Verse 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Makes an Image to the Beast.--Closely associated with this working of miracles is the erection of an image to the beast. The prophet thus connects the two in verse 14: "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live." The deception accomplished by the working of the miracles prepares the way for compliance with this demand for the formation of an image to the beast.
To understand what would constitute an image of the papal beast, we must first gain some definite idea of what constitutes the papacy itself. The full development of the beast, or the establishment of papal supremacy, dates from the famous letter of Justinian, which was made effective in A.D. 538, constituting the pope the head of the church and the corrector of heretics. The papacy was a church clothed with civil power--an ecclesiastical body having authority to punish all dissenters with confiscation of goods, imprisonment, torture, and death. What would be an image of the papacy?--Another
Page 591
ecclesiastical establishment clothed with civil power, in other words, a union of church and state. How could such an image be formed in the United States? Let the Protestant churches be clothed with power to define and punish heresy, to enforce their dogmas under the pains and penalties of the civil law, and should we not have an exact representation of the papacy during the days of its supremacy?
To be sure we would. But is such an eventuality possible in a country whose foundation stones are civil and religious liberty, and where every man's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" has gone unchallenged throughout the years? Let us examine the evidence.
Nation Founded on Liberty.--The hand of God wrought with the noble and God-fearing men who laid so well the foundations of the new nation. Said the Hon. Henry D. Estabrook, speaking before the Connecticut Bar Association: "On this great continent, which God had kept hidden in a little world--here, with a new heaven and a new earth, where former things had passed away, the people of many nations, of various needs and creeds, but united in heart and soul and mind for the single purpose, builded an altar to Liberty, the first ever built or that ever could be built, and called it--The Constitution of the United States." [18]
This was in the year 1787. The prophet saw the lamblike beast coming up out of the earth about 1798--surely this is no mere coincidence. George Washington, the first President of the United States, in his inaugural address said:
"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency." [19]
Page 592
In their reply to this notable address the Senate declared: "When we contemplate the coincidence of circumstances, and wonderful combination of causes, which gradually prepared the people of this country for independence; when we contemplate the rise, progress, and termination of the late war, which gave them a name among the nations of the earth; we are, with you, unavoidably led to acknowledge and adore the great Arbiter of the universe, by whom empires rise and fall." [20]
Struggle Against Religious Tyranny.--These were not only godly men, but they were wise and farseeing men. When certain religious groups made appeal that "explicit acknowledgment of the true God and Jesus Christ" be made in the Constitution, their request was denied. In writing of this incident, Thomas Jefferson said: "The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination." [21]
The House Judiciary Committee, February 18, 1874, in reply to a similar petition, reported: "As this country, the foundation of whose government they were then laying, was to be the home of the oppressed of all nations of the earth, whether Christian or pagan, and in full realization of the dangers which the union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations of the Old World, with great unanimity [they agreed] that it was inexpedient to put anything into the Constitution or frame of government which might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doctrine." [22]
History attests the fact that these great men who laid the foundation stones upon which the United States was erected looked forward with almost prophetic vision to the dangers to
Page 593
personal liberty which some day would confront the country. Their fears were well expressed by Thomas Jefferson: "The spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless. A single zealot may commence persecution, and better men be his victims. It can never be too often repeated, that the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis, is while our rulers are honest and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion." [23]
On the Fourth of July, 1788, an address was delivered by Justice James Wilson, in which he pointed out how the enemies of liberty were already working. He said: "The enemies of liberty are artful and insidious. A counterfeit steals her dress, imitates her manner, forges her signature, assumes her name. But the real name of the deceiver is licentiousness. Such is her effrontery, that she will charge liberty to her face with imposture; and she will, with shameless front, insist that herself alone is the genuine character, and that herself alone is entitled to the respect which the genuine character deserves. With the giddy and undiscerning, on whom a deeper impression is made by dauntless impudence than by modest merit, her pretentions are often successful. She receives the honors of liberty, and liberty herself is treated as a traitor and a usurper. Generally, however, this bold impostor acts only a secondary part. Though she alone appear upon the stage, her motions are regulated by dark ambition, who sits concealed
Page 594
behind the curtain, and who knows that despotism, his other favorite, can always follow the success of licentiousness. Against these enemies of liberty, who act in concert, though they appear on opposite side, the patriot citizen will keep a watchful guard." [24]
Threatened With Ecclesiastical Domination.--Let it be noted that in the panorama of coming events which passed before the prophet John, he witnessed this same amazing change in the nature of the two-horned beast. It eventually began to speak "as a dragon" and to control the worship of its people, "saying to them that dwell upon the earth, that they should make an image to the beast."
The beast "which had the wound by a sword, and did live," is the papacy. This was a church dominating the civil power. In other words, it was a union of church and state, and enforced its religious dogmas by the civil power, under pain of confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and death. An image to this beast would be another ecclesiastical organization clothed with civil power--another union of church and state--to enforce religious dogmas by law.
Evidence that such an image will be formed is seen in the fact already large and influential organizations, such as the National Reform Association, the International Reform Bureau, the Lord's Day Alliance of Christ in America, have been formed, by professed Protestants, and for years have been persistently working to the end of establishing and enforcing religious standards by law. Also Roman Catholic societies in the United States, in harmony with their tradition for centuries, are looking to a like end. Ultimately these two forces are destined to join hands in a common effort.
The avowed object of the National Reform Association is "to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will . . . indicate that this is a Christian
Page 595
nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniably legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." [25]
Upon the question of making this a "Christian nation," Bishop Earl Cranston, D. D., of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in an address delivered in Foundry Methodist Church, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1910, made the following observation:
"Suppose this were to be declared a Christian nation by a Constitutional interpretation to that effect. What would that mean? Which of the two contending definitions of Christianity would the word 'Christian' indicate?-- The Protestant idea, of course, for under our system majorities rule, and the majority of Americans are Protestants. Very well, but suppose that by addition of certain contiguous territory with twelve or more million Roman Catholics, the annexation of a few more islands with half as many more, and the same rate of immigration as now, the majority some years hence should be Roman Catholics, --who doubts for a moment that the reigning Pope would assume control of legislation and government? He would say, with all confidence and consistency, 'This is a Christian nation. It was so claimed from the beginning and so declared many years ago. A majority defined then what Christianity was, the majority will define now what Christianity now is and is to be.' That 'majority' would be the Pope." [26]
This association, organized for so-called "National Reform," has no compunctions about uniting with the papacy to bring about its design to establish a national religion. It declares: "We cordially, gladly, recognize the fact that in the South American Republics, and in France and other European countries, the Roman Catholics are the recognized advocates of national Christianity, and stand opposed to all the
Page 597
proposals of secularism. . . . Whenever they are willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism, will gladly join hands with them. In a world's conference for the promotion of national Christianity--which ought to be held at no distant day--many countries could be represented only by Roman Catholics." [27]
Shall we notice the avowed objective of the other organizations?
In a History of the International Reform Bureau the society in a self-appraisal declares, "The Reform Bureau is the first 'Christian lobby' established at our National Capital to speak to government in behalf of all denominations." [28]
On pages 61 and 65 of the foregoing work it is stated that the securing of compulsory Sunday legislation is one of the chief objects of this and other like organizations.
Speaking before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee against the Supreme Court bill, Professor Theodore Graebner, of Concordia College, St. Louis, made this interesting observation:
"Some 50 years ago the national Reform Association sought . . . to make all public education Christian and thereby make Jesus Christ the King of the nation. . . . The movement persists to the present day, and is issuing an enormous amount of literature all directed to the end of adopting a Christian amendment." [29]
The actual objective of this organization is to force religion upon the people by legal enactment--to secure a Sunday blue law, and to standardize the Christianity of the people.
From a leaflet published by the Lord's Day Alliance of the United States we learn that their objective is:
" (1) To preserve the Lord's day [Sunday] for America; (2) to secure an active Alliance in every State not yet organ-
Page 598
ized: (3) to induce the general government as far as possible to set the example of Sabbath observance."
By all this is meant the securing, as far as possible, of compulsory state and national Sunday legislation--the very means by which the church gained control of the state and by which church and state were united in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Christian Era.
The Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, which is by far the most powerful and representative combination of Protestant churches in the nation, claiming at its beginning to represent eighteen organizations and 50,000,000 communicants, in stating its reasons for existence declared:
"That the great Christian bodies of our country should stand together. . . [in dealing with] questions like those of marriage and divorce, Sabbath desecration, social evils," etc. [30]
In defining how they purpose to deal with Sabbath desecration, the Federal Council declared:
"That all encroachments upon the claims and the sanctities of the Lord's day should be stoutly resisted through the press, the Lord's day associations and alliances, and by such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity." [31]
Thus it will be seen that the securing of the laws for the enforcement of Sunday observance is a prominent feature in all these organizations in their efforts to "Christianize" the nation. In doing this many fail to see that they are repudiating the principles of Christianity, or Protestantism, and of the United States Government, and playing directly into the hand of that power which originated the Sunday sabbath, and gained control of the civil power through Sunday legislation--the papacy.
This danger was clearly discerned by the lawmakers of the United States more than a century ago. In 1830, certain
Page 599
memorials for prohibiting the transportation of the mails and the opening of post offices on Sunday, which had been referred to the Congressional Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, came up for consideration. The committee reported unfavorably to the petition of the memorialists. Its report was adopted, and printed by order of the Senate of the United States, and the committee was discharged from any further consideration of the subject. Of the Constitution it said:
"The committee look in vain to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of time, or whether any, has been set apart by the Almighty for religious exercises. . .
"The Constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian; and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual, than that of a whole community. That representative who would violate this principle, would lose his delegated character, and forfeit the confidence of his constituents. If Congress shall declare the first day of the week holy, it will not convince the Jew nor the Sabbatarian. It will dissatisfy both, and consequently convert neither. . . . If a solemn act of legislation shall in one point define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may with equal propriety proceed to define every part of divine revelation; and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowment of the church, and the support of the clergy.
"The framers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man's relation with his God is above human legislation, and his rights of conscience inalienable." [32]
Seeking to Establish Righteousness by Law.--A thousand pities that the religious leaders in these days are not equally sensitive to the dangers which lurk beneath their program to make the people good by legal enactment of religious dogmas.
Page 600
We are not unmindful of the noble service the Protestant churches have rendered to humanity and to the world by introducing and defending the great principles of Protestantism, by propagating the gospel, and by championing the cause of freedom.
Let no one think that we wish to reflect in any way upon the character of the men engaged in this enterprise. They are men of the highest moral standing, sincerely solicitous for the welfare of the nation, and honestly trying to check and remove the evils which are rampant in society. That their efforts will in many ways be productive of good, no one can doubt. We wish them all possible success in their work for the promotion of temperance, the elimination of war, the safeguarding of youth, and other like noble purposes. For these things all Christians are bound to work and pray.
Why then are these good men misled into doing something against which the Bible utters a solemn warning? The reason is that they have turned aside from the counsel of God given them in His word, and are going about to establish righteousness and the kingdom of God in the earth in their own way. They have slighted the prophetic portions of the Bible, by which one may know what stage of the conflict between the kingdom of Christ and that of Satan has been reached in his day, and how he can co-operate with the providence of God for the times in which he is living. They have lost touch with their divine Leader and with the means He is using today to advance His kingdom in the earth. They have a mistaken conception of the kingdom which is to come, and are looking for a kingdom mixed with earthly elements, to be set up by earthly agencies, such as the ballot, legislation, and education.
Under such circumstances it is not surprising that they should be working at cross-purposes with the providence of God. The mistake of failing to heed and be guided by the instruction of God's word, is a fatal one. The more zeal a church has when it is off the track and pursing a wrong course, the greater will be the damage which it will do.
Page 601
The apostle Paul points to a time when men have "a form of godliness," but would deny "the power thereof."
We greatly regret to see the Protestant church active in the fulfillment of this prophetic picture. While the power of God is lacking, the outward services of true Christian worship are maintained. With the loss of the power of God the churches are turning more and more to the state to supply what they lack. It is the testimony of all history that just in proportion as any popular and extensive ecclesiastical organization loses the spirit and power of God, it clamors for the support of the civil arm and finally religion becomes a part of the state. Thus it will be in the formation of the image of the beast, for the prophecy declares: "He had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed." Revelation 13: 15.
Let now an ecclesiastical organization be formed, let the government legalize such an organization and give it power to enforce upon the people the dogmas which the different denominations can all adopt as the basis of union, and what do we have? Exactly what prophecy represents--an image to the papal beast endowed with life by the two-horned beast, to speak and act with power.
The Mark of the Beast.--The two-horned beast enforces upon its subjects the mark of the first beast. We have now in the prophecy three agents introduced, which we must carefully distinguish from one another to avoid confusion.
The papal beast is the power designated as "the beast," "the first beast," "the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live," and "the beast whose deadly wound was healed." These expressions all refer to the same power, and wherever they occur in this prophecy, they have exclusive reference to the papacy.
The two-horned beast is the power introduced in Revelation 13: 11, and is represented through the remainder of the prophecy by the pronoun "he." Wherever this pronoun
Page 602
occurs, down to the seventeenth verse (with possibly the exception of the sixteenth verse, which perhaps may refer to the image), it refers invariably to the two-horned beast.
The image of the beast is usually called in the following chapters of Revelation, "the image;" so there is no danger of confusing this with any other agent. The acts ascribed to the image are speaking as a dragon and enforcing the worship of itself under the penalty of death. This is the only enactment which the prophecy mentions as enforced under the death penalty.
The mark of the beast is enforced by the two-horned beast, either directly or through the image. The penalty attached to a refusal to receive this mark is a forfeiture of all social privileges, a deprivation of the right to buy and sell. The mark is the mark of the papal beast. Against this worship of the beast and his image, and the receiving of his mark, the third angel's message of Revelation 14: 9-12 is a most solemn and thrilling warning.
This, then, is the issue which according to this prophecy we are soon to be called upon to meet. Human organizations, controlled and inspired by the spirit of the dragon, are to command men to do those acts which are in reality the worshipping of an apostate religious power and the receiving of his mark. If they refuse to do this, they lose the rights of citizenship, and become outlaws in the land. They must do that which constitutes the worship of the image of the beast, or forfeit their lives. On the other hand, God sends forth a message a little before this fearful crisis comes upon the people, as we shall see in remarks on Revelation 14: 9-12, declaring that all who do any of these things "shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation." He who refuses to comply with these demands of earthly powers exposes himself to the severest penalties which human beings can inflict. He who does comply, exposes himself to the most terrible threatenings of divine wrath to be found in the word of God. The question whether
Page 603
they will obey God or man is to be decided by the people of the present age under the heaviest pressure, from both sides, that has ever been brought to bear upon any generation.
The worship of the beast and his image and the receiving of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God, to call down so severe a denunciation of wrath against it. This is a work, as has already been shown, which takes place in the last days. As God has given us in His word most abundant evidence to show when we are in the last days, that no one need be overtaken by the day of the Lord as by a thief, so likewise He has given us the evidence whereby we may determine what it means to receive the mark of the beast, that we may avoid the fearful penalty so sure to follow its reception. God does not so trifle with human hopes and human destinies as to pronounce a most fearful doom against a certain sin, and then place it out of our power to understand what that sin is, so that we have no means of guarding against it.
We therefore now call attention to the important inquiry, What constitutes the mark of the beast? The figure of a mark is borrowed from an ancient custom. Thomas Newton says:
"It was customary among the ancients for servants to receive the mark of their master, and soldiers of their general, and those who were devoted to any particular deity, of the particular deity to whom they were devoted. These marks were usually impressed on their right hand or on their forehead, and consisted of some hieroglyphic characters, or of the name expressed in vulgar letters, or of the name disguised in numerical letters, according to the fancy of the imposer." [33]
Prideaux [34] says that Ptolemy Philopater ordered all the Jews who applied to be enrolled as citizens of Alexandria to have the form of an ivy leaf (the badge of his god, Bacchus) impressed upon them with a hot iron, under pain of death.
Page 604
The word used for mark in this prophecy is {GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT}, charagma, and is defined to mean, "a graving, sculpture; a mark cut in or stamped." It occurs nine times in the New Testament, and with the single exception of Acts 17: 29, refers every time to the mark of the beast. Of course, we are not to understand in this symbolic prophecy that a literal mark is intended, but the giving of the literal mark, as practiced in ancient times, is used as a figure to illustrate certain acts that will be performed in the fulfillment of this prophecy. From the literal mark as formerly employed, we learn something of its meaning as used in the prophecy, for between the symbol and the thing symbolized there must be some resemblance. The mark as literally used, signified that the person receiving it was the servant of the person whose mark he bore, acknowledged his authority, and professed allegiance to him. So the mark of the beast, or of the papacy, must be some act or profession by which the authority of that power is acknowledged. What is it?
Characteristics of Papal Power.--It would naturally be looked for in some of the special papal power. Describing that power under the symbol of a little horn, Daniel speaks of it as waging a special warfare against God, wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws. The prophet expressly specifies on this point: "He shall . . . think to change times and laws." Daniel 7: 25. These laws must certainly be the laws of the Most High. To apply the expression to human laws, and make the prophecy read, He shall speak great words against the Most High, and think to change human laws, would be doing evident violence to the language of the prophet. But apply it to the laws of God, and let it read, He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and laws of the Most High, and all is consistent and forcible. For the word "law" the Hebrew has {HEBREW CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT}, dath, and the Septuagint reads, {GREEK CHARACTERS IN PRINTED TEXT},
Page 605
nomos, in the singular, "law," which more directly suggests the law of God. The papacy has been able to do more than merely "think" to change human laws. It has changed them at pleasure. It has annulled the decrees of kings and emperors, and absolved subjects from allegiance to their rightful sovereigns. It has thrust its long arm into the affairs of nations, and brought rulers to its feet in the most abject humility. But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do what it was not able to do, but could only think to do. He sees it attempt an act which no man, nor any combination of men, can ever accomplish, to change the law of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.
The apostle Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thessalonians 2. He describes it, in the person of the pope, as "that man of sin" "sitting as God in the temple of God" (that is, the church), and exalting himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped." According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God.
We ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself above God. Search through the whole range of human devices, go to the extent of human effort, and by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but as long as God had requirements which the people felt bound to regard in preference to his, so long he would not be above God. He might enact a law, and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God; then he would only make himself equal with God.
But he is to do more than this; he is to attempt to raise himself above Him. Then he must promulgate a law which conflicts with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own law in preference to God's law. The most effective way in
Page 606
which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy would be for him to change the law of God. If he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in the place of the original enactment, then he, the law changer, puts himself above God, the lawmaker. This is the very work that Daniel said the power represented by the little horn would think to do.
Such a work as this the papacy will accomplish according to the prophecy, and the prophecy cannot fail. When this is done, what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding obedience--one the law of God as originally enacted by Him, an embodiment of His will, and expressing His claims upon His creatures; the other, a revised edition of that law, emanating from the pope of Rome, and expressing his will. How is it to be determined which of these powers the people honor and worship?--It is determined by the law which they keep. If they keep the law of God as given by Him, they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as changed by the papacy, they worship that power.
But further, the prophecy does not say that the little horn, the papacy, should set aside the law of God, and give one entirely different. This would not be to change the law, but simply to give a new one. He was only to attempt a change, so that the law that comes from God and the law that comes from the papacy are precisely alike, excepting the change which the papacy has made. The two laws have many points in common. But none of the precepts which they contain in common can distinguish a person as the worshiper of either power in preference to the other. If God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given in by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that precept whether he designs to obey God rather than the pope, or the pope rather than God. But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby
Page 607
marked as a follower of the power that made the change. In no other way can the two classes of worshipers be distinguished.
From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent, but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" The answer is simply this: The mark of the beast is the change which the beast has attempted to make in the law of God.
Change in the Law of God.--We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation. Defining the term "law" according to the sense in which it is almost universally used in Christendom, Webster says, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."
In our comment on Daniel 7: 25, in regard to the prediction of the prophet that the papacy would "think to change times and laws," we produced evidence from the Roman Catechism based on the unquestioned authority of the Council of Trent, and published by order of Pope Pius V by the Vatican press in Rome, that the church changed the day of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. While that catechism records the full wording of the fourth commandment as it reads in the Bible, and while it is retained in full in the official Catholic Bible in Latin, the Vulgate, and in its official translation into English, the Douay Bible; yet the teaching catechisms provided for Roman Catholic priests and teachers in modern times omit all that commandment but the first sentence, "Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." and add extended testimony that the change of the Sabbath day from Saturday to Sunday was made on the authority of the Catholic Church and apostolic tradition." Whatever may be said on the text of the Catechism of the Council of Trent and that of the Roman Catholic Bible about retaining the entire commandment as it reads in the Scripture, nevertheless the practice of the prelates and priests is
Page 608
to teach only observance of a Sabbath institution, but locate it on the first day of the week instead of the seventh, by the authority of the church.
Let it be borne in mind, that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and hence should not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the tenth they claim that there is no plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments; so they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth command, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.
In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as professedly intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. How these later catechisms, with their ecclesiastical imprimatur, read, is illustrated herewith.
Some of the simpler catechisms make no mention of a change in religious days, but state categorically that the Sabbath commandment teaches Sunday observance:
"Q. Say the Third Commandment.
"A. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
"Q. What is commanded by the Third Commandment?
"A. To sanctify the Sunday." [35]
Others say that the Catholic Church changed the day of worship. In A New Catechism of Christian Doctrine and Practice, we find the following under the subject of the third commandment:
Page 609
"What day was the Sabbath?
"The seventh day, our Saturday.
"Do you keep the Sabbath?
"No: we keep the Lord's Day.
"Which is that?
"The first day: Sunday.
"Who changed it?
"The Catholic Church." [36]
In the well-known Baltimore catechism, we find this explanation:
"Q. What it the third Commandment?
"A. The third Commandment is: Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.
"Q. What are we commanded by the third Commandment?
"A. By the third Commandment we are commanded to keep holy the Lord's day. . . .
"Q. Are the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same?
"A. The Sabbath day and the Sunday are not the same. The Sabbath day is the seventh day of the week, and is the day which was kept holy in the old law; the Sunday is the first day of the week, and is the day which is kept holy in the new law.
"Q. Why does the Church command us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath?
"A. The Church commands us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday He sent the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles." [37]
In The Catholic Christian Instructed we read:
"Q.--What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferably to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?
"A.--We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.
Page 611
"Q.--Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
"A.--The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18: 17; Luke 10: 16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles (2 Thess. 2: 15), but the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath." [38]
In A Doctrinal Catechism we find further testimony to the same point:
"Ques.--Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?
"Ans.--Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her--she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority." [39]
In An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine we find this testimony:
"Q.--How prove you that the church hath power to command feast and holy days?
"A.--By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.
"Q.--How prove you that?
"A.--Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin." [40]
In The Catechism Simply Explained, are these questions and answers:
"What is the third commandment?
"The third commandment is, 'Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'
"What are we commanded by the third commandment?
Page 612
"By the third commandment we are commanded to keep the Sunday holy.
"The Jew's Sabbath Day was the Saturday; we Christians keep the Sunday holy. The Church, by the power our Lord gave her, changed the observance of the Saturday to the Sunday." [41]
This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no Scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church. They claim as a token, or mark, or the authority of that church the "very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday," and set it forth as proof of its power in this respect.
"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so, for they have been so taught. We would remind such persons, however, that according to the prophecy the only change ever to be made in the law of God, was to be made by the little horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; and that the only change that has been made in it is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, He filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul--a conclusion that is repulsive to any Christian.
Why should anyone labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath? Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. No truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted it should do, that the prophecy has failed, and that Scriptures are unreliable. The matter would better stand as the prophecy has it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth better be granted.
Page 613
When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and in due time that very power arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and that out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the the theology of our day has come. Would it, then, be strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded before the Reformation will be complete? Alexander Campbell, founder of the Disciples of Christ church, speaking of the different Protestant sects, says:
"All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastical organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands." [42]
The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of God is worthy of notice. True to his purpose to exalt himself above God, he undertakes to change that commandment which, among them all, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the lawgiver is, and contains his signature of royalty. The fourth commandment does this; no other one does. Four others, it is true, contain the word God, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord God of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment it is impossible to tell, for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the
Page 614
multitudinous objects of their adoration. With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false god are annulled at one stroke. The God who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created all things. The Maker of the earth and the sea, the sun and the moon, and all the starry host, the Upholder and Governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who from His position has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object. The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power which designed to exalt itself above God, would undertake to change. God gave the Sabbath as as a weekly reminder of Himself, and as a memorial of His work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against heathenism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal of the law. This the papacy in its teaching and practice has removed from its place, and has substituted another institution, which the church sets forth as the sign of its authority.
Issue Is Between Sabbath and Sunday.--This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points, and the Sunday sabbath must be the mark of the beast! Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion. We have not space, nor is this perhaps the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution, and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church--is not the change from Sab-
Page 615
bath to Sunday inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative. They hypotheses just set forth are all certainties.
Who Receives the Mark of the Beast?--It will be said again, Then all Sundaykeepers have the mark of the beast; then all the good of past ages who kept this day had the mark of the beast; then Luther, Whitefield, the Wesleys, and all who have done a good and noble work of reformation, had the mark of the beast; then all the blessings that have been poured upon the reformed churches have been poured upon those who had the mark of the beast; and all Christians of the present day who are keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, have the mark of the beast. We answer, Not so! We are sorry to say that some professedly religious teachers, though many times corrected, persist in misrepresenting us on this point. We have never so held; we have never so taught. Our premises lead no such conclusions.
Please give close attention. The mark and the worship of the beast are enforced by the two-horned beast. The receiving of the mark of the beast is a specific act which the two-horned beast is to cause to be done. The third angel's message of Revelation 14 is a warning mercifully sent out in advance to prepare the people for the coming danger. There can therefore be no worship of the beast, nor receiving of his mark such as prophecy contemplates, until it is enforced by the two-horned beast, and knowingly accepted by the individual. We have seen that intention was essential to the change which the papacy has made in the law of God, to constitute it the mark of that power; so intention is necessary in the adoption of that change by the individual, to constitute it the receiving of that mark. In other words, a person must adopt the change knowing it to be the work of the beast, and receive it on the authority of that power in opposition to the requirement of God, before it can be said that he has received the mark of the beast.
But how is it with those mentioned above, who have kept Sunday in the past, and the majority of those who are keeping
Page 616
it today? Do they keep it as an institution of the papacy?--No. Have they decided between this and the Sabbath of our Lord, understanding the claims of each?--No. On what ground have they kept it, and on what do they still keep it?--They suppose they are keeping a commandment of God. Have such the mark of the beast?--By no means. Their course is attributable to an error unwittingly received from the Church of Rome, not to an act of worship intentionally rendered to it.
But how is it to be in the future? The church which is to be prepared for the second coming of Christ must be entirely free from papal errors and corruptions. A reform must hence be made on the Sabbath question. The third angel of Revelation 14 proclaims the commandments of God, leading men to the true Sabbath in the place of the counterfeit. The dragon is stirred, and so controls the wicked governments of the earth that all the authority of human power shall be exerted to enforce the claims of the man of sin. Then the issue is fairly before the people. They are required by the law of God to keep the true Sabbath; they are required by the law of God to keep the true Sabbath; they are required by the law of the Catholic Church, or the pseudo-Protestant church, and of the land to keep the counterfeit sabbath. For refusing to keep the true, the message threatens the unmingled wrath of God; for refusing the false, earthly governments threaten them with persecution and death. With this issue before the people, what does he do who yields to the human requirement? He virtually says to God, I know your claims, but I will not heed them. I know that the power I am required to worship is unchristian, but I yield to it to save my life. I renounce your allegiance, and bow to the usurper. The beast is henceforth the object of my adoration; under his banner, in opposition to your authority, I henceforth array myself; to him, in defiance of your claims, I henceforth yield the obedience of my heart and life.
Such is the spirit which will actuate the hearts of the beast worshipers--a spirit which insults the God of the universe to His face, and is prevented only by lack of power from over-
Page 617
throwing His government and annihilating His throne. Is it any wonder that Jehovah pronounces against so Heaven-daring a course the most terrible threatening that His word contains?
The Closing Work.--We have now seen what would properly constitute an image to the beast, such as the two-horned beast is to make, and also the prospect that such an image will sometime be set up in the United States of America. We have also learned what constitutes the mark of the beast, which is to be enforced upon all the people. An ecclesiastical organization composed of different sects in the land, in coalition with Roman Catholicism, by the promulgation and enforcement of a civil Sunday-sabbath law, would fulfill what the prophecy sets forth in reference to the image and the mark of the beast. These movements, or their exact equivalent, are called for by the prophecy. The line of evidence leading to these conclusions is so direct and well defined that there is no avoiding them. They are a clear and logical sequence from the premises given us.
When the application of Revelation 13: 11-17 to America was first made, as early as the year 1850, these positions were taken respecting a union of the churches and a Sunday-law movement. At that time no sign appeared that such an issue would ever arise. But there was prophecy. The United States had given abundant evidence by its location, the time of its rise, the manner of its rise, and its apparent character, that it was the power symbolized by the two-horned beast. There could be no mistake in the conclusion that it was the very nation intended by that symbol. But here were predictions indicating a union of church and state, and the enforcement of the papal sabbath as a mark of the beast. It was no small act of faith to take the position at that time that the United States would pursue such a policy without any apparent probability it would do so.
The founders of the American Republic, in drafting its organic laws, never intended that any trouble should arise
Page 618
over a question of conscience. The Federal Constitution and most of the State constitutions have provisions guaranteeing the fullest religious liberty. But the development of the Sunday-law movement since 1850 amply demonstrates that the prophecy can be fulfilled in spite of the safeguards against intolerance erected by the founding fathers.
Just how the tyranny over the souls and bodies of men is to be developed is not specified in the prophecy. It may come by one man or a set of men--political, religious, or otherwise. But it controls all--small and great. It governs finances, for rich and poor feel its grip. It rules economics, for no one can buy or sell without its permission and mark. It dictates religion, for it forces all, under penalty of death, to worship according to its laws.
It is naturally repugnant to the American mind to think that religious persecution might mar the fair record of the nation founded on liberty at all. But during the entire history of the country, from its very founding, farseeing statesmen have recognized that the tendency to enforce religious dogmas by civil law is all too common with mankind, and is liable to break out in active persecution in unexpected places.
To the honor of the nation, it should be said that throughout its history noble statesmen have largely held in check the tendency which the founders foresaw working in the body politic. But no American can shut his eyes to the fact that paralleling these noble efforts, zealous but misguided religious leaders have attempted the civil enforcement of religious usages.
The prophecy predicts that a period of persecution will come. The two-horned beast causes all to receive a mark, and all who will not worship the image to be killed; that is, he wills, purposes, and endeavors to do this. He makes such an enactment, passes such a law. But it does not follow that all, and we do not think even many, will be put to death. God will interpose in behalf of His people. Those who have kept the word of Christ's patience will be kept from falling in this
Page 619
hour of temptation. (Revelation 3: 10.) Those who have made God their refuge will be kept from all evil. (Psalm 91: 9, 10.) All who are found written in the book will be delivered. (Daniel 12: 1.) As victors over the beast and his image, they will be redeemed from among men, and raise a song of triumph before the throne of God. (Revelation 14: 2-4.)