A Historical Context For The Deadly Wound

[Stewart (SDA)]

God saw fit to build up the Adventist church through the study of Bible prophecy. One of the most prominent prophecies taught amongst our people is the “1260 days” of Revelation 11:3 & 12:6, etc. It was during the 1260 years that the great Catholic power was in the ascendancy, wearing out the saints of the Most High.

With regards to the beginning and ending points of this period, a large body of historical material is available to the student of history. It has been my purpose to condense that material into note form, that the reader might see at a glance the fundamental historical contexts in which these two significant dates – 538AD and 1798AD – are set.

It is my hope also, that this little work might dispel some of the misconceptions that have grown up beside these two prophetic “marker posts”. Those that look here for a display of eloquence, or pages of private judgment and interpretation, must, I fear, turn away with little satisfaction, but for those that enjoy working with plain facts, I hope to supply a few of these for their edification and profit.


This paper is companion to “A Historical Context For 538AD”.

[Stewart (SDA)]

1798  A Historical Context.


1788-1789
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION BEGINS. (1)
France, for many years has been the main secular support of the Papacy. (2)


1790
The French nation faces imminent bankruptcy. “The wealth of the [French] church was considerable, and for more than a century needy statesmen had looked on it with longing eyes.”

“On April 16 the Assembly voted the nationalization of all Church property”, and so it was that all church property in France became “the property of the nation”. (3)

The Clergy, which had “supported the Revolution during the closing months of 1789, was suddenly attacked and driven into opposition by the... sale of all church property.” (4)


November 27
France enacts the “Civil Constitution of the Clergy”, effectively making the Clergy (in France) employees of the State.


Pope Pius VI condemns the Civil Constitution of the Clergy. (5)
The struggle between the Revolutionaries and the Church intensifies.


1793
THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT BECOMES INCREASINGLY ANTI-CHURCH and ANTI-GOD.
France decrees “the abolition of all religion”. (6)


November 10
A “NEW RELIGION” EMERGES.
The “first of the Feasts of Reason” is celebrated in “the Temple of Reason” (Notre Dame Cathedral). The “Goddess of Reason” is conducted, in procession, into the Temple. (7)

“Our new Religion..! Look at it one moment, O Reader, not two. The shabbiest page of human Annals... [The] Mumbo-Jumbo of the African woods to me seems venerable beside this new Deity”. (History of the French Revolution [Carlyle] p.356.)


July 1794
The Reign of Terror ends.


NAPOLEON RISING INTO PROMINENCE – BUT HE IS STILL A SERVANT OF THE STATE.

Napoleon Bonaparte becomes Commander in Chief of the French army in Italy. (8)


September 20 1797
Napoleon instructs his brother, Joseph (then French ambassador at Rome):


“Should the Pope die, you must do your utmost to prevent the nomination of a successor, and bring about a revolution.” (9)


October 10 1797
The French foreign minister, Talleyrand, also writes to Joseph Bonaparte at Rome : —


"You have two things, citizen-general, to do :


1. To prevent, by all possible means, the King of Naples [i.e. his armed forces] from entering the Papal territory.
2. To increase, rather than restrain, the good dispositions of those who think that it is high time the reign of the Popes should finish ; in a word, to encourage the aspirations of the Roman people towards liberty." (10)

Eleven days afterwards, the President of the French Directory wrote to Napoleon: —

“In regard to Rome, the Directory cordially approve of the instructions you have given to your brother, to prevent a successor being appointed to Pius VI. We must lay hold of the present favorable circumstances to deliver Europe from the pretended Papal supremacy”.
— Letter of the Directory to Napoleon, 21st October 1797. (10)

December 1797
The French general, Duphot, is killed in Rome by Papal troops.


A senior French government official exclaims, "It is his own fault that General Duphot has been killed. [but] ...we wanted a pretext against Rome, and now we have one." (11)


THE DEADLY WOUND IS INFLICTED ON THE PAPACY.
Note that the Papacy has suffered many “wounds” during its long history, but the wound of 1798 has been the most significant of them all.


February 10, 1798
A French army under General Berthier enters Rome.


February 15, 1798
The sovereignty of the people is proclaimed, and the Roman Republic established.


FORMAL NOTIFICATION.
General Berthier posts the following notice in all the districts of Rome:

“...The commanding General of the French army in Italy declares in the name of his Government that he recognizes the independence of the [new] Roman Republic and that this Government stands under the special protection of the [French] army. The same General also declares in the name of the French Republic that he recognizes the [new] provisional Government [of Rome] as established by the sovereign people. All authority of the Papal Government is and remains abolished.” (12)

Thus “the Papal government was declared at an end, and the Cardinals were forbidden to elect a successor.” (13)

“On the night of February 20, the Pope [Pius VI] was removed from the Vatican and conducted to Sienna.” (Guizot vol.6 p.376) He remained an exile from Rome for the remainder of his life.

General Berthier writes to Napoleon, "The deputies presented me with a crown in the name of the Roman people. I told them, in receiving it, that it belonged to General Bonaparte, whose exploits had paved the way for liberty, and I received it for him." (14)

All “territorial possessions of the Church and the monasteries were confiscated and declared national property”. (Alison chp.25 p.544)

THE NEW ROMAN REPUBLIC SUBJECTED TO FRANCE.
It was determined “that no laws made by the Roman legislative bodies should either be promulgated or have force, without the approval of the French General stationed at Rome, and that he might, of his own authority, enact such laws as might appear necessary, or were ordered by the French Directory.” (Alison chp.25 p.548)

THE KING OF NAPLES ARRIVES “TO DEFEND THE CATHOLIC RELIGION”.
THE FRENCH BRIEFLY RELINQUISH CONTROL OF ROME, BUT THE POPE REMAINS IN FRENCH CUSTODY.


November 1798
“The Neapolitan vanguard [i.e. their forward units] arrived on 27 November 1798 in Rome, and on the same day a proclamation appeared... in which Ferdinand IV [King of Naples] declared that his army did not come to the Papal States in order to make war against a particular monarch, but only to defend the Catholic religion, the rights of its illustrious leader, and the peace and order of its kingdom. The French who occupied Rome had offered no resistance, but rather had retreated toward Civita-Castellana upon the approach of the enemy... On 29 November King Ferdinand himself arrived in Rome...”

“[but] the numerous Neapolitan troops melted like wax in fire as soon as they entered the melee; Ferdinand IV did not linger two weeks in Rome; the French went from being attacked to being attackers”. The French army easily defeated the King of Naples, re-took Rome, and went on to capture “the city of Naples on 23 January of the following year, 1799.” (15)

International Coalition forms against France.

“Fearful that... [the Pope] might have too much influence on the continent of Italy”. And then “apprehensive of losing their prisoner” to an English intervention, Pope Pius VI is moved from prison to prison. He finally dies in Valence, France, August 29, 1799. (16)

Allied forces at war with France.

September 1799
The English fleet liberated Naples, and commodore Troubridge, anchoring at the mouth of the Tiber, received the [French] surrender of Rome on the 29th Sep 1799. (17)

9 – 10 November 1799
Napoleon and Sieyes overthrow the French Directory. Napoleon, together with two other men (Sieyes and Ducos), form a new Government in France – a Consulate.

12 December.
NAPOLEON BECOMES FREE TO PURSUE HIS OWN AGENDA WITH REGARDS TO THE PAPACY. (18)

Napoleon Bonaparte becomes First [i.e. senior] Consul.
Five years later (in 1804) he becomes Emperor.

THE HEALING OF THE WOUND BEGINS.

1800
A NEW POPE.
“The Cardinals took advantage of the momentary abasement of the French to proceed to the election of a successor; but not at Rome, nor with wonted pontifical pomp, was the new Pope enthroned.” (19)


13-14th March 1800
A new Pope (Pius VII,) is elected at a meeting in Venice. (See Mosheim p.403; Sloane vol.2 p.206-207.) Crowned in Venice with a paper-mache Papal tiara. (All the genuine tiaras having been destroyed or taken by the French. (20))


June 1800 – 1801 “French re-conquest of Italy”. (21)

June 1800
"Napoleon deputed the bishop of Vercelli to enter into negotiations with the Pope, in regard to the re-establishment of the Catholic church." (Ranke vol.2 p.460)


“Soon afterward, Bonaparte informed the Pontiff that, excepting the legations which Austria still occupied, the TERRITORIES of his predecessors were, under certain conditions, at his disposal.” (Sloane vol.2 p.207)


The revived Papacy is placed under strict civil controls.


“No council or synod should meet without the consent of the government”. (Mosheim’s Church History p.404)


July 1801
Concordat ['treaty'] between Napoleon and Pius VII.


Napoleon "conceded that the laws of 1790 [the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, etc.] should be abolished, and that the Pope should be officially recognized by the State as head of the Church." (Sloane, vol.2 p.207)


THE CHURCH CAN NO LONGER CONTROL THE DISSEMINATION OF THE BIBLE.

The first “Bible Society” (The British Bible Society) is organized. The Papacy “condemned... all societies for circulating the Scriptures” but it had no power to stop the spread of the Bible. Pius IX writes later (in 1864) that “pests of this description are frequently rebuked in the severest terms, in” our previous encyclicals. (See, “Syllabus of Errors”, sec.4, Pius IX, published Dec. 8th 1864)


December 2 1804.
Pius VII “officiates at the imperial coronation” of Napoleon.


Napoleon does not, however, allow the Pope to crown him, but crowns himself Emperor. (Sloane vol 2 p.343-344; Mosheim p.404)


1805
“Napoleon surpassed any pious mediaeval ruler in multiplying the marks of Imperial favor toward the church, [but] after 1805 the relations became strained.” (Gershoy p.466)


1808
“Early in 1808 a French army of occupation [again] took possession of Rome”. (Gershoy p.431; & See Ranke vol.2 p.464)


1809
Napoleon “divested the Pope of his temporal power”, and resorts to “imprisoning the Pontiff”. (22.)


Pope Pius VII “submitted to reside in France...” and “submitted to render himself subject to the French Empire.” (Ranke vol.2 p.465)


1812
Napoleon suffers devastating losses in his Russian campaign. “600,000 fighting men had entered Russia; 80,000" came out. And “of these, a large proportion had been late reinforcements.” (The 19th Century, A History p.53)


Jan 1813
“The Concordat of Fontainbleau... was arranged on the understanding that he [Pius VII] should no more return to Rome.” (Ranke vol.2 p.465)


1814
Pope Pius VII “returned in triumph to Rome.” (Gershoy p.466)
“One of his first acts... was the solemn reinstation of the Jesuits. On Sunday the 7th August, 1814, the Pontiff himself read mass in the church of the Jesuits”. (Ranke vol.2 p.468)


1815
THE FALL OF NAPOLEON.
Following his defeat at Waterloo, Napoleon abdicates and is exiled.


THE STATES OF THE CHURCH RESTORED. (The Congress of Vienna, 1815.)
The “avowed object [of this Congress] was to restore to Europe as nearly as possible the political arrangements which existed before the [Napoleonic] war”. It was through this agency that “the Pope resumed his temporal sovereignty”. (The Nineteenth Century - A History 1801-1900, p.67,68 & see p.487.)


“Cardinal Consalvi, on behalf of the Pope, claimed the restoration of all the territories, including Avignon and the Venaissin [originally French territory], which had belonged to the Holy See in 1790.” Avignon and Venaissin were not accorded the Papacy, but “in the end Cardinal Consalvi was well content to obtain the old States of the Church with the three Legations of Ferrara, Bologna and Ravenna.” (The Congress of Vienna, Nicolson, p.194)


“The Congress of Vienna restored the States of the Church”. (22)


"Secular legitimacy" had been sought for the Papacy "with even more determination from the side of its opponents in faith, than from that of its adherents and the followers of its creed."


It was “almost entirely by the intervention of these non-Catholic [Protestant] powers that the Pontiff [regained] possession of his States.” (23)


Many powers and privileges were not recoverable however. But Pius VII had “revived, in some degree, the inquisition [primarily in the form of book censorship], and reinstated the obnoxious society of the Jesuits.” (24)

1840
PAPAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF WEAKNESS.
Pope Pius IX writes in his Encyclical Letter, dated September 1840,


“Are we not compelled to see the most crafty enemies of the truth ranging far and wide with impunity?” [i express my sympathies for you, my priests, that you] “are yet compelled to tolerate in your diocese these afore mentioned propagators of heresy and infidelity.” [Lost are the days when the Papacy did not need to tolerate Protestant teachings.]


THE CHURCH BEGINS TO LOSE IT’S STATES AGAIN.
1859 The Papacy loses the Territory of Romagna.
1860 The Papacy loses the Territories of Umbria and Marches.
(Oxford Dict. of the Christian Church, [F.L. Cross], art. Pius IX.)


May 1871
ANOTHER WOUND INFLICTED ON THE PAPACY.
THE “LAW OF GUARANTEES” IS PASSED BY THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT.


Pope Pius IX “was virtually deprived of all temporal sovereignty by the Law of Guarantees of 13 May 1871” (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,[F.L.Cross], art. Pius IX).


But according to this Law, “the Pope’s person was declared sacred and inviolable... the freedom of Conclaves and of General Councils was guaranteed; the diplomatic immunity of foreign envoys to the Holy See was recognized”. (F.L.Cross p.594, art. Guarantees, The Law of.) The Law of Guarantees also recognized the Pope's right to the title of “Sovereign”. But above and beyond all this, the Papal office remained – it was not abolished as it had been in 1798. The Law of Guarantees kept the Papacy alive.


Feb 1929
The Lateran Treaty (signed 11th Feb. 1929) re-established the Vatican City as a sovereign State. (See F.L.Cross, art. Lateran Treaty.) This treaty healed the ‘wound’ of 1871. But the deadly wound of 1798 began to be healed previous to this.

__________________________________________

The Papacy has continued, but in a significantly degraded condition.
She is no longer the "Corrector of heretics."
She is no longer a “Suppressor of heresy”, but she is now compelled to “tolerate” it.


_________________________________________

“The power of the Pope, as a systematic persecutor, has thus been annulled by the events growing out of the Republican era of 1793" (26).

___________________________________________

Bibliography (With Additional Notes).
All Source Material Is Exclusively Non-SDA.

1. History of the French Revolution, Thomas Carlyle, (Chronological Summary) p.406.
The Revolution began after the French King, Louis XVI, decided to call together a General Conference, granting the common people “double the amount of representatives allowed to the two privileged orders” [i.e. the nobility and the clergy]. All were excited that “the country was about to deliberate [on its own affairs] as it had never done before.”

“An indescribable emotion shook the whole country... everybody – even the most favored – thought themselves oppressed, everyone [both high-born and low] fancied this was a glimpse of liberty... everyone thought this meant the beginning of reform...” (The French Revolution, Louis Madelin, pp.3-4) It was in fact the beginning of their descent into a great horror.

2. The Papacy, McKnight, p.184-185. France had been the first nation converted to Catholicism and was therefore regarded as her "first-born". The Church bitterly lamented when she was bereaved of her "eldest son". (See Schaff vol.4 p.37)

A certain irony might be found in the fact that the Church's "eldest son" was the one to inflict the "deadly wound" on the mother church. But it is interesting to note that Napoleon (after 1801) declared that he, “like his predecessors, ...was the eldest son of the church, who bore the sword for her protection”. (Ranke vol.2 p.463)

3. The French Revolution (Louis Madelin) p.134, 135, 138; Mosheim vol.2 p.378
4. Louis Madelin p.133-134.
5. “By the end of January [1791] it was clear that the Pope’s voice would be raised in condemnation... His briefs of March and April 1791 confirmed the general expectation.” (The French Revolution, Louis Madelin, p.175.)
6. Mosheim vol.2 p.378.
7. History of the French Revolution, (Carlyle) p.322-324.
“Out of [the] strange fall of [religious] Formulas, tumbling there in confused welter, betrampled by the Patriotic dance, is it not passing strange to see a new Formula arise?” The procession comes, “and with them the strangest freightage : a New Religion!”
8. The Era of the French Revolution, Gottschalk p.480
9. Letter. Napoleon to Joseph Bonaparte dated 20 Sep. 1797.
Quoted in “History of Europe from the Commencement of the French Revolution”, Archibald Alison, vol.3, p.535. Napoleon’s instructions were in accordance with the will of the French government. Napoleon’s personal views, however, even at this point, differed from French national policy with regards to the Papacy.

10. Alison's History of Europe vol. 3 p.536
11. France, Guizot vol.6 p.373-374. The French senior official was a man by the name of Cacault.
12. “History of the Abduction and Imprisonment of Pius VI”, [baldassari] p.172.
13. Life of Napoleon Bonaparte, Sloane, vol.2 p.39; Gottschalk p.481; Mosheim vol.2 p.379.
14. France, Guizot, vol.6 p.375
15. Baldassari p.286-288; See also Alison chp.25 p.562-565.
16. Alison's History of Europe vol.3 p.542. The readiness of the English to intervene becomes apparent when we read that “the English cruisers in the Mediterranean redoubled their vigilance, in the generous hope of rescuing the father of an opposite church from the persecution of his enemies.
Apprehensive of losing their prisoner, the French altered his destination”, which had originally been Portugal. (Guizot p.375-376.) Pope Pius VI died and was buried in Valence, France, but Bonaparte later had his remains moved to Rome as a mark of respect. (Sloane vol.2 p.216, 206)

17. Rome From the Fall of the Western Empire p.444

18. Note: France, during the Revolutionary era, was ruled by a succession of ruling bodies, and each ruling body viewed the Papacy differently: 1. The Constituent Assembly, then 2. The Directory, then 3. Consuls, then 4. Emperor.
“The [French] Constituent Assembly had endeavored to cast off its connection with the Pope; the Directory had wished to annihilate him; Bonaparte's idea was to preserve him, but at the same time to keep him in a state of subjection, and to make him the mere instrument of his omnipotence.” Ranke p.314.

Note Napoleon’s personal profession regarding religion:
“Let them call me a Papist”, he said. “I am nothing. I was a Mohammedan in Egypt; I shall be a Catholic here [in France] for the good of the people... It was by becoming a Catholic that I terminated the Vendan war; by becoming a Mussulman [i.e. a Moslem] that I obtained a footing in Egypt, by becoming an Ultramontane that I won the Italian priests, and had I to govern a nation of Jews I would rebuild Solomon’s temple.” (The French Revolution and Napoleon [Gershoy,] p.366)

19. Rome and its Papal Rulers p.44515.
20. “The whole sacerdotal habits [i.e. uniforms] of the Pope and Cardinals were burnt, in order to collect from the flames the gold with which they were adorned.” (Alison’s History of Europe vol.3 p.544.)

21. The French Revolution and Napoleon, [Gershoy,] p.363
While General Brune drove out the Austrians, Murat expelled the English and the Neapolitans.

22. Oxford Dict. Of The Christian Church, art. Pius VII.
23. Ranke's History of the Popes vol.2 p.467
24. Mosheim p.405; Ranke p.468-469
Note that the Papal States were recovered during the pontificate of Pius VII, but those States were lost again during the reign of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878). It was this loss of “temporal dominion that marked his pontificate.” (Oxford Dict. Of The Christian Church (F.L. Cross, editor), art. Pius IX.)
The Lateran Treaty (signed 11th Feb. 1929) re-established the Vatican City as a sovereign State. (ibid, art. Lateran Treaty.) However, it should be noted that the Lateran Treaty (1929) was not the healing of the deadly wound inflicted in 1798. The Lateran Treaty healed the lesser wound inflicted in 1871 when Pius IX “was virtually deprived of all temporal sovereignty by the Law of Guarantees of 13 May 1871”. The Papacy received this other “wound” in 1871, but the Papal office was not then abolished, as it had been in February of 1798.

25. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1961), F.L. Cross, editor; article, Pius VII.
26. Croly on the Apocalypse, p. 257.

version 1.4, Feb 2015.

 

[Stewart (SDA)]

STEWART

 

thank you  for posting  this information

 

 

dgrimm60

Thanks dgrimm,

 

This is a project I've spent some time with over the years. Perhaps the history will be of use/interest to some.

 

Stewart.

[Samie]

The basis of the 1260 day-prophecy:

 

KJV Daniel 7:25-27   25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.  26 But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion, to consume and to destroy it unto the end.  27 And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.

 

Notice: The 1260-day period will be characterized by the wearing of the saints by the little-horn-king.  At the end of the 1260-day period, the kingdom and dominion shall be given to the saints (v27). This giving of the kingdom to the saints at the end of the 1260-day period is earlier expressed as possessing of the kingdom by the saints:

 

KJV Daniel 7:21-22   21 I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them;  22 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.

 

At the end of the 1260-day-period, the saints will possess the kingdom. The Master Teacher Himself tells us WHEN the saints shall possess the kingdom:

 

KJV Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world
 

In line with the principle of allowing the Bible explain itself, the 1260-day prophecy will end at the Second Coming of our Lord when the Lord shall reward every man according to what each has done (Matt 16:27; Rev 22:12).

[wendys]

I am just curious.  You stated this is a companion to the Historical Context For 538AD.  Have you posted that topic yet?

[Samie]

The time-prophecies in Daniel - the 3-1/2-year-prophecy, the 2300 days and the 70 weeks - seem to have one thing in common: all are, in one way or another, related with the setting up of the "abomination of desolation" (AoD).

 

Just wondering why many seemed to have forgotten the words of our our Master Teacher that the setting up of the AoD will trigger a rapid succession of events that will culminate at His Second Coming (see Matt 24:14-31).

[Stewart (SDA)]

I am just curious.  You stated this is a companion to the Historical Context For 538AD.  Have you posted that topic yet?

Hello Wendys,

 

I don't think I have posted the 538 paper here, but I will try to post it soon.

 

Unfortunately my 538 compilation has been a scene of some strife in the past... and I have felt some reluctance to post it.  I wish there was a place where SDA's could post thoughts without the attendant "mixed multitude" wrangling and striving and fighting at almost every step. But there is really no flock where the wolves will not enter in sheep's clothing.

[wendys]

Stewart (SDA),

 

Please go to the www.666man.net web site and click on "contact us" in the box at the top and write me a short note so that I have your personal e-mail address. I'll write you back.  I have not the kind of notes you have on the events of history, but I have some ideas on how to explain what happened that may make it more difficult to controvert.  I could share those with you and nobody need interfere. 

 

That is, do this if you are willing.

 

In the future, when I have some time (which I do not have enough of right now), I would like to post your notes on the events of 1798 on my web site as I think that would be useful for people to know about the things that happened then.

[Stewart (SDA)]

Louis Alexandre Berthier.

 

Some Points of Interest With Regards to his Involvement In Rome, 1798.

 

VERY RELUCTANT INVOLVEMENT.

Prior to his arriving at Rome at the head of a French army, General Berthier repeatedly appealed to Napoleon Bonaparte :

 

“I ask you as a favor to withdraw me from my command; I only accepted it because you proposed it to me, and under the supposition that it would only last a month. I have always told you I wanted to get away from revolutions; four years in America and ten in France are quite enough. I will fight as a soldier as long as my country has enemies to fight against, but I do not wish to mix myself up with revolutionary politics.”

 

And France's dealings with the Papacy was certainly a matter of “revolutionary politics”, but still the General advanced, as obedient as ever.

 

Then on February 10^th 1798, the same day that Berthier arrived outside of Rome with his forces, he wrote again to Napoleon,

 

“...I think that military operations [here] have become superfluous, and that there is more need here for negotiators. I consider my presence useless. I reiterate the request that I have already made to you to recall me beside you.”

 

It appears that Berthier's reluctance – perhaps for the first time in his distinguished military career – presses him to disregard the orders given him by the French Government.

 

“CAPITULATION”.

A historian notes that “on the same day, without a thought about the instructions of the Directory, or of the Commissioners sent him, the General granted to the Pope a capitulation.”

 

This “capitulation” appears to mean that Berthier granted Pope Pius VI permission to remain in Rome; and indeed, it was not long before the Pope was assigned “a detachment of 500 men... to guard his person.” (History of France, Guizot, p.374-375.)

 

BERTHIER IS OVER-RULED.

The historian continues, quoting part of an order issued to Berthier.

 

“The Pope's presence at the Vatican, and the maintenance of religious ceremonies, were too much for the revolutionary and anti-Christian passions of the [French] Directory. Peremptory instructions were at once issued :

 

'The so-called capitulation with reference to the Pope, decreed by General Berthier, is annulled. General Berthier will at once arrest the Pope and his household, and transport them immediately to Portugal in a vessel with a flag of truce. He will likewise send away by sea, from the territory of the Roman States, all Cardinals and priests who formed part of the Roman Government... He will form at once a provisional government... [and] establish a definitive government without delay'”.

 

The tone of the order is very definite, and quite angry.

 

But elements such as these can help, I think, to bring a certain flavor into what might otherwise be a dry, clinical, portrayal of prophetic history. It is worth trying to make prophetic events, like this French intervention in 1798, interesting for our people. Of course we do not need to present them with long histories, but by selecting pertinent points of interest, we might, potentially at least, help to engage their minds.

 

The stories behind 538 and 1798 (for example,) might be made interesting for people, but as a church we seem to have made little real efforts to achieve this. Facts, figures, and eloquence, can go only so far. But the human realities, which can draw us deeper into those significant events, and help us to bring them to life – these things are often given little, if any, room. Why should we not endeavor to make the events bound up with prophetic fulfilment, more interesting? It is in this sense, I believe, that we are called to help the Spirit of God.

 

“Curse ye Meroz, said the angel of the LORD, curse ye bitterly the inhabitants thereof; because they came not to the help of the LORD, to the help of the LORD against the mighty.”   (Judges 5:23)

[Stewart (SDA)]

NOTES ON THE 1260 DAYS.

 

There are two places in the Bible that explicitly mention a period of 1260 days. These are Revelation 11:3 and 12:6. Brief comments follow.

 

Rev 11:3 "And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth."

 

The context of Rev 11:3 makes it clear, I think, that these “1260 days” do not end at the Second Coming of Jesus. The 1260 day period ends before that great event. I say this because,

 

The prophecy goes on to explain that “when they shall have finished their testimony [of 1260 days clothed in sack-cloth], the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them [i.e. against the “two witnesses”], and shall overcome them, and kill them.” (11:7) So the 1260 days does not end in the triumphant appearing of Christ. In fact non-traditional SDA's must, when reading this prophecy, conclude that the 1260 days end with an apparent defeat for the things of God.

 

Immediately before this reference to the 1260 days, the prophecy mentions another time period – “forty two months”. That these two periods point to the same thing, I will briefly endeavor to show.

 

THIRTY DAYS PER MONTH.

Of course months are given variable length in our day. Some are assigned 30 days, some 31 days, and another has 28 or 29 days. But originally, the Bible expressed months of 30 days only. This becomes apparent, I think, if we consider the flood account given in Genesis, chapters 7 & 8.

 

The day on which the waters began to inundate the earth is marked – it began on the 600^th year of Noah's life, in the 2^nd month, on the 17^th day of the month. (Gen 7:11). Later, in that same year, in the 7^th month, and on the 17^th day of that month, the Ark rested among the mountains of Ararat. (8:4)

 

Exactly 5 months to the day, are marked off between the 17^th day of the 2^nd month, and the 17^th day of the 7^th month. During this 5 month period “the waters prevailed upon the earth”, and that same period is specified (in Genesis 7:24) as 150 days.

 

This furnishes us with good reason, I believe, to allow that each month was originally 30 days long. And this would also be in keeping with God's “very good”, original design – the Moon's orbit around the Earth then being perfectly circular and regular. (5months @ 30days/mth=150days.)

 

We read that in the beginning God was able to assess His own work, and that in every respect (both physically and spiritually,) He could declare that it was “very good.” The Moon's revolution around the Earth was, I have no doubt, absolutely precise and regular, at literally 30 days per revolution. But of course a change was brought in. Through the horrendously violent upheavals of the flood, many imperfections were introduced into the natural system. The Earth's axis, the Moon's revolution around the Earth, and the Earth's revolution around the Sun – all of these were directly affected by catastrophic events centered in this planet.

 

But Bible prophecy, when it designates “months”, uses the old, constant, parameter of 30 days per month. And so 42 months x 30 days/mth=1260 days. We should be mindful that the 30 day month is not simply a nice, convinient, parameter. (I return to this point later in the article.)

 

FORTY TWO MONTHS.

 

“And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.” (Rev 11:1-2)

 

There is a measuring of things pertaining to the things of God described here. (God's 'articles', and the worshipers are all measured.) But notice that things pertaining to the “Gentiles” are excluded – their place is not measured/assessed/judged.

 

THE REED.

The reed is the measuring standard. It interests me that the original word, “Kalamos”, literally refers to a plant with a segmented, hollow stalk (similar to Bamboo). Obviously we are not told how many segments the measuring reed had, but the imagery suggests a moral measuring standard, and the great moral standard of God consists of ten “segments”.

 

But when is the measuring done? The measuring cannot be done while the holy city (including the temple) is being trodden under foot [i.e. overrun] by the “Gentiles”. During that time the Gentiles have free-reign over the entire city. They have power to tread it down only because it is “given” to them, but whatever part of the city is given to them cannot be measured. So when is the measuring done?

 

The measuring takes place when the Gentiles are excluded. I suggest that the measuring is done only after the Gentiles have had their forty two months of dominance, sitting in the temple of God, showing themselves to be God. The measuring begins when the “Gentile” dominance of forty two months is over.

 

The next verse in the chapter shifts the focus somewhat.

 

“… I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.”

 

So the same period is referred to again, but now the units (and the 'players') are different. (42 months have become 1260 days. ) The units are now 30 times smaller, 'finer', and there is potential for greater exactness or “resolution”. We are not to consider, or portray, the work of the “two witnesses” in broad monthly strokes (as we might do with the work of the adversary), but rather day by day. Their time may be, and perhaps should be, subject to a much closer inspection/scrutiny than the former. The Gentiles trample the city for 42 months, but in contrast to this, God's “two witnesses” are working in a lamentable state, prophesying and teaching for 1260 days.

 

Inspiration does not assign these units of time as loosely, randomly, or as interchangably as we might have once thought.

 

1260 “Days” are applied exclusively to the things of God. (To the sufferings of God's “two witnesses” (Rev 11:3), and to the plight of the woman clothed with the Sun (Rev 12:6).)

 

Many have developed the habit of applying the “1260 days” directly to the Papacy – but this is something that the Bible does not do.

 

42 “Months” are used only in reference to those who do not know God : specifically, to those who are working in opposition to Him. (These “months” are applied to the Gentiles that trample the holy city (Rev 11:2), and to the Leopard-like beast that is seen rising out of the sea (Rev 13:5).)

[Stewart (SDA)]

538 A.D.  -- A Historical Context.

"Who shall be greatest?"
Christian bishops strive among themselves for primacy/ dominance. (1)

A.D. 533.
Emperor Justinian (based in Constantinople) moves to END the contest. He sends a personal letter to "John, Patriarch and most Holy Archbishop of the fair city of Rome" :


"...We do not suffer anything which has reference to the state of the Church... to be discussed without [it] being brought to the notice of Your Holiness, because you are the head of all the Holy Churches, for We shall exert Ourselves in every way... to increase the honor and authority of your See." (2)


Legal enactment is undertaken the following year (534).

Two powerful nations, the Vandals (in North Africa) and the Ostrogoths (in Italy), oppose the primacy of the Roman Church.


Justinian tries to pacify the two powers. (See note A.)


JUSTINIAN'S PLAN ‘A’.
“He developed personal ties with the Vandalic and Ostrogothic ruling families. [but] this was self-defeating. It produced only a backlash... [so] Justinian turned to force.”


JUSTINIAN'S PLAN ‘B’.
“In 533 he dispatched his general, Belisarius, against the Vandalic kingdom of Carthage” North Africa. (3)


Many of Justinian’s ministers oppose the venture and attempt to dissuade him. Only church-men are enthusiastically in favor of the expedition against the heretical [Arian] Vandals.


Justinian had almost come to the point of abandoning his plan when “an artful or fanatic bishop” cried, “I have seen a vision. It is the will of heaven, O emperor! That you should NOT abandon your holy enterprise for the deliverance of the African [Catholic] church.” (4)


534.
THE VANDALS (OF NORTH AFRICA) ARE QUICKLY DESTROYED.
(Plucked up by the roots.)
"The iron hand of the Republic shattered a whole civilization...". There was scarcely left “a wreck behind” (5). “The nation of the Vandals had disappeared”. (6)

Justinian then "proceeded without delay to the FULL ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH" in a nation which had formerly been a stronghold of Arianism. (7)


December 534
LEGAL ENACTMENT.
Justinian enacts his Legal Code, in which he formally grants the Roman Pope religious seniority:


“We further ordain that in accordance with their [i.e. the Church Council's] determinations, the holy pope of ancient Rome is the first [i.e. foremost] of all the priests ['sanctissimus senioris Romae papam']. [T]he archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, occupies the place next after the holy apostolic seat of ancient Rome...” (7.1)


Italy, including Rome, remains under the control of the Ostrogoths, and now Justinian sends his General, Belisarius, with an army, against them.


536. THE INVASION BEGINS. IMPERIAL FORCES TAKE ROME WITHOUT A FIGHT.
The Ostrogoths retreat ahead of the invading army, having decided “to delay till the next spring” before taking an offensive stance. They leave "a feeble garrison" in Rome, and as Belisarius "made his entrance through... [one] gate, the [Gothic] garrison departed without molestation" through another. Belisarius, unopposed, enters Rome at the invitation of the deputies of the Pope and clergy, Senate and people. “Rome hailed Belisarius as a liberator, the clergy welcomed him as a Trinitarian” (as opposed to an Arian). (8).

537-538.
The Ostrogoths return to Rome under a new king (Vittiges) and besiege the city “one year and nine days”. (The siege begins early March, 537.) (9.) "About the middle of the siege, the Pope Sylverius, convicted [or at least accused] of having sent a letter to the Goths, promising to open one of the gates to them, was banished from the city." Sylverius is replaced by Vigilius as Pope. (10.)


Jan-Feb 538.
About 200 miles North of Rome was situated the capital city of the Ostrogoths, Ravenna.


Forces loyal to Belisarius “begin operations” south of Ravenna, and advance Northward against the city. Vittigis’ uncle confronted them with an army of Goths, but he, and “almost the whole army” are killed. (Procopius Bk.6 sec.10)


March, 538.
THE GOTHS ABANDON THE SIEGE OF ROME IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR CAPITAL.
The Ostrogoths besieging Rome learn that Ravenna (their capital city) is threatened by forces loyal to Belisarius.

“As soon as Vittigis and the army of the Goths heard that Ariminum was held by [the enemy], they were plunged into great fear regarding Ravenna [which was only 33 miles North of Arminum], and abandoning all other considerations, they straighway made their withdrawal” from Rome, both for the recovery of Ariminum, and for the defense of Ravenna. (Procopius, Gothic Wars, Bk.6 sec.10; Gibbon chp.41 p.25)


During this withdrawal from Rome, the Goths receive another heavy blow.

DISASTER AT THE MILVIAN BRIDGE.
In order to withdraw and travel Northward, the Goths needed to cross the River Tiber over the Milvian Bridge. Belasarius employs this bottle-neck to his significant advantage.

“When he saw that more than half of the enemy had crossed the bridge,” Belasarius led his army out. The Goths that had not yet crossed, panicked, “and brought upon themselves a great and overwhelming calamity; for each man for himself was rushing to cross the bridge first.”

Many Goths “were being killed, both by each other and by the enemy... Many, too, fell off the bridge... sank with all their arms, and perished.” They lost, “in this way, the most of their number”. [That is, the majority of those that had not crossed the river were killed.] (Procopius, ibid.)

538.
GIBBON'S STATEMENT (CAUTION IS REQUIRED).
“The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the attack, and was almost entirely consumed in the siege of Rome... one third at least of their enormous host was destroyed” (11).

This frequently used statement calls for careful reading, because in the same paragraph Gibbon goes on to say, “Yet so powerful was this flying army, that Vittiges spared 10,000 men for the defense of [various places], and detached... an adequate force for the chastisement of rebellious Milan. At the head of the principle army he” sought to re-take Ariminum [also called Rimini], “only 33 miles distant from the Gothic capital.”

As much as 2/3 of the Ostrogothic army remained intact subsequent to their withdrawl from Rome. They continue as a formidable force.


May, 538.
THE COUNCIL OF ORLEANS.
In May of 538, another notable event occurred that signaled the ascendancy of the Papal power. Far from Rome, in the French city of Orleans, the Roman Church began to be freed from secular jurisdiction:

"As early as 538, even before the carefully guarded grants of Justinian, the third Council of Orleans thus was able to enact a canon [law] rendering episcopal assent necessary before [any member of the clergy] could appear in a secular court, either as plaintiff or defendant. This virtually placed in the hands of the Bishops complete control over all [legal] cases in which ecclesiastics were concerned; and the principle was more fully developed three years later at the fourth council of Orleans." (Studies in Church History, Lea (1883) p.184.) See note 11.1,11.2.

540 “In the very flush of his victorious honors, Belisarius was recalled by the jealousy of Justinian.” (12.) Emperor Justinian begins to perceive [the very popular] Belisarius as a threat.

540-541 Hildibadus becomes king of the Ostrogoths. He with many of his people “had hoped” that his uncle, the king of Spain, “would aid them in their... war with the Byzantines.”

No support comes. Hildibadus is assassinated. (12.1)

541.
THE LAST GREAT OSTROGOTHIC KING.
Totila (Hildibadus’ nephew) becomes king of the Ostrogoths. “It was his constant theme, that national vice and ruin are inseparably connected; that victory is the fruit of moral as well as military virtue”. (13.)

542.
With Belisarius removed from command, “eleven generals of equal rank” replaced him, but these argue among themselves, and provide poor leadership. In the absence of Belisarius, the Ostrogoths defeat Justinian’s forces stationed in Italy. (14.)

544.
Belisarius returns to Italy and resumes command of the forces opposing the Ostrogoths. (15.)

Pope Vigilius is “summoned to Constantinople” by Emperor Justinian over a doctrinal dispute commonly called "The Three Chapters". (16.)


Following Pope Vigilius’ move from Rome to Constantinople, no Pope is resident in Rome again until about AD555. Thus the Papal ‘seat’ during 544-555 was actually Constantinople, not Rome.


546 (Dec).
ROME FALLS INTO GOTHIC HANDS AGAIN.
The Ostrogoths (under Totila) recapture Rome. The city is emptied of its inhabitants. "The citizens... were dispersed in exile, and during 40 days Rome was abandoned to desolate and dreary solitude." The Ostrogoths also abandon the city.


547 (Feb).
THE GOTHS HAVE MADE A STRATEGIC ERROR.
Belisarius (Justinian’s general), taking advantage of the situation, re-occupies Rome. Totila hastily returns “to avenge the injury and disgrace”, but is repulsed three times, losing “the flower of his troops”. (17.)

JUSTINIAN LOSES INTEREST IN THE CAMPAIGN.
Justinian might have broken all Ostrogothic resistance at this point, and ended the war, but he loses interest/momentum in the campaign:


“The indolence... of a prince who despised his enemies and envied his servants [i.e. Belisarius, etc.] protracted the calamities of Italy.” He might have “terminate[d], by a strong and seasonable effort, the war which he had ambitiously undertaken... but he neglected the prosecution of the war”. (17.1)


Again, Belisarius is recalled/removed from Italy.

549.
OSTROGOTHIC RESURGENCE.
Totila captures “Rome again, and Cicily, Corsica, Sardinia, almost the entire peninsula.” (18.) [The Pope is still resident in Constantinople.]
Justinian sends his general, Narses, "to oppose the startling advance of the Gothic king (Totila)".


552-553.
DESPARATE MEASURES.
Totila apparently “renounced his [Arian] religion, and embraced the Nicene [Catholic] dogma; but it was too late.” (19)

The Ostrogoths are defeated and Totila is killed in battle.
Teia (Totila’s successor, and last of the Ostrogothic kings) is killed in battle.

Then occurred “the annihilation and disappearance of a [formerly] great and powerful people from the world’s history”. (20)

THE UPROOTING OF THE OSTROGOTHS IS COMPLETE.

“The overthrow of the Gothic kingdom was to Italy an unmitigated evil... In their overthrow began the fatal policy of the Roman See, fatal at least to Italy...” (Milman vol.1 p.446-447)

554.
“By 554 the Ostrogothic kingdom was gone.” (21)
Pope Vigilius “obtained permission to return to Rome”, but died in Sicily, during his return journey.

Emperor Justinian appoints Pelagius as the new Pope. (22)

 

_________________________________________________________________

Note A.
Some assert that the Ostrogoths did not oppose the primacy of the Roman church. It must be acknowledged that the Ostrogoths maintained a policy of separation of church and state for some years. Theodoric, chief of the Ostrogoths (from AD471 to 526) "allowed [the Pope]... to assert his ecclesiastical supremacy over Constantinople." (23.) It is quite striking to find that Theodoric's mother and some of his favorite Goths were allowed to embrace the Catholic faith without incurring any reprisals whatsoever. (See Gibbon chp.39 p.642.) Theodoric
maintained a high degree of religious liberty in Italy. However, in Theodoric's last years a change did occur, and he actively opposed the Roman Church. (24)


523-524 Theodoric (an Arian), had been “tolerant in general, and very liberal toward the Catholic church”, but now he adopts a “policy of reprisals” against the Catholics. (24.)
525 Theodoric imprisons Pope John I.
526 Theodoric dies (Schaff vol.3, p.136; Sheppard p.769), and with him dies the last vestiges of religious liberty in Italy.
527 Emperor Justin dies. Justinian (Justin’s nephew) becomes Emperor.


The historian Milman cites a notable address given by Theodoric to the Emperor Justin -"that to pretend to a dominion over the conscience is to usurp the prerogative of God; that [ii] by the nature of things the power of sovereigns is confined to external government; that [iii] they have no right of [inflicting] punishment but [i.e. except] over those who disturb the public peace, of which they are the guardians; that [iv] the most dangerous heresy is that of a sovereign who separates from himself a part of his subjects because they believe not according to his belief." (Milman vol.1 p.409) This is a very early, very striking statement regarding the truth of religious liberty.

Bibliography.

1. The Papacy, McKnight (1953) p.163
2. Code of Justinian Bk.1 Titles 1,4 (Scott's translation).
3. Byzantium, Angold (2001) p.21
4. Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon chp.41, p.2
5. Fall of Rome, Sheppard (1892) p.307;

6. Gibbon chp. 43 p.53. See also “Huns, Vandals, and the Fall of the Roman Empire” (Hodgkin) p.295
7. Gibbon chp.41, para 11
7.1 Justinian’s Code. Novellae 131, c.2. Blume’s Translation.
8. Gibbon chp. 41, p.19; Story of Civilization (Durant) Bk.4, p.109
9. Procopius Bk.5, sec. 24
10. The Age and Laws of Justinian (W.F. Collier) p.565; Gibbon chp.41, p.23
11. Gibbon chp.41, p.24; Procopius describes the Goth’s predicament in sterner terms. He says they were "reduced from many tens of thousands, to a few men... and while in name they were carrying on a siege, they were in fact being beseiged by their opponents [in Rome], and were shut off from all necessities." (Procopius, Gothic Wars, Bk.6 sec.6)

Italy and her Invaders (Hodgkin) Bk.5 chp.9, last para. "With heavy hearts the barbarians must have thought, as they turned them[selves] northwards, upon the many graves of gallant men which they were leaving on that fatal plain. Some of them must have suspected the melancholy truth that they had dug one grave, deeper and wider than all, the grave of the Gothic monarchy in Italy."

11.1 Hefele Bk.13, sec.251 canon #32 (538AD).
“No cleric may bring a layman before a secular tribunal without permission of the bishop; nor any layman a cleric without the same permission.”

11.2 Hefele Bk.13, sec.253 canon #20, 21 (541AD).
“#20. No layman may arrest, try, or punish a clergyman without permission of the bishop or other ecclesiastical superior. If the cleric is required by his ecclesiastical superior to appear before the secular judge, then he must give speech and answer there without hesitation. In a trial between a cleric and a layman the judge must make no examination except in presence of the priest or archdeacon who is the superior of the cleric. If two contending parties (a cleric and a layman) wish to carry their trial before the secular tribunal, permission to this effect may be given to the cleric. #21. The right of asylum of churches is confirmed anew.” [Re: canon law #21. If a man sought by the State was accepted into a Church building, then no Civil authority could apprehend the man while he remained within the Church.]

12. Sheppard p.306
12.1 A History of the Ostrogoths (Burns) p.100
13. Gibbon chp 43, p.54-55
14. Sheppard p.770; Gibbon chp.43 p.53
15. Gibbon chp 43 p.55
16. Latin Christianity (Milman) vol.1, p.436. The dispute over the "three chapters" brought about a schism [division] between Rome and Constantinople that lasted nearly 300 years. Justinian, in this dispute, challenged the authority of Church Councils.
17. Gibbon chp.43, p.57-58
17.1 Gibbon chp.43 p.58-59
18. Story of Civilization (Durant) Bk.4, p.110 & Gibbon chp.43, p.59
19. Fall of Rome, Sheppard (1892) p.749, 307
20. ibid. p.307
21. A History of Ostrogoths, Burns (1984) p.215
22. Schaff vol.3, p.137
23. Schaff vol.3, p.136.
24. Schaff, ibid.; Sheppard p.749, 769. See also, Hodgkin, chapter entitled, “Theodoric begins to persecute”.
 

[Samie]

. . .

 

I wish there was a place where SDA's could post thoughts without the attendant "mixed multitude" wrangling and striving and fighting at almost every step. But there is really no flock where the wolves will not enter in sheep's clothing.

 

If what I had posted is the truth, why would I fear objections of the mixed multitude? Why would I fear scrutiny if I am so sure I am in the side of truth? Why would I resort to calling others having different view of things, as wolves in sheep's clothing?