs on account of their faith, the vast majority of these being sincere Christians, whose only crime was that they would not own allegiance to Antichrist. Let charity discount the number by one half, if it were possible, and let her suggest every conceivable palliation for the murder of the rest, and we still have the most ghastly chapter which the volume of history contains. Would that we might mingle our weeping with floods of repentant tears from the eyes of this cruel mother, if forsooth we could thereby mitigate the wrath treasured up against the day of wrath which her crimes have earned. But, alas! we find ‘Te Deums’ sung over Huguenot slaughters, but not one Papal Miserere can we discover. Commemorative medals are still extant signalizing the massacre of St. Bartholomew, but not one monumentum lacrimarum over that event is to be found in all the archives of the seven-hilled city. ‘And when I saw her I wondered with great wonder,’ writes the Seer; and now that history has filled in every detail of the crimson outline of prophecy, we wonder with even profounder amazement that such a demoniacal tragedy could ever have been enacted in the name of Christianity. But we remember that the woman who did these things was ‘drunken.’ And there is no intoxication so profound as that induced by pagan superstition tinctured with Christian blood. Even Martin Luther, while yet in the delirium tremens of popery, raged with this blood thirst. ‘So intoxicated was I, and drenched in Papal dogmas,’ are his words, ‘that I would have been most ready to murder, or assist others in murdering, any person who should have uttered a syllable against the duty of obedience to the pope.’ Nay, even those who have been sobered by generations of Protestant abstinence from persecution, if they once return to the cups of the Harlot, speedily exhibit symptoms of the old appetite, as witnessed, for example, in the oft-quoted saying of Dr. Manning, now [1889] cardinal, when urging Romish aggression in England: ‘It is yours, right reverend fathers, to subjugate and subdue, to bend and to break the will of an imperial race.’ ”

Another remarkable feature of this wonderful prophecy of the little horn is that its rule over the saints is assigned definite limits. Like the other features of the vision this one is expressed in hidden, symbolic language: “And they [the saints] shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time” (verse 25). A time in the Scriptures represents 360 days; times (two) 720 days; a dividing (half) of time, 180 days; the sum of which is 1260 days. Other Scriptures give us the scale to use in determining the symbol’s enlargement. That scale is “a day for a year.” The time, therefore, is 1260 years. It is now a well known fact of history that the French Revolution, which occurred at the close of the eighteenth century, the great climax of which was the Reign of Terror in 1793, marked the beginning of the end of Papal influence and power over the saints. Again we are indebted to Mr. Guinness for the following quotation from the Papal Drama, by Thomas H. Gill, concerning how the French Revolution affected the Roman Catholic power:

“The more deeply and earnestly the French Revolution is considered, the more manifest is its pre-eminence above all the strange and terrible things which have come to pass on this earth. … Never has the world witnessed so exact and sublime a piece of retribution. … In no work of the French Revolution is this, its retributive character, more strikingly and solemnly apparent than in its dealings with the Roman Church and Papal power. It especially became France, which, after so fierce a struggle, had rejected the Reformation, and perpetrated such enormous crimes in the process of rejection, to turn its fury against that very Roman Church on whose behalf it had been so wrathful, to abolish Roman Catholic worship as she had abolished Protestant worship; to massacre multitudes of priests in the streets of her great towns; to hunt them down through her length and breadth, and to cast them by thou- sands upon a foreign shore, just as she had slaughtered, hunted down, and driven into exile, hundreds of thousands of Protestants. … The property of the [Roman] Church was made over to the State; the French clergy sank from a proprietary to a salaried body; monks and nuns were restored to the world, the property of their orders being likewise gone; Protestants were raised to full religious freedom and political equality; … The Roman Catholic religion was soon afterwards formally abolished. “ ‘Bonaparte unsheathed the sword of France against the helpless Pius VI … The pontiff sank into a dependent. … Berthier marched upon Rome, set up a Roman Republic, and laid hands upon the Pope. The sovereign Pontiff was borne away to the camp of the infidels … from prison to prison, and finally carried captive into France. Here … he breathed his last at Valence. …

Multitudes imagined that the Papacy was at the point of death, and asked, would Pius VI be the last pontiff? and if the close of the eighteenth century would be signalized by the fall of the Papal dynasty. But the French Revolution was the beginning, and not the end of the judgment; France had but begun to execute the doom, a doom sure and inevitable, but long and lingering, to be diversified by many strange incidents, and now and then by a semblance of escape, a doom to be protracted through much pain and much ignominy.’ ”

The famous decretal letter of the Emperor Justinian constituting the Bishop of Rome “head of all the holy churches and all the holy priests of God,” was issued in March 533 AD just 1260 years prior to the Reign of Terror. Referring to this decretal letter, Mr. Elliott says: “The famous decretal letter of Justinian to the pope dated March 533  became thenceforth part and parcel of the Civil Law.” Mr. Guinness, referring to the same, says this was “the point at which the saints were delivered into the hand of the Roman pontiff by the famous decretal letter of the Emperor Justinian, in March, AD 533, constituting the Bishop of Rome, ‘head of all the holy churches and of all the holy priests of God.’ ” A part of the text of this letter to the Bishop of Rome, as also another to the patriarch of Constantinople is given by Mr. Russell. From this we quote:

“ ‘The victorious Justinian … to [Pope] John the most holy archbishop of the fostering city of Rome: … We do not permit that any question be raised as to anything which concerns the state of the churches, however plain and certain it be, that be not also made known to your Holiness, who is the Head of all the holy churches.’ ”

To the patriarch of Constantinople Justinian wrote these words:

“ ‘In no manner whatever have we changed, or shall we change, or have we (as your Holiness also knows) passed beyond that position of the Church which, by the favor of God, has as yet been preserved; but in all respects the unity of the most holy churches with his Supreme Holiness, the Pope of Ancient Rome, (to whom we have written in like manner), has been maintained. For we do not suffer that any of those matters which relate to the state of the Church be not also referred to His Blessedness, since he is the head of all the most holy churches.’ ”

The same writer thus refers to these decretal letters:

“The letters from which we have given the foregoing extracts may be found complete, together with the Edict of Justinian referred to, in the Volume of the Civil Law (Codicis lib. I tit. i.).”

This decree was not enforced until 539 AD. Twelve hundred and sixty years from this date brings us up to the time of the humiliation and dethronement of Pope Pius VI, by Napoleon in 1799.

The prophecy of Daniel goes on to state that even after this terrible judgment, the Papal power would recover and continue for an indefinite period of time. The revealing angel’s words are: “The judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end” (verse 26).

It was in the year 1870, July 18, at an Ecumenical Council, which was attended by 803 prelates of the Roman Catholic Church, that the pope, by an official decree, reached the most dizzy height of his blasphemous claims. This decree was that the occupant of the Papal chair is in all his decisions with regard to faith and morals, infallible. In two months from this time Papacy suffered the loss of all that remained of its temporal possessions and authority. It was to this time, we believe, that the Prophet had reference in the words, “I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake” (verse 11).

The Transfer of Earth’s Sovereignty

“I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit … the judgment was set, and the books were opened.   I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:9,13,14).

If we confine ourselves exclusively to the description of this awe inspiring throne vision, the personages associated with it, and its judicial and executive proceedings, together with the revealing angel’s explanations of the same, we will find much of blessed, helpful truth revealed therein. The great central truth taught in the throne vision is that of the transfer of the dominion of this world into the hands of our Lord Jesus Christ by the great God and Father of all. He is represented by the one called in the vision, the Ancient of Days; the Lord Jesus Christ is represented by the one like the Son of Man.

The particular things that are pictured as occurring in connection with this transfer of authority are of a judgment character; the judgment being an executive one. The things specially mentioned upon which the judgments are to fall are the fourth-beast power in its divided state, and its little horn — Papacy. That the whole world is to be affected by the judgment decision and transfer of authority is also seen in the fact that all peoples, nations, and languages come under the sway of this much to be desired dominion. This great judgment assize, then, will result in the complete destruction of the wild beast kingdoms of earth, as also the power that blasphemed God’s name and persecuted His saints — the little horn, or Papacy.

The vision shows further that the saints of the Most High, the saints that suffered in various ways at Papacy’s hands throughout its long and eventful career, will then become associated with Christ in his dominion over the world. This vision of the great throne and its solemn proceedings, like that of the four beasts, the fourth of which included the description of the little horn, presents only a general outline picture of this transfer of earth’s sovereignty, and the establishment and character of the Kingdom of God. In harmony with the plan pursued in sacred prophecy, we find that Christ and his Apostles in the New Testament give fuller light, more detailed unfoldings, of these great and momentous events; especially is this true in the Apocalypse. Furthermore, the clear knowledge of the Scriptures now given to those who have “ears to hear,” concerning the great plans and purposes of God for the human family, furnishes another remarkable aid in determining the nature and character of this kingdom and dominion given to Christ and his saints, and also the distinctive, detailed features connected with the setting up of this kingdom.

It is very evident that the kingdom referred to in the vision is the one mentioned by all the holy Prophets, as also by Christ and the Apostles. It is the kingdom mentioned in the prayer Jesus taught his disciples, “Thy Kingdom come,” etc. It is the kingdom promised by the Savior to his followers in the words, “Fear not, little flock, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the Kingdom.” It is the one mentioned by the Apostle James, “Hath not God chosen the poor of this world, rich in faith and heirs of the Kingdom which He hath promised to them that love Him.” St. Peter also speaks of it in the words, “If ye do these things, ye shall never fall; for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”

This Kingdom will be established by the Son of Man at his Second Advent. All that is said of it in this vision of Daniel is that all peoples, nations, and languages shall come under its benign sway. The knowledge now due to those who have “ears to hear” concerning God’s great plan of redemption, shows that the great object of the Second Advent and the establishment of this Kingdom of Christ and his saints, is to reconcile the world unto God by a process of ruling and teaching and disciplining, termed in the Scriptures judging and blessing. This great work is designated in Acts 3:21 as restitution, and the period during which it will be in progress is called “times of restitution which God hath spoken [promised] by the mouth of all His holy Prophets since the world began.” This work of restitution, redemption, blessing, follows as a logical sequence the work of redemption accomplished at the First Advent by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the whole world. The Advent of the Son of Man is, therefore, the dawn of hope for the world, the time for the bestowment of the favors secured for the whole world by the sacrificial death of the great Redeemer. The Gospel Age is merely an intervening parenthesis, during which the Kingdom class is selected, to be associated with Christ in the accomplishment of this great work of restitution.

The Scriptures plainly teach that our Lord’s resurrection was to the Divine plane of being; that he is no longer a flesh being. His human nature ceased with his death. The voluntary laying down of His human life by the power of the eternal Spirit, was the price that opened the way for God to deal with man for his blessing. The redemption price was not, nor could it be, taken back; it was the ransom price for the world. He is now the express image of the Father, having a Divine body like the Father. The inspired Apostle says that He “is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who [except the Father] only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” The Second Advent of the Son of Man, therefore, while personal, will not be visible to the dwellers of earth. It will not be manifested, or made known to the world until his joint- heirs are changed to heavenly glory, honor, and immortality; for, “when Christ, who is our life shall appear [be manifested], then shall we also appear [be manifested] with him in glory.”

With these thoughts before us concerning the great plan of redemption and restitution which are not described in this vision of Daniel, a flood of light is thrown upon this marvelous throne vision and its proceedings. It should be kept in mind, first of all, that this throne scene is a vision. But while it is a vision, it is designed to picture a real and wonderful transaction. Furthermore, the fulfilment of this vision will not be witnessed by the dwellers of earth. It is very manifest that it does not picture the great individual judgment day of the world, as many expositors seem to think; rather it is designed to picture the Son of Man’s assumption of authority and sovereignty over the whole world. The judgment of the world as individuals is specially featured in a vision of the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (Revelation 20:11-15).

There is, however, a judgment described in this vision of Daniel; it is a judgment of the wild beast governments, and the little horn or Papal kingdom. In the judgment described in the symbolic vision of the Apocalypse it is said that “the dead, small and great, stand before God.” Not the slightest hint of such a transaction is seen in this vision of Daniel. It is true, in both visions it is said that the “books were opened,” but in the Apocalyptic vision it is stated that the “dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books.” In the Daniel vision nothing is said at all about the dead being judged. In the Apocalypse vision it is said that “another book was opened, which is the book of life,” but in the vision of Daniel, no mention is made of “the book of life.” The two visions, therefore, are not identical.

In the vision of Daniel, that which is judged is very definitely mentioned in the words, “And the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end” (verse 26). The dominion referred to as being taken away is that of the little horn, Papacy, and also that of the beast, the last form of the fourth beast kingdom. It is very apparent, however, that the judgment decision and execution described is designed to clear or prepare the way for the great judgment or probation day of the world. The judgment depicted removes everything of an evil nature that stands in the way, or hinders the knowledge of God from filling the earth as the waters cover the great deep. This will be necessary in order that the great trial or probation day may proceed to a satisfactory conclusion, giving all mankind an opportunity to secure the everlasting life and blessings that the sacrifice of the great Redeemer purchased.

I Beheld Till the Thrones Were Cast Down

We now consider more particularly the various features of this throne vision of Daniel. The Prophet says, “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit … the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” One of the results of this judgment is stated to be that “they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.” As the fulfilment of this judgment vision is not to be seen by those on earth, a most interesting and important question suggests itself to the mind, namely, When it is meeting its fulfilment, how will it be known? A general answer would be, that it would be known by the dominion of Papacy being taken away. This would be one of the first evidences that this great judgment assize is in session.

Casting our eyes back over the eventful history of Papacy, what do we see? We answer, Certain momentous events have been transpiring now for over a century which show that the decisions of this judgment throne have been meeting their fulfilment. As we have seen in the foregoing, events began to occur in the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution of 1793 which culminated in completing the picture of Papacy’s receiving a most deadly wound. In 1799 Napoleon dethroned the pope, and while he was reinstated and deposed again and again, yet, as is well known, in 1870 he lost every vestige of temporal dominion. Will he regain it? We think not. If he does not, then that feature of the prophecy which says, “they shall take away his dominion,” is a matter of complete fulfilment. Over half a century lies in the past since this event occurred, and all that remains to be fulfilled is described in the words, “to consume and to destroy it unto the end,” and that other portion of the Prophet’s statement, “I saw until the beast [itself] was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame.” We set no fixed dates for these fulfilments, except that the years 1793, 1799 and 1870, mark special events in the whole process. This great throne vision, then, has for some time past been meeting its fulfilment.

It would seem then that this vision of Daniel, in which he saw the Ancient of Days sitting in judgment, was not intended to picture any outward supernatural event that would be seen by human beings either here on earth or in the heavens above. It is, therefore, seen only to the eye of faith; and only by those who are taking heed to the more sure word of prophecy, the light shining in a dark place. This was the thought of Mr. Russell, as we read:

“This beast or Roman Empire in its horns or divisions still exists, and will be slain by the rising of the masses of the people, and the overthrow of governments, in the ‘Day of the Lord,’ preparatory to the recognition of the heavenly rulership. This is clearly shown from other Scriptures. … However, the consuming of the Papal horn comes first. Its power and influence began to consume when Napoleon took the pope prisoner to France. Then, when neither the curses of the popes nor their prayers delivered them from Bonaparte’s power, it became evident to the nations that the Divine authority and power claimed by the Papacy were without foundation. After that, the temporal power of the Papacy waned rapidly until, in September, 1870, it lost the last vestige of its temporal power at the hands of Victor Emmanuel.

“Nevertheless, during all that time in which it was being ‘consumed,’ it kept uttering its great swelling words of blasphemy, its last great utterance being in 1870, when, but a few months before its overthrow, it made the declaration of the infallibility of the popes. All this is noted in the prophecy: ‘I beheld then [that is, after the decree against this horn, after its consumption had begun] because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake’ (Daniel 7:11).

“Thus we are brought down in history to our own day, and made to see that the thing to be expected, so far as the empires of the earth are concerned, is their utter destruction. The next thing in order is described by the words, ‘I beheld even till the beast was slain and his body destroyed and given to the burning flame.’ ”

The Prophet says that he “beheld till the thrones were cast down.” Mr. Barnes’ thought on this passage is that there was in the vision, a setting up or a placing of thrones for the administering of judgment, etc., on the beast. Nothing is more common in the Scriptures, he says, than to represent others as thus associated with God in pronouncing judgment on men. Other Scriptures, however, show that this period in connection with the judgment on Papacy, will be marked by the toppling of thrones, which means the dethronement of kings. This is in a very special sense a characteristic of this period, especially of the days in which we now live.

Daniel next speaks of another great event that he beheld:

“I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before Him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a Kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his Kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.”

The one designated here as the Son of Man is understood by all to represent the Messiah, the Christ. The name is one assumed by our Lord during his earthly ministry. He used this designation as though it needed no explanation that it referred to the Messiah. This is the interpretation given to the expression, Son of Man, by Jewish writers. Mr. Barnes informs us that in the ancient Book of Zohar, it is said:

“In the times of the Messiah, Israel shall be one people in the Lord, and He shall make them one nation in the earth, and they shall rule above and below; as it is written, Behold one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven; this is the King Messiah, of whom it is written, And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed  ”

At this point another most interesting and important question arises, namely, Are we to suppose that there will be a literal, visible appearance of the Messiah, a visible coming of the Son of Man in literal clouds, into the presence of the Ancient of Days, as is here represented in this vision? We think not. One has said:

“It is not to be taken literally; that is, we are not from this passage to expect a literal appearance of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven, preparatory to the setting up of the Kingdom of the saints. For if one portion is to be taken literally, there is no reason why all should not be.”

If it is to be understood literally, then we would expect not merely the appearing of the Son of Man in the clouds, but also as a part of the fulfilment of the vision the literal placing of a throne in the skies, a literal streaming forth of flame from the throne, a literal appearance of the Ancient of Days with a garment of white and hair like wool, a literal coming of the one like a Son of Man before the throne to receive a kingdom. Perhaps no one believes all this to be literal.

The writer above quoted has said concerning all the transactions of this remarkable scene:

“The proper interpretation is to regard this, as it was seen by Daniel, as a vision — a representation of things in the world as if what is here described would occur. That is, great events were to take place, of which this would be a proper symbolical representation — or as if the Son of Man, the Messiah, would thus appear, would approach the ‘Ancient of Days,’ would receive a kingdom, and would make it over to the saints. Now, there is no real difficulty in understanding what is here meant to be taught, and what we are to expect; and these points of fact are the following, viz: (1) That He who is here called the ‘Ancient of Days’ is the source of power and dominion. (2) That there would be some severe adjudication in the power here represented by the beast and the [little] horn. (3) That the kingdom or dominion of the world is to be in fact given to him who is here called the ‘Son of Man’ — the Messiah — a fact represented here by his approaching the ‘Ancient of Days,’ and who is the source of all power. (4) That there is to be some passing over of the kingdom or power into the hands of the saints; or some setting up of a kingdom on the earth, of which he is to be the head, and in which the dominion over the world shall be in fact in the hands of his people, and the laws of the Messiah everywhere prevail.”

There have been two extreme views held concerning this reign of Christ. The one is that all this will be literally fulfilled. In other words that the Son of God, the Messiah, will literally appear and live and reign on this earth. According to this view Christ will appear in person and set up a visible and glorious kingdom, making the earthly Jerusalem his capital, and from this city, sway His sceptre over the world. All nations and people at this time will become subject to Him; and all authority will be wielded by His people under Him. This, with some non-essential modifications, is the view held by Adventists, and by some other Pre-Millennialists.

The other view is the one taught by the Post-Millennialists. According to this view, after the destruction of Antichrist and his evil influence over mankind, there will be a conversion of multitudes of humanity to the Messiah, to God; the principles of the Christian religion will everywhere prevail; the righteous in their earthly human state will have control of the laws, and the Redeemer will be universally obeyed. This condition will last for a thousand years, after which Christ will return.

The truth, to some extent, comprehends both of these views. There will indeed be a heavenly state and an earthly state, or a heavenly, spiritual phase and an earthly phase of the Kingdom of God. The spiritual phase will be unseen to the dwellers of earth. This phase of the Kingdom will be made up of Christ and his saints in heavenly glory, and from them the Divine laws will proceed. The earthly phase during the Millennial state will be centered at Jerusalem, and will be made up of the resurrected saints of Old Testament times. The Prophet thus refers to both: “The law shall go forth of Zion [the heavenly phase] and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem [the earthly phase].” Under this supreme and all-powerful sovereignty, the human family will have their judgment or probation; the goal set before them being everlasting life as human beings. This great work will begin with the living, after the great judgment of the nations and false religious systems has ceased. It will go on until all who have been in the sleep of death have been awakened, and with the others have had their trial. This great opportunity has been secured to them through the sacrifice of the great Redeemer.

The Eternal Kingdom

Mr. Guinness presents some thoughts that are remarkably clear on this coming reign of Christ:

“The coming kingdom is to be divided chronologically into two parts: a first, or opening section, which is to last for a thousand years; and a second, or main portion, which is to last for ever. We speak of the first, in consequence of its predicted duration, as the Millennium, and of the second, because of its endlessness, as The Eternal Kingdom. These two sections bear to each other the relation of a portico to a building, or of birth to life, the one being the brief introduction to the other. The Millennial reign of Christ is an introductory time of putting down all rule and authority and power, of bringing everything into subjection to Divine authority, of giving men one last supreme season of probation under the righteous government of Christ himself. It is the final stage in the work of redemption prior to the introduction of its eternal results. It closes by the destruction of the last enemy, death, together with the final expulsion and punishment of its author [Satan]; and the eternal Kingdom dates from this close and completion of the redeeming work of Christ.

“The statements of Scripture leave no room whatever to question that the Millennial reign of Christ is distinctively a part of the mediatorial work, by which the human race is redeemed and placed in a better position than that which Adam lost. The progress of that redemption has already been divided into three well marked stages, and the Millennial reign is simply a fourth. Each Age has been like a higher form in a school, an advance on the previous one, both in the revelation which it has made of God — His will, His character, His purposes, and in the degree of saving blessing which it has brought to mankind. The Patriarchal Age¹ revealed the power of God to create and (in the flood) to destroy; but from Adam to Moses there was no law, no moral law, to make known the Divine holiness, no ceremonial law to typify the great salvation to be revealed in its season. … Thus the creative power, the perfect holiness, and the wondrous grace of God our Savior have been all duly illustrated in succession; but the governmental power, the righteousness and justice of God, blended with infinite love, are yet to be fully manifested on earth, and the Millennial reign of Christ is the Age in which this manifestation takes place. The Christian dispensation has been one of forbearance with sin and of grace to sinners, but one in which God’s power and justice have been almost as much concealed in His dealings with the world at large as His glory. But the Millennial Age is to exhibit all these attributes; it is to be a reign of righteousness, a time of rewarding His saints and servants, a time of destroying those that destroy the earth, of ruling all nations with a rod of iron, that is, inflexible justice and resistless strength. ‘He that overcometh, and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers; even as I received of My Father.’ ‘Behold, a King shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.’ ‘He shall judge Thy people with righteousness, and Thy poor with judgment.’ ‘He shall break in pieces the oppressor. In His days shall the righteous flourish.’ ‘The glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.’

(1) This writer understood the Patriarchal Age to begin with creation.

“It is the age of the manifestation of the righteousness and the glory of God in Christ, and as all the previous ages or dispensations of Providence, which have afforded so many stages of probation to mankind, have ended in apostasy and judgment, so, according to the teachings of Scripture, will this Millennial Age, although supremely blessed and glorious during its course. It is not only introduced by an era of judgment (Revelation 19:19-21) but, like all previous dispensations, it closes with a similar era (Revelation 20:7-15). The opening era witnesses the destruction of the Roman beast, with his false prophet and worshipers, the kings of the earth and their armies, together with the binding of Satan for a thousand years; while the closing era witnesses the final destruction of Satan, and of the rebel hosts gathered through his deceptions, as well as the destruction of the last enemy, death and hades being cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:10-14). Then the work of redeeming the race of the first Adam having been fully accomplished by the Second Adam, the woman’s Seed having crushed the serpent’s head, the mediatorial Kingdom of Christ passes into His eternal Kingdom, as it is written: ‘Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. … And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto Him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.’ ”

Thus these later revelations concerning the Kingdom amplify and complete the brief, condensed, early predictions contained in the wonderful visions of Daniel. The very latest predictions concerning the Kingdom are found in the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to him to show unto his servants. These should be allowed, not only to complete, to fill up all the details concerning these future, glorious times, but the visions of the same wonderful revelation should be permitted to shed more light on the rise, development, as well as the successive order of events associated with the consumption and final destruction of the beast empires of Daniel’s vision. Indeed, these great events of the past and future constitute the subject matter of the visions of this last great prophecy that Christ gave to his Church.