“Is Rome behind the War?” (1918)

(Above: cover of the booklet by J. A. Kensit, published by the Protestant Truth Society, 3 & 4 St. Paul's Churchyard, London, E.C.4)

'Lord Robert Montagu's statement [below] as to the political organisation of the Vatican should help Britons to realise the power arrayed against them. The following is the language of a statesman who had had long experience of Vatican diplomacy from within :–

“The Curia is a Cabinet of long standing and knowledge of affairs. It never 'goes out' by the action of an adverse majority in a representative Chamber. All have been carefully trained for their work; while from reports derived from priestly confessors all over the world, the best and most detailed knowledge of the characters and intentions of statesmen, and the passions of the people, are ready to their hand. The Vatican is the centre of all the information of the world; and every bishop has periodically to visit Rome in order that his inmost soul may be probed, and his continual reports may be tested. Such is the Cabinet with which Protestant statesmen hope on equal terms to cope.” – Recent Events, Section V.

'It was only when the noble Lord realised the tremendous anti-national plans of the Papacy that he severed his connection with the Roman Church, and he declared his conviction back in the year 1886 that there existed a well-laid plot whereby Britain should be “crushed under the Pope's feet.” Slowly and silently the Papal hopes have been maturing. Her tread has been cautious, for it has been well said –

“Rome is in adversity a lamb, on an equality a fox, and in supremacy a tiger.”

ROME'S ARMY IN BRITAIN.

'It is surely wise to guard ourselves against her claws. . . . As to the the purposes of Rome's religious army in England, the words of Cardinal Manning addressed to the Romish priesthood are explicit :–

“It is good to be here in England. It is yours, right reverend fathers, to subjugate and subdue, to bend and to break the will of an Imperial race. You have a good commission to fulfil and great is the prize for which you strive. England is the head of Protestantism, the centre of its movements, the stronghold of its powers. Weakened in England, it is paralysed everywhere; conquered in England, it is conquered throughout the world. Once overthrown here, it is but a war of detail. All the roads of the world meet in one point, and this point reached, the whole world is open to the Church's will.”–Sermons on Ecclesiæstical Subjects, Vol. I. pp.166-7.

'Such sentences force upon us the fact that we are faced not simply with the danger of “Deutschland über Alles,” but –“Rome over all.” In other words, the Papacy has not surrendered its mediæval claims.' (pp. 7-9)

* * * * * *

POPE HANKERING FOR A REBUILT THRONE.

'Manning in 1874 declared :–

“There is only one solution of the difficulty, a solution, I fear, impending, and that is the terrible scourge of Continental war, a war which will exceed the horrors of any of the wars of the First Empire. And it is my firm conviction that, in spite of all obstacles, the Vicar of Jesus Christ will be put again in his own rightful place. But that day will not be until his adversaries have crushed each other with mutual destruction.”–Thus spake Cardinal Manning in 1874 (vide Tablet, January 24th, 1874).

REMINISCENCES OF CARDINAL MANNING.

'So the Papacy would not wince even before the horrors of a Continent deluged in blood if thereby the Pope might regain his lost prestige and power. In confirmation of Manning's words, quoted above, we may set the following striking statement from the late Rev. Hugh Price Hughes, who as Editor of the Methodist Times, gave some [insight into them.]

'In the issue of August 6th, 1896, he says :–

“I was simply horrified at the calmness with which he declared that he would be willing to deluge the whole of Europe with blood in order to destroy the unity of Italy and recover the temporal power of the Pope. He also expressed a conviction that the German Empire was very insecure, and would probably be shattered in the course of the great war which he prophesied would destroy both the unity of Germany and the unity of Italy, in order to restore the Pope to the throne of Rome.”

'To realise the Papal workings on the continent a contrast as to the happenings in France and Germany should be of help. . . . [Whilst] France has receded from political Romanism . . . Germany has more and more come under its thumb.' (pp. 12-15)

THE LATE W. E. GLADSTONE AS WITNESS.

'Mr. Gladstone warned us that Rome would involve the Continent in terrible strife to accomplish her nefarious designs. In his Vatican Decrees – which all our statesmen should re-read and study–he says :–

“There is a fixed purpose among the secret inspires of Roman policy to pursue, by the road of force, upon the arrival of any favourable opportunity, the favourite project of re-erecting the terrestrial throne of the Popedom. . . . The existence at this day of the policy, even in bare idea, is itself a portentous evil. I do not hesitate to say that it is an incentive to general disturbance, a premium upon European wars.” –Vatican Decrees, p.50.

'Again he says :–

“I laid stress upon the charge of an intention on the part of Vaticanism to promote the restoration of the Temporal Sovereignty of the Pope on the first favourable opportunity by foreign arms.”–Rome: Newest Fashions in Religion, p. 118.

'In Vaticanism at p. 117 he adds :–

“I warn my countrymen against the velvet paw, and smooth and soft exterior of a system which is dangerous to the foundations of civil order.”

THE CONTINENT WATCHES THE PLOT MATURE.

'England, however, slumbered on whilst the Continent watched the plot being hatched. The Spanish journal, El Motin, published a cartoon on November 17th, 1910, depicting the triumph of the Pope's claim by a formidable procession of priests with swords bayonets – the armed force of which Mr. Gladstone had spoken.

'In keeping with this, Dr. Robertson wrote in his Papal Conquest – published in 1909 – five years before the war [see the post concerning this publication in the archive for January 12th 2010 on this blog] [that] :–

“Italy has long known that the Vatican has been egging on the German Emperor to invade England.”

'Dr. Robertson reproduced a cartoon from a newspaper published in Rome on February 7th, 1909, representing the Pope welcoming the Emperor of Austria and his army with the words, “Come on, come on, my sons, for thirty-nine years we have waited for you in Rome,” i.e., from 1870 to 1909, the date of the published cartoon.

'So Austria was to invade Italy, while Italy's oldest friend (and in 1849, when her first strivings for her present national unity began, her only friend) was to be beaten hip and thigh by Austria's partner, Germany. That was the campaign as seen in both Madrid and Rome five years before hostilities broke out !

[In light of the above, the following quote is taken from the historian Sidney Bradshaw Fay's work, Before Sarajevo: The Origins of the [First] World War , Vol 1, 1928:

'The most valuable to the historian of all the Austro-Hungarian memoirs is the voluminous work of the Austrian Chief of Staff, Baron Conrad von Hoetzendorf (entitled, Aus meiner Dienstzeit [My Years of Service], 5 vols.; published Vienna, 1921-25). It consists in large part of an undigested mass of important documents of all sorts, copies of which he evidently took from the official files and published in chronological order, with a commentary of his own. It also includes conversations in dialogue form which appear to be taken from a diary kept from day to day. With extraordinary frankness, he recounts the repeated efforts he made to have Austria make war on Italy [her supposed 'ally' in the Triple Alliance] or Serbia on what he regarded as numerous favourable occasions between 1906 and 1914.]

'But the warning fell on deaf ears ! John Bull would continue to sleep on – as L'Asino of 4th October, 1908, said –“in an illusion of strength.”

'Moreover, it is clear that Italy has been fighting in this war with one arm all but paralysed by Vatican influence. Mr. Bagot, himself a Roman Catholic, three years ago bore this witness as to the Curia :–

“There are but very few – I believe not half a dozen – of the Cardinals of the Curia who are not entirely pro-German and anti-British. The vast majority of the monsignori and the lay officials of the Papal Court are heart and soul with the cause of the Kaiser, and remarkable for their venom against both France and England.”–Fortnightly Review, May, 1915.' (pp. 15-17)

THE POPE'S LOST OPPORTUNITY

'But what concerns us most is the fact that [before the outbreak of the War] the Vatican never raised a little finger during those critical days [of the war crisis] in the interests of peace. At that moment the Papacy had its opportunity, for no one will dispute that the Emperor of Austria had always been the faithful ally of the Vatican. The Pope as a supposed apostle of peace had his opportunity and failed. The failure was doubtless intentional. At least here is the calm verdict of the Italian [publication] Secolo given in August, 1917 :–

“And if the Pope, who knew even before the world learnt it the horrible beginnings of this new history, had left the torpid cloisters of the Vatican and, trembling with indignation like Hildebrand, had gone to Vienna to stop or cut short the mad folly of Francis Joseph, to-day perhaps we should not be discussing the value of an uncertain proposal of peace. But the Vatican kept silent.”

'The days following the Sarajevo murders were occupied by all friends of peace in seeking to confine the discussion within the narrowest borders. No one can question that Sir Edward Grey did his part as the trusted representative of British policy. Prince Lichnowsky, German Ambassador in London, bears this testimony :–

“I hoped for salvation from an English mediation, because I knew that Sir Edward Grey's influence in Petrograd could be turned to use in favour of peace.”

'Our hands were clean. Britain never desired war. The Papal hands could not be raised, for they were not clean, and future historians will plainly see it.' (pp. 20-21)

[See the posting on this blog for November 6th 2010, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'; and also that for the 2nd of March 2010, entitled 'ARMAGEDDON: The Vatican Against Europe' for the - since revealed - true opinions of the Vatican in the events leading up to the outbreak of the First World War.]

* * * * * *

POPE versus BRITAIN.

'Rome's desire to crush Britain as a leading world Power has dominated her ambitions for many years. The Rt. Hon. Lord Robert Montagu, Privy Councillor and ex-Romanist, said :–

“It is the aim of the Papacy to weaken and to humble England; to dismember the Empire; to render her the prey to her enemies in a great Continental War.”–Recent Events. Published 1886.

'Cardinal Manning, as far back as 1859, made this utterance :–

“I shall not say too much if I say that we have to subjugate and subdue, to conquer and to rule an Imperial race, we have to do with a will which reigns throughout the world as the will of old Rome reigned once; we have to bend or break that will which Nations and Kingdoms have found invincible and inflexible.” –Tablet, August 6th, 1859.' (pp. 33-34)

Post Bellum

Pope “Saint” Pius X

The posts that are transcribed below (with a few corrections in spellings, etc.) were originally submitted on the Mail on Sunday's journalist Peter Hitchens's blog and formed a brief correspondence between myself and another contributor on that site.

The title of the Peter Hitchens's thread on which these post appeared under was 'Wednesday Night's Debate' (posted at 1:58 PM on [Thursday] 04 November 2010); the title was in reference to the 'Intelligence Squared' Debate that took place in London the previous evening at which Mr Hitchens (along with Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury) debated for the proposition that 'Britain is becoming an anti-Christian country'.

In the course of the speech which he gave (and later transcribed to his blog) Mr Hitchens remarks that the prime cause in the decline of the Christian faith in Western Europe, was in his opinion, mainly caused by all the horrors of 'the First World War, [which was] foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe.'

To which statement the poster below replied (by first quoting Mr Hitchens) with the following:

"This was caused mainly, in my view, by the First World War, foolishly and wrongly supported by the churches of Europe."

Mr Hitchens, I'm not sure which "churches of Europe" you have in mind, but I wonder if this remark is entirely fair.

Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.

Pope Benedict XV tried twice to be the intermediary for peace and bring about a speedy end to the war, in 1916 and again in 1917.

The Catholic Church was told by all sides to be quiet and keep out of it, especially in 1917 by 'establishment' (Lloyd George, Clemenceau, Woodrow Wilson...) to mind its own business, stick to 'spiritual stuff', and not be concerned with politics - an idea that is particularly interesting when one considers the same type of people later complaining loudly and unreasonably that Pope Pius XII did not do enough in the Second World War to fight the Nazis...

Posted by: G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM

* * * * * *

To which I began with the following reply:

G. Sarto 04 November 2010 at 10:56 PM, writes:

“Nobody did more to try to prevent the Great War from happening than Pope St. Pius X, who died in 1914 - many believe that the effort (combined with the sadness for what he saw unfolding, almost inevitably, before him) brought about his early death.”

Concerning the claim that Pius X died of 'a broken heart' soon after the outbreak of war:

That this is the official 'version' can be adduced from the following, which is written in the Concise Holy History used in parochial catechisms:

“Pius X did all he could to prevent the war of 1914 and died of grief when he foresaw the evils it was about to unleash.”

The Italian diplomat and anti-Fascist politician Count Carlo Sforza (1872-1952), the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Italy, in a chapter on “The Origins of the [First World] War”, in his Contemporary Italy: Its Intellectual and Moral Origins (published USA 1944/GB 1946) calls the rumour of Pius X succumbing to grief at his “impotence to advert the disaster” of the war, as: “A legend more tenacious than history”. And then to, “establish the truth as to that legend”, he quotes extensively from one of the many official letters deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen.

As he writes concerning these correspondences: “They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. . . . In these conversations the Secretary of State [Cardinal Merry del Val] spoke expressly in the name of the Pope . . .”

The relevant portion of Count Sforza's chapter – which quotes at length from a dipatch of July 29 1914 from Count Palffy, the Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican to Count Berchtold – can be found by clicking on my name below [which linked to my previous posting on the World War Armageddon blog entitled, 'Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914'].

The quote below is from another diplomatic dispatch – this one being that from Baron von Ritter, the Chargé d' Affaires of Bavaria at the Holy See – and was written to his Government on 26 July 1914:

“The Pope [Pius X] approves of Austria's harsh treatment of Serbia. He has no great opinion of the armies of Russia and France in the event of a war against Germany. The Cardinal Secretary of State does not see when Austria could make war if she does not decide to do so now.”

(Source: Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch [Bavarian Documents on the Outbreak of War] III, p. 206; as cited in The Vatican Against Europe, by Edmond Paris; The Wickliffe Press [Protestant Truth Society] edition, 1993; p. 47).

Posted by: B Hughes 06 November 2010 at 03:45 AM

* * * * * *

Mr Hughes,

You can quote "anti-fascist" authors all you wish. The fact remains that Pope St. Pius X did everything he could to avert war in the run-up to 1914.

Similarly the fact remains that Benedict XV twice offered to be an intermediary for peace, and was turned down by the allies.

That is a matter of historical record.

Nor was Pope St. Pius X partisan, and quoting a Bavarian Count, cited in a 'Protestant Truth Society' pamphlet, proves nothing.

The normal thing would have been for the Pope to give his blessing to the Austrian armies going off to war - they were,after all, the Holy Roman Empire, so to speak. The fact that the Pope refused to do so (and was very forceful in telling them why!) ought to speak for itself.

Posted by: G. Sarto 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM

* * * * * *

From G. Sarto's post of 06 November 2010 at 05:20 PM:

'Mr Hughes, You can quote “anti-fascist” authors all you wish.'

The “anti-fascist” author in question was Count Carlo Sforza; to quote him further from the same work – he writes:

'While all diplomatic Europe kept on repeating, “This Lenin cannot last”, the Pope asked me through [Baron] Monti – but under the seal of secrecy – would I if necessary, be able to facilitate the trip of some Catholic priests to Russia. Seeing my surprise, Monti explained (and it was evident that he was repeating the very words of the Pope) : “His Holiness thinks that even these crimes and this blood will one day be of service if it is going to be possible, when the wave of irreligion has passed, to attempt a Catholic evangelization in Russia. Orthodoxy no longer has any deep-rooted life; its end as the official religion offers possibilities which would never have existed so long as a Tsar, 'Protector of the Church', continued to reign.” It was simple and it was true; but courage was required to express it at the Vatican in 1920. I promised my support in whatever form it might be able to take ...' (p. 169).

And Count Sforza writes that while he had been High Commissioner in Turkey (before his return to Rome – after accepting the post of Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs) that he had had:

'[C]onversations ... at Constantinople with Cardinal Bourne, Archbishop of Westminster, [on the “Roman question”, which] had prepared me to suppose that the problem was almost on the point of being considered. Having arrived at Constantinople on his way from Jerusalem, the Cardinal had been kind enough to visit me at the Italian Embassy and to thank me for the courtesy with which the Italian Government agents had facilitated his sojourn in the Holy Land. Speaking of his pleasure at observing the excellent relations existing everywhere between Italian agents and the Franciscan missions, he told me that he saw in them the proof that the time was ripe for a conciliation [between the Vatican and the Italian Government]. [And in this matter] I could not but agree with him ...' (pp. 276-277).

It is obvious from the above that though Count Sforza was an “anti-Fascist”; he was not necessarily “anti-Catholic”. By all means, if you wish, discount Baron von Ritter's dispatch from the Bayerische Dokumente zum Kriegsausbruch (as cited in the work later published by the Protestant Truth Society). But can you discount Count Sforza's testimony – in which he cites from official documents held within the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy – correspondence that he himself had seen?

If you have not already done so, I suggest that you read Count Sforza's testimony as to the true opinion of Pope “Saint” Pius X – by clicking on my name below. If you do not wish to reappraise what you've undoubtedly been taught – then that is up to you ...

Posted by: B Hughes 07 November 2010 at 06:10 PM

* * * * * *

Envoi

Pope Pius X was undoubtedly a 'pretended' friend of peace. . . But was he also a pretended friend of Christ . . . ? Or much more besides . . . ? In the words of the Rev. Alexander Robertson, D.D.; words he wrote five years before the outbreak of the War:

'[O]ne feels that it is impiety or culpable ignorance to talk, as so many do, of the Pope being the Vicar of the Prince of Peace, and of the Roman Catholic Church as having a mission of peace and of goodwill to mankind. He [the Pope] is, on the contrary, the Vicar of Christ's Adversary [Satan], [who is] “The Prince of this World”; [John xii. 31, xiv. 30.] he [the Pope] is the “Beast” of the Revelation, to whom the “Dragon” [Satan] gave “his power, and his seat, and great authority . . . to make war with the saints.” [Rev. xiii. 2, 7.]'

The Papal Conquest (1909), p. 316.

Count Sforza, Pius X and 1914

(Above: cover of first British edition, translated from the French by Drake and Denise de kay and published by Frederick Muller Ltd., London, 1946)

THE ORIGINS OF THE WAR

'A legend more tenacious than history was formed in 1914 and afterward regarding Pope Pius X's attitude toward the Hapsburg aggression toward Serbia. This legend shows us Pius X praying and fighting against the outbreak of the war, horrified to see Christianity divided into two enemy camps, and dying of grief at the invasion of Belgium and all the horrors of war unchained. The truth is quite otherwise.

'During the war of 1914-18 the religious question had only a minor importance; both camps included Catholics, Protestants, Greek Orthodox members and Mohammedans. Catholic unity did not prevail any more than Mohammedan unity, which seemed so sure of its jihad (the Holy War proclaimed by the Sultan-Caliph, which neither Arab nor Hindu [Indian?] Moslem obeyed). The clergy of the different countries could all invoke Allah or the old God of Armies with opposite hopes.

'One fact, however, during the tragic weeks of July and August, 1914, scandalized European opinion: that the war should have been provoked in the name of God by a powerful and decrepit sovereign, Francis Joseph, Emperor of Austria and Apostolic King of Hungary, the most Catholic of all the sovereigns and the most important of all Catholic sovereigns. When this Prince declared that he made war to chastise Serbia, millions of timorous souls imagined that the Pope would intervene to prevent the catastrophe. This hope gave birth to the legend. It was said at the time that Pius X, the moment he knew of the ultimatum to Serbia, had enjoined his Nuncio at Vienna to admonish the old Emperor and King in the name of the Almighty. Then, since the war happened just the same, it was explained that the Ballplatz diplomats and military men of the imperial entourage had prevented Pius X's messenger from talking with the Emperor. And here is the last act of the legend: The Pope having died suddenly on August 20, 1914, it was affirmed that the good Pius had succumbed to grief, having realized his impotence to avert the disaster.

'It is time to establish the truth as to that legend, and here it is:

'As soon as the danger of war became evident, Count Palffy, Austrian Chargé d' Affaires at the Vatican, several times informed Pius X's Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val, of the intentions and the “duties” of the Dual Monarchy. The Cardinal's replies were deposited in the diplomatic correspondence of the Austro-Hungarian Embassy, correspondence that I have seen. They reveal that the Vatican saw with satisfaction, at least at the outset, an undertaking in which the crushing of Serbia would entail a diminution of the influence of Russia. The latter's prestige was detested by the Roman Church, which viewed it as the principal obstacle to a reconciliation of the Oriental churches with the See of Rome. In these conversations the Secretary of State spoke expressly in the name of the Pope who, he declared to the Austrian representative, deplored that Austria had not earlier inflicted on the Serbs the chastisement they deserved. It is sufficient to quote the following passage from a dispatch of Count Palffy to Count Berchtold on July 29:

'“During the conversation I had two days ago with the Cardinal Secretary of State he spoke spontaneously of the great problems and questions now agitating Europe. It would be impossible to detect in His Eminence's words any spirit whatever of indulgence and conciliation. It is true he characterized the note to Serbia as very harsh, but he nevertheless approved it without any reservation and at the same time expressed, in an indirect way, the hope that the Monarchy would go to the limit. Certainly, added the Cardinal, it was too bad that Serbia had not been humiliated very much sooner, for then it might have been done without putting into play, as today, such immense possibilities. This declaration also corresponds to the Pope's way of thinking, for, in the course of recent years His Holiness has often expressed regret that Austro-Hungary has failed to 'chastise' her dangerous Danubian neighbour.

'“One might wonder for what motive the Catholic Church evinces herself so bellicose at an epoch when she is governed by a chief who is truly a saint, imbued with veritably apostolic ideas. The answer is very simple. The Pope and the Curia see in Serbia the ravaging malady that little by little penetrated the Monarchy to the marrow, and which, in time, would end by disintegrating it.

'“Despite all the other experiments attempted by the Curia in the course of the last decade, Austria-Hungary is and remains the Catholic State par excellence, the strongest rampart of the Faith which stands in our day for the Church of Christ. The fall of this rampart would signify for the Church the loss of its solidest prop; in the conflicts with the Orthodox Church she would see her most powerful champion struck down.

'“Hence, just as for Austria-Hungary there is an immediate necessity of self-preservation to expel from its organism, even by force if need be, the dissolving malady, there is also for the Catholic Church an indirect necessity of doing or approving everything that would serve to attain that end.

'“In this light, a harmony between the apostolic sentiment and the war spirit can easily be confirmed.”

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European changed probably the Pope's frame of mind. But at least in the very first days of the war he considered the march of the German army nach Paris as a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (pp. 153-155).

[The above paragraph in the American edition published by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc., New York, 1944 (by the same translators: Drake and Denise de Kay) reads slightly differently; as here follows:

'The widening of the conflict which from Austro-Serb became European did not do much to change the Pope's frame of mind. In his honest but narrow mind the march of the German army nach Paris assumed the form of a punishment that God had inflicted on the “eldest daughter of the Church” who had given him the worst worries of his pontificate.' (p. 189).]

'We have seen that the proceeding of the Nuncio at Vienna is a legend. That Pius X died of grief is still another. I have it from his doctor, my colleague in the Italian Senate, that the malady of which the Pope died had for long months wasted the old man by slow degrees, and that the overwork of the last few weeks could, at most, but have hastened the end that he, Marchiafava, had already declared inevitable and due to occur very shortly.' (p. 155)

Armageddon – the valley of “excision”

(Above: A WWI German machine-gun crew. From a footnote to the work cited below: 'Joel iii. 14. . . . a threshing instrument, formed with revolving cylinders, armed with sharp pieces of iron. See Jahn Archæol. Bibl. § 64.')

From Canon (later Bishop) Wordsworth's Lectures on the Apocalypse (1849):

'What is meant by Armageddon?

'St. John refers us to the Hebrew tongue, and there the word Har signifies a Mountain; and it is rightly affirmed that Armageddon is a word formed by St. John to signify a defeat and slaughter, such as that of the Kings of Canaan at Megiddo, in the region of Galilee, wrought by a miraculous interposition of Almighty God, discomfiting the vast and terrible army of Sisera and his confederate Princes. . . . (pp. 447).

'It must also be observed, that King Josiah was defeated and mortally wounded at Megiddo [2 Chron. xxxv. 20.]; and though Josiah was a pious King, yet it must be remembered that, when at Megiddo, he was disobeying a divine command, given him by the Prophet Jeremiah. He was endeavouring to repel Pharaoh-Necho, who was marching towards the river Euphrates, to besiege Babylon . . .

'Thus Megiddo, or Mageddo, was a name, made ready for St. John, to express a sudden and mysterious defeat and slaughter of God's foes, and of the allies of Babylon.

'This explanation is satisfactory, as far as it goes; and it must be carried further.

'St. John, in the Apocalypse, expresses ideas by Hebrew terms, understood literally.

'Thus, for example, the word Jew is always used in the Apocalypse in a spiritual sense, founded on its Hebrew etymology, which indicates one who confesses and praises God — a true Christian.

'Another reference to Hebrew etymology is found in the word Abaddon, formed by St. John to describe the Angel of the bottomless pit; and derived from a Hebrew term, signifying perdition. . . .

'Observe, also, St. John here specially calls our attention to the Hebrew etymology, by saying that the place is called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

'Armageddon is formed of two Hebrew words; the one signifying a Mountain, the other, a cutting to pieces; and thus it means the Mountain of excision, or of slaughter*.

[*From footnote: 'Lightfoot and Vitringa, who were the first of modern Interpreters that called attention to this etymology, do not seem to have been aware that they had been anticipated by Andreas and Arethas ad loc. (and in the Ancient Greek Catena, Cramer, p. 420,) and also by Ecumenius, ibid. p. 552, who deserve to be cited. Catena Cramer, p. 420. xvi. 16 . . .' ]

'When the Prophet Zechariah is speaking of the destruction of all nations that come against the City of God, he says that there will be a great mourning in the valley of Megiddon; and Megiddon is there translated by the Septuagint Interpreters, cut up, or destroyed.

'The word Armageddon, then, signifies a place of slaughter* [*From footnote: 'Lightfoot, Harmony N.T. on Rev. xvi. “The word Armageddon signifies a Mountain of men cut to pieces.”']; and it connects the judgments predicted in the Apocalypse with those foretold by the Hebrew Prophets.

'If we refer to the third chapter of the Prophet Joel, from the ninth verse to the end, we there see a sublime description of the gathering together of the foes of Christ, and of their final overthrow.

'Multitudes! Multitudes! exclaims the Prophet, in the valley of decision.

'The word here rendered decision is one which signifies threshing, bruising, cutting, and crushing* [*From footnote: 'Joel iii. 14. . . . a threshing instrument, formed with revolving cylinders, armed with sharp pieces of iron. See Jahn Archæol. Bibl. § 64.']; and the words rendered valley of decision are translated by the Septuagint, valley of judgment.

'It is observable, also, that God says by the Prophet Joel, in the same place, that He will gather all nations, and bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat. And again; Let the heathen come up to the Valley of Jehoshaphat, for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about. [Joel iii. 12.]

'In the word Jehoshaphat there is an historical reference to a signal and miraculous slaughter of God's enemies in King Jehoshaphat's reign; just as in the word Megiddo there is an historical reference of the same kind.

'And, in both cases, there is something more.

'Megiddo means destruction; and Jehoshaphat signifies judgment of God.

'All nations cannot be gathered together to one valley, or to one mountain, on earth.

'Hence it is rightly concluded, that the Valley of Jehoshaphat here mentioned is a general term for a signal execution of God's Judgment on all His enemies throughout the world.

'In a word, the gathering together of the nations to the Valley of Jehoshaphat, is the same as the gathering together to Armageddon.' (pp. 448-452).

* * * * * * *

Envoi:

From John S Fox's A Flood of Light Upon the Book of Revelation (The Association of the Covenant People, Burnaby, B.C., Canada; circa late 1940s) :

“ARMAGEDDON” AS A EUROPEAN

CONFLAGRATION

'In the Book of Revelation the name “Babylon” . . . certainly does not refer to the old Far-Eastern city, but rather to the New Testament prophetical Papal “Babylon”. That being so, why do prophetic interpreters claim that the reference here to “Ar-Megiddo” (if indeed it refers to “Megiddo” at all: see below) should refer to the Eastern or Palestinian Megiddo, when the whole context of the drama in which it is named occurs within the Papal regime of WESTERN EUROPE!

'There does not seem to be any reference to “Megiddo” at all in this Scripture, the word “Armageddon” being divisible into three Hebrew words; not two as usually suggested. Here the word “Arma” signifies “bare grain”: “Gai” signifies a “valley”: and “Don” signifies “judgment”.

'The composite word Armageddon thus depicts the fact that God's time had come to “thresh Babylon” (See Jer. 51. 33) in the “Valley of Jehoshaphat” which means the Valley where “Jehovah judges”, the name Jehoshaphat meaning “Jehovah judges”.' (pp. 114-115).

Armageddon: “The great wine-press” of Rev. 14:19

A KEY

TO THE

SYMBOLICAL LANGUAGE

OF

SCRIPTURE,

BY WHICH NUMEROUS PASSAGES ARE

EXPLAINED AND ILLUSTRATED.

FOUNDED ON

THE SYMBOLICAL DICTIONARY OF DAUBUZ,

WITH ADDITIONS FROM

VITRINGA, EWALDUS, AND OTHERS.

BY

THOMAS WEMYSS,

AUTHOR OF “BIBLICAL GLEANINGS,” &c.

EDINBURGH:

THOMAS CLARK, 38. GEORGE STREET;

LONDON, HAMILTON AND ADAMS.

MDCCCXXXV.

[1835]

'WINE-PRESS, among the Israelites, was like a threshing-floor; and therefore we read that Gideon was threshing in one of them, Judges vi. 11. . . .

'The form of it seems to have been this: suppose a bank of earth raised in a convenient circumference, or else a floor sunk below the surface of the ground about it, that the grapes and juice may be kept in: then on one side a pit was sunk much lower than the floor, to place the vats to receive the new pressed juice falling into them. This floor was the wine-press. Hence we may easily understand why our Saviour expresses the making of a wine-press by digging; as also Isaiah in ch. v.

'The meaning of the symbol is very easy. The Indian Oneirocritic, in ch. 196, explains it of great conquest, and, by consequence, much slaughter. It is so used in Isa. lxiii. 3,

“I have trodden the wine-press alone,

And of the people there was none with me.

And I trod them in mine anger,

And I trampled them in mine indignation,

And their life-blood was sprinkled upon my garments,

And I have stained all mine apparel.”

'And in Lam. i. 15, the destruction of Judah is represented under this type:

“Jehovah hath trodden down all my valiant ones in the midst of me;

He hath called an assembly against me, to crush my young men;

Jehovah hath trodden the virgin, the daughter of Judah, as in a wine-press.”

'And the symbol is extremely proper. The pressure of the grapes till their blood comes out, as their juice is called in Deut. xxxii. 14, aptly representing great pressure or affliction, and effusion of blood

Rev. xiv. 19, “The great wine-press of the wrath of God.”

'To tread a wine-press, as before remarked, is a prophetic description of destruction. The images in this vision are very strong and expressive. The largest wine-presses were used to be in some places out of the city. So in ver. 20, “The wine-press was trodden without the city,” and seems to intimate the great numbers that shall be involved in this general destruction. This judgment seems still to be future. No past period or event appears exactly applicable to it. It must be therefore left to time more fully to explain it.'

(pp. 487-488)

“Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture” (1835)

Ensign of the Honourable East India Company, 1801

'It is a very general impression among the students of prophecy, as we have before noted, that we see at this present hour, in the decay of the Turkish power, that “drying up” of “the waters of the Euphrates,” which was to mark the pouring out of the sixth vial. The effect predicted is, “that the way of the kings from the east,” or “from the sun-risings,” may be prepared. Many conjectures are abroad respecting the “kings from the east.” Some imagine the restored Israelites are signified. There seems no analogy afforded by prophetical language, indeed, to fix the epithet directly and absolutely upon them; though, as the time is evidently drawing nigh, a way must be made for that first restoration, and even for that second, of which we have been treating.

'On this supposition, however, we cannot determine, whether the Israelites themselves are designated, or some powerful sovereigns of the eastern part of the world, who are to become the instruments of their restoration; and for whom, by the decay of the Turkish and Mahomedan powers, access to the Holy Land in this direction is to be afforded.

'And in this point of view, that extraordinary extension of the British empire in that part of Asia, in connection with what has been said respecting the “merchants of Tarshish and the lions thereof,” cannot but awaken many conjectures, as to what may be the designs of Providence in the raising up of this novel power in the east, through whose protection we see the foundations of an Apostolic Church already laid on the banks of the Ganges. However this may be in the secret counsels of God, the eyes of all expectants must be intensely fixed on this quarter of the globe, to mark for what future changes in the political state of the eastern nations, the way may have been prepared, by the present minishing and decay of the Turkish and Mahomedan powers.

'Others have supposed that by the kings of the east, or the kings that are from the risings of the sun, Christ and his risen saints – “The word of God and the armies of heaven which follow him,” are denoted. To this it has been objected, indeed, that the minishing or decay of an earthly power can remove no obstacle that stood in the way of these. And the weight of this objection we must acknowledge. But we cannot exactly determine with what latitude the prophetic language, “that the way of the kings from the east may be prepared,” is to be understood. It is not impossible, that “the way prepared” may denote an opening to the production of such an arrangement of affairs, and of such a relative position of the nations upon earth, that the Son of Man, with the saints of the Most High, may come and take the kingdom, in the way and circumstances which have been ordained and predestinated of God.

'Respecting the approach of Zion's Deliverer, there does, indeed, seem to be some allusion in Scripture to a progress from the east. I cannot think that prophecy in the forty-first of Isaiah, respects either Abraham or Cyrus:

“Who hath raised up the just one from the east, Hath called him to his feet?

Hath given up nations before him, Hath subdued kings?

Hath rendered his sword as a column of dust, And as the driven stubble his bow?

He pursued them, he went on prosperously, He touched not the road with his feet.”*

[Footnote: * '“The road with his feet he seemed not to measure.” — Bp. Stock. Compare Jeremiah xxxii. 24.']

'And again, verse the twenty-fifth:

“I have raised him up from the north, and he shall come, From the rising of the sun shall he invoke my name;

And he shall trample princes like mortar, And as the potter treadeth the clay.”

'If this, however, is the true application of the prophecy, we must look for the fulfilment, not at the first restoration of the Jews, but at the great day of the Lord, which we shall come afterwards to consider: and we must say, “the way,” indeed, is being “prepared,” by the drying up of the waters of the Euphrates, but those, who walk in the way, appear not as yet. Nor is it impossible, that, as in other prophecies, there may be observed in this, first an inceptive, and afterwards an ultimate and more full accomplishment. In the predicted scenes of that great day, we may be able to trace, perhaps, not only the Mighty God “riding upon the heavens” “as of old,” or “from the east,” to the help of his people; but some parts of Israel miraculously conducted by the Divine presence in the same direction towards restored and rescued Jerusalem. This must be the subject of future inquiry.'

From: Observations on the Unfulfilled Prophecies of Scripture, which are yet to have their Accomplishment before the coming of the Lord in Glory, or at the Establishment of His Everlasting Kingdom; by the Rev. John Fry, B.A., Rector of Desford, in Leicestershire; published, London: James Duncan, Paternoster Row, 1835; pp. 37-40.

“History the Interpreter of Prophecy” (1799)

Union Flag 1606-1800

HISTORY

THE

INTERPRETER OF PROPHECY,

OR,

A V I E W

OF

SCRIPTURAL PROPHECIES

AND THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENT

IN THE

PAST AND PRESENT

OCCURRENCES OF THE WORLD;

WITH

CONJECTURES RESPECTING THEIR FUTURE

COMPLETION.

_______________________

BY HENRY KETT, B.D.

FELLOW OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND ONE

OF HIS MAJESTY'S PREACHERS AT WHITEHALL.

________________________

IN THREE VOLUMES.

VOL. III.

OXFORD;

Printed for Messrs. HANWELL and PARKER; and J.COOKE;

And sold by C.and J.RIVINGTON, St. Paul's Church-Yard;

ROBSON, Bond-Street; EGERTON, Whitehall;

CADELL and DAVIES, Strand; and HAT-

CHARD, Piccadilly, London.

MDCCXCIX.

[1799]

In his 1799 work, Henry Kett writes the following concerning, 'the re-instatement of the Jews in their own land'; and Britain's possible involvement as the nation to facilitate that long-prophesied, restoration:

'“Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows? Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarsish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver, and their gold with them; unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls, and their kings shall minister unto thee.” Isaiah lx.

'Is it an improbable conjecture, that the British isles so highly favoured by the establishment of the Church of Christ, and hitherto by signal marks of Divine protection in the midst of surrounding dangers and temptations, should be brought, by a merciful share of general calamity, “to see the things that belong to their peace,” and continue to wait with faith and hope, for the accomplishment of the good promises of God? and that this maritime, commercial, Protestant kingdom should take the lead in executing the Divine will on such an occasion?' (pp. 229-230).

“The Kings of the East” . . . & Armageddon

(The title-page above is that of the second and enlarged edition of The Kings of the East published in 1849; the quotes below - from a post originaly submitted on the Mail on Sunday journalist Peter Hitchens' blog - are taken from the first edition of The Kings of the East, published 1842).

In a post on this [Peter Hitchens'] blog (15 April 2008 at 12:15 AM) on the thread, 'The Gathering Storm' (in the Archives for April 2008), I wrote that I thought that the British Empire was the power that was symbolically prefigured under the symbol of the 'kings of the east' (or, to give another translation: 'the kings from the rising of the sun'); as the 'sun' in the Revelation is used to indicate a power in the ascendancy – in this instance the 'sun' of the British Imperial interest rising over the long-held Turkish lands.

Since then I've come into possession of a most remarkable book written three-quarters of a century before the so-called, 'Balfour Declaration' of November 1917. From its title page I reproduce the following:

“THE KINGS OF THE EAST;”

AN

EXPOSITION OF THE PROPHECIES

DETERMINING,

FROM SCRIPTURE AND FROM HISTORY,

THE POWER

FOR WHOM THE MYSTICAL EUPHRATES

IS BEING “DRIED UP;”

WITH AN EXPLANATION

OF CERTAIN OTHER PROPHECIES CONCERNING

THE RESTORATION OF ISRAEL.

[By Edward Heycock, Esq., Bombay]

PUBLISHED BY R.B. SEELEY AND W. BURNSIDE

AND SOLD BY L. AND G. SEELEY,

FLEET STREET, LONDON.

MDCCCXLII

[1842]

After first determining from biblical prophecy that, 'the Mahommedans were to possess the East'; and from history that, 'India [was] the most eastern Mahammedan empire'; the Author of the work went on to exposit from Scripture that Britain was foreordained to rule over India – the eastern-most part of the 'Mahommedan empire'; and concerning the then status of Turkey, he writes: 'The way is [at the moment] only being prepared; the Turkish empire is not yet dried up.' But looking forwards in time towards Britain's future destiny as a latter-day Cyrus, as revealed in the ancient prophecies – he wrote: 'How, or when, the British will issue this proclamation for the restoration of Israel is uncertain.'

Before returning back again later to Edward Heycock's work, to see the pivotal role that he envisioned Britain would fulfil in the great conflict to arise, it seems necessary to remark, that – like the prophecies concerning the Messiah in His two roles: First as the suffering servant, 'The Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world' (John 1:29); and Second in His Glory as, 'the Lion of the tribe of Juda' (Revelation 5:5) – that the differing Messianic prophecies have been compared to two peaks of the same great mountain separated by the gulf of time. And so in a sense 'Armageddon' (which some term, 'mountain of destruction'. Hebrew Har (Ar) = mountain) should not be seen as a single great conflict at the end of time.

Or as Peter Hitchens remarked on the thread, 'Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq . . .' (Again, in the Archives for April 2008) :

'The First and Second World Wars, as [Patrick] Buchanan says [in his book, Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War], are really one [great] conflict.'

The following is taken from a book that was written whilst the First World War was still raging – but prior to the October Revolution of 1917 – that would first shake Russia before sending its shock waves throughout the world:

'In Rev. xvi. 18, the seventh angel . . . [pours] out his vial [into the air], which is followed by “voices, and thunders, and lightnings, and there was a great earthquake such as was not since men were upon the earth.” That earthquake is here shown to be unprecedented. It refers to an unprecedented time of trouble. An earthquake in the book of Revelation always means some great political, or religious, upheaval. . . . 'Have we not an instance in the present war? It is the greatest in history. It has characteristics which cannot possibly have been experienced in the past. In the passions let loose, the spirit of hatred which is at work, we have repetitions of former wars, but the instruments used for slaughter, the millions employed in mortal combat, the present war is absolutely unprecedented, so that already we have a political earthquake such as was not since man was upon the earth. But we are only at the beginning, and we may expect that what is yet to be will be far greater than anything that has yet happened. “A time of trouble,” says Daniel, “such as never was.” “Great tribulation,” says our Lord, “such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” But the present is only the preliminary shock of that which is to come, The worst is yet future, and will eclipse in horror all the trouble of to-day. . . . [pp. 219-220]

'In the last lecture I referred to the interpretation given by some exponents that the “king of the north” refers to Russia and “the king of the south” to Egypt, or rather to the Power that controls Egypt, namely, England, and at the “time of the end,” or the closing epoch of this dispensation, these two powers – Russia and the British Empire – will be in conflict regarding the “glorious land,” or Palestine. If this interpretation proves to be correct, there must come a temporary peace in the present war in order to enable events so to adjust themselves to turn Russia, our present ally, into our chief foe . . . Some, however, hold that Germany is the NORTHERN POWER signified. If that be so, the present war may merge without interruption into the final great conflict . . .' [Emphasis added.]

(Taken from: Light from the Book of Daniel: On History Past, Present, and Future. A Course of Twelve Lectures delivered in the Central Hall, Westminster, 1915-16. By Augusta Cook; London: Robert Banks & Son, Racquet Court, Fleet Street, E.C., 1916).

On the previously mentioned thread from 2008, Peter Hitchens wrote: 'It makes me feel like a traitor to write this ['Was World War Two just as pointless and self-defeating as Iraq . . .']. [For] the Second World War was my religion for most of my life. Brave, alone, bombed, defiant, we, the British, had won it on our own against the most evil and powerful enemy imaginable [those were my former thoughts].'

From the dark days of the 1940s back to the 1840s, and (as I previously mentioned) a return to Edward Heycock's aforementioned work – to see what he saw as Britain's destined role in that coming great conflict:

'Can any description be imagined more awfully sublime than this which the pen of inspiration has given this dreadful conflict? All nature, animate and inanimate, is represented as trembling . . . whilst every feathered fowl, and every beast of prey, is summoned to assemble at the ensanguined battlefield . . .

'This is the day for which Britain is strengthened, and prepared as an instrument to be employed by the hands of the Almighty. Not only is she being prepared with physical means, but also with moral courage to undertake, if needful, single-handed the defence . . . against this powerful coalition. Of the British it is said, “The isles shall WAIT UPON ME, AND ON MINE ARM SHALL THEY TRUST.” Isaiah li. 5. And it is promised that, “They THAT WAIT UPON THE LORD shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not weary, and they shall walk and not faint.” Isaiah xl. 31.' (The Kings of the East, 1842 [pp. 294]).

General Sir William Dobbie, Governor of Malta during the dark days of that Island's great Second World War siege, would later write the following on that great conflict:

'The summer of 1940 was a time of crisis for the British Empire, and indeed for the whole world. Disaster had come to our expeditionary force in France, and although most of the personnel were saved, we lost nearly all our equipment, and our Army ceased to exist (for the time being) as an effective instrument of war. The French nation, our ally at that time, was brought to its knees, and forced out of the war. The British Empire then stood entirely alone, and faced the victorious might of Germany and her satellites. The heart of the Empire, Great Britain, was exposed to a full-scale attack by sea and air from the near-by bases in France and Belgium, recently acquired by the Germans, and the forces available for the defence of the country were ludicrously inadequate. It was at this time that Italy, the chief satellite of Germany, and till then theoretically neutral, or at any rate nonbelligerent, decided to throw in her lot unreservedly with Germany, and declared war against us. . . .

'The situation in Malta, moreover, was a replica, in miniature, of the general situation in Great Britain. The isolation, the formidable strength of the enemy's forces, the proximity of bases from which his attacks could be launched, the unbelievable paucity of our defensive resources, the great civilian population exposed to a ruthless enemy, the dependence on seaborne supplies and the expectation of attack in overwhelming strength – all these things and many others went to make up the defence problem of Malta, as they did the similar problem in Great Britain on a vaster scale. . . . [pp. 9-11]

'[It was] obvious to us that our human resources were woefully inadequate, and many of us were constrained to turn our eyes to “the hills, from whence cometh my help.” . . . God's Word was a great stand-by to me, and doubtless to many others, too, at this time. In it I read how God had helped His people in old times when they were faced with situations similar to that confronting us. And God reminded us that although outward circumstances have changed since those days in many ways, and although the problem might be enunciated in different words, yet God, the solver of problems, does not change. He is the same today as He has ever been, and “His hand is not shortened, that it cannot save.” The difficulty is likely to rest with us, either that we do not exercise the simple faith which lays hold on that power or that our iniquities separate between us and God, so that He cannot use it on our behalf. Many persons in Malta, both in responsible and other positions, did, I think, realize our need of His help, and were prepared to ask Him to give it us. By no other means could we be sure of holding this vital outpost of the Empire, and so we turned to Him who alone is the Giver of victory. . . .

'I humbly believe that God, in His mercy, answered the prayers offered to Him in this way, and in the two years and more of the siege which followed His help was very obvious and very real.

'At about the same time, I was greatly encouraged by a telegram I received from the chief of the Imperial General Staff, General Sir Edmund Ironside (later, Field-Marshal Lord Ironside). It showed me that others in high places at home were thinking along the same lines as we were in Malta. The telegram, which was addressed to me personally, contained the reference “Deuteronomy, chapter 3, verse 22.” I looked up the reference in my Bible, and I read: “Ye shall not fear them: for the Lord your God he shall fight for you”. This was a very welcome and timely reminder of a great and well-proved truth, and, coming as it did from a person in his position, and being addressed to one in mine, in view of the special circumstances of the time, it meant much to us.

'I have said that the help which God gave was very obvious and real. The same help was noticed at the time of the withdrawal from Dunkirk, and during the “Battle of Britain.” It certainly was so in the “Battle of Malta.” During the two years which followed the declaration of war by Italy, God's protecting hand was so much in evidence that people were noticing it and remarking about it. On a number of occasions officers have come to me and said quite spontaneously: “Do you know, sir, I think that Someone up there (pointing upwards) has been helping us today.” I no doubt replied, “Yes, I think so, too,” and I may have added, “You may remember we asked Him to help us, and today we have been watching Him doing it.” Such a conversation took place not once nor twice, but a number of times.' [pp. 107-109]

(From: A Very Present Help: A Testimony to the Faithfulness of God, By Lt-General Sir William Dobbie, GCMG, KCB, DSO; Third Edition, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan; circa 1946).

Nigel Jones in a review of the historian Andrew Roberts' latest book, The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War, (Sunday Telegraph, 'Seven' magazine, 26/07/09) writes:

'But in the end, as even the super patriotic Roberts recognises, it was not British sang-froid, or evacuations like Dunkirk – no matter how miraculous – that turned the tables of Hitler's war, but the vast manpower, limitless resources and dogged determination of Soviet Russia.'

The quote I give below is taken from the Daily Telegraph, February 25th, 1942:

'By all military logic, the stripped B.E.F. should have been destroyed on the Dunkirk beaches. Then a Britain without defences should, in July 1940, have been occupied by overwhelming German numbers from land and sea if Hitler had not been mysteriously blind to his unparalleled opportunity of ending the war. . . .[Again], we could never have hoped (as we now realize) to cope with the German Juggernaut if it had not been gratuitously thrown into the melting-pot of Russia. . . . The Power behind events . . . has “covered us in the day of battle.”'

'But I will remove far off from you the NORTHERN ARMY, and will drive him into a land barren and desolate, with his face toward the east sea, and his hinder part toward the utmost sea, and his stink shall come up, and his ill savour shall come up, because he hath done great things.' (Joel 2:20).

______________________

ADDENDUM:

From The Kings of the East, 1842

'Britain has been raised up to her present powerful state for the purpose of executing God's righteous judgments upon his enemies, we cannot escape from the conviction “that the hour of His judgment is come,” and that our nation will speedily be involved in wars, which shall terminate to the glory of God, and the overthrow of his enemies.' (pp. 72)

'As Britain is expressly prepared for . . . [this] work, and receives her commission from the Almighty to march under the banner of the Most High, whilst executing together with Him his righteous judgments, we of this highly-favoured land may rejoice in our privileges, and contemplate the coming contest, the gathering storm and mighty conflict, not only without fear, but with full assurance of victory. Let us only wait upon God, and trust on his arm, as it is promised: “The isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.” Isaiah li. 5. Then shall it be seen in the hour of trial that “they that have waited upon the Lord, shall have renewed their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint.” Isa. xl. 31.' (pp. 339-340)

________

ENVOI

'How consolatory this view of the prophecies, supported as it is by the word of God. The British Christian may hear of wars and rumours of wars, rejoicing when he beholds the rising storm, for the Saviour is with him in the ship and will speedily rebuke the winds, and there shall be a great calm.' (ibid. pp. 340)

- DUNKIRK 1940 -

Empire of the Sun

(Above: colour plate displaying flags of the British Empire – taken from Our Flags and Their Significance; by K. C. Byrde; Bristol British-Israel Association, 1920).

From The London Express of February, 1902:

A BRITISH EMPIRE FLAG

_________

A Design Is Preparing for a New Ensign

to Give the Colonies

Representation.

An empire flag!

At last an ensign which shall adequately represent Great Britain both at home and beyond seas seems assured.

The Express is able to announce that the King has received with favour the suggestion that a new flag was needed to keep pace with the growing empire, and that a finished design for the same will be submitted to his Majesty next week.

Mr. C. D. Bennett, the cousin of a distinguished Colonial Governor, and himself well known in several of the colonies, has been intrusted with the responsibility of preparing this design.

Mr. Bennett has had many difficulties to contend with in evolving a harmonious and artistic design, which should fittingly express British sovereignty.

He has succeeded, however, in giving our colonial possessions full representation, without sacrificing the chief feature of the old flag – the Cross of St. George – which is in itself a familiar emblem of England's power in every quarter of the globe.

The following is a description of the new empire flag, as given officially to The Express:

On an absolutely white ground is embroidered a golden sun – typical of a race on whose dominions the sun never sets – shining on a large red Cross of St. George, representing, of course, the empire at home. In the left-hand corner is an imperial crown, the sign of one great empire, embracing all creeds, tolerating all beliefs, but under one great imperial idea.

Underneath the crown, on a blue scroll is inscribed the Latin rendering of the motto, “The empire on which the sun never sets,” which is the proudest boast of every Englishman:

“Imperium cui nullus Solis occasus.”

In the right-hand top corner of the flag will be placed the particular device representative of the empire beyond the sea. For instance, the flag to be used in India will contain the Star of India in the right-hand top corner.

The flag as used in Australia will contain instead the device of the new Commonwealth, while the Canadian and other Colonial Governments will add to the design their own badge, for use on all “empire flags” in that particular part of the world.

This design has been warmly commended by several persons high in authority to whom it has been exhibited. It now remains for his Majesty to place the final seal of approval.

Mr. Bennett has notified the King that the design awaits his Majesty's pleasure, and it will probably be exhibited to him next week. Should it be approved by his Majesty, the new design will become “official” without delay.

To the King himself is due this idea. His Majesty has realized that the present national emblem does not fully express the dignity and importance of the empire.

When the Prince and Princess of Wales started on their tour, nearly a year ago, they were especially instructed to carefully note every shade of colonial opinion on the subject – whether a new flag was desired and what each colony expected.

Everywhere the answer was the same: “Give us a new flag.” When the popular verdict was reported to the King, his Majesty at once signified a desire to have a proper design prepared.

After weeks of toil the design is ready, which many people believe will eventually be flying at the mastheads of our warships and over British possessions at home and abroad.