The United States in the Light of Prophecy Part 6

No such idea is here taught. And we mention this objection only because it has been actually urged as a legitimate consequence of the positions here taken. And then the question is asked, If the Protestant church const.i.tutes one horn, may not the Catholic church const.i.tute the other?

Under the shadow of that hypothetical "if," perhaps it might. But neither the one nor the other performs such an office. In chapter six of this work, it was shown that the two great principles of Republicanism and Protestantism were the proper objects to be symbolized by these two lamb-like horns. But there is the plainest distinction between Protestantism as an embodiment of the great principle of religions liberty, and the different religious bodies that have grown up under its fostering influence; just as plain as there is between Republicanism, or civil liberty, and the individual who lives in the enjoyment of such liberty. The supposition, therefore, that the Protestant church is to furnish the material for the image, involves no violation of the symbolic harmony of this prophecy.

Let us look a moment at the fitness of the material. We are not unmindful of the n.o.ble service the Protestant churches have rendered to the world, to humanity, and to religion, by introducing and defending, so far as they have, the great principles of Protestantism. But they have made a fatal mistake in stereotyping their doctrines into creeds, and thus taking the first steps backward toward the spiritual tyranny of Rome. Thus the good promise they gave of a free religion and an unfettered conscience is already broken. For, if the right of private judgment is allowed by the Protestant church, why are men condemned and expelled from that church for ncwother crime than honestly attempting to obey the word of G.o.d, in some particulars not in accordance with her creed? This is the beginning of apostasy. Read Chas. Beecher's work, "The Bible a Sufficient Creed." "Is not the Protestant church," he asks, "apostate?" Is not the apostasy which we have reason to fear, "already formed?" But apostasy in principle always leads to corruption in practice. And so Paul, in 2 Tim. 3:1-5, sets forth the condition of the professed church of Christ in the last days. A rank growth of twenty heinous sins, with no redeeming virtues, shows that the fruits of the Spirit will be choked and rooted out by the works of the flesh. We can look nowhere else for this picture of Paul's to be fulfilled except to the Protestant church; for the cla.s.s of which he speaks maintain a form of G.o.dliness, or the outward services of a true Christian worship.

And is not the church of our day beginning to manifest to an alarming degree the very characteristics which the apostle has specified? Fifteen clergymen of the city of Rochester, N.Y., on Sunday, Feb. 5, 1871, distributed a circular, ent.i.tled "A Testimony," to fifteen congregations of that city. To this circular the Rochester _Democrat_ of Feb. 7 made reference as follows:--

"The 'Testimony' sets out by stating that the foregoing pastors are constrained to bear witness to what they 'conceive to be a fact of our time; viz., That the prevailing standard of piety, among the professed people of G.o.d, is alarmingly low; that a tide of worldliness is setting in upon us, indicating the rapid approach of an era, such as is foretold by Paul in his second letter to Timothy, in the words, "In the last days perilous times shall come."' These conclusions are reached, not by comparisons with former times, but by applying the tests found in the Scriptures.

They instance as proof, 'the spirit of lawlessness which prevails.'

The circular then explains how this lawlessness (religious) is shown. Men have the name of religion, but they obey none of its injunctions. There is also a growing disposition to practice, in religious circles, what is agreeable to the natural inclinations, rather than the duties prescribed by the word of G.o.d. The tendency to adopt worldly amus.e.m.e.nts, by professed Christians, is further stated in evidence."

This testimony is very explicit. When men "have the name of religion, but obey none of its injunctions," they certainly may be said to have a form of G.o.dliness, but to deny the power; and when they "practice in religious circles what is agreeable to the natural inclinations, rather than the duties prescribed by the word of G.o.d," they may be truthfully said to be "lovers of pleasures more than lovers of G.o.d." And Rochester is not an exception in this respect. It is so all over the land, as the candid everywhere, by a sad array of facts, are compelled to admit.

That the majority of the Christians in our land are still to be found in connection with these churches is undoubtedly true. But a change in this respect is also approaching. For Paul exhorts all true Christians, in his words to Timothy above referred to, to turn away from those who have a form of G.o.dliness, but deny the power thereof; and those who desire to live pure and holy lives, who mourn over the desolations of their Zion, and sigh for the abominations done in the land, will certainly heed this injunction of the apostle. There is another prophecy which also shows that when the spirit of worldliness and apostasy has so far taken possession of the professed churches of Christ as to place them beyond the reach of reform, G.o.d's true children are every one to be called out, that they become not partakers of their sins, and so receive not of their plagues. Rev. 18:4.

From the course which church members are everywhere pursuing, it is plain to be seen in what direction the Protestant churches are drifting; and from the declarations of G.o.d's word it is evident that all whose hearts are touched by G.o.d's grace and molded by his love will soon come out from a connection in which, while they can do no good to others, they will receive only evil to themselves.

And now we ask the reader to consider seriously for a moment what the state of the religious world will be when this change shall have taken place. We shall then have an array of proud and popular churches from whose communion all the good have departed, from whom the Holy Spirit is withdrawn, and who are in a state of hopeless departure from G.o.d. G.o.d is no respecter of persons nor of churches; and if the Protestant churches apostatize from him, will they not be just as efficient agents in the hand of the enemy as ever pagans or papists have been? Will they not then be ready for any desperate measure of bigotry and oppression in which he may wish to enlist them? After the Jewish church had finally rejected Christ, how soon they were ready to imbrue their hands in the blood of his crucifixion. And is it not the testimony of all history, that just in proportion as any popular and extensive ecclesiastical organization loses the Spirit and power of G.o.d, it clamors for the support of the civil arm?

Let, now, an ecclesiastical organization be formed by these churches; let the government legalize such organization, and give it power (a power which it will not have till the government does grant it) to enforce upon the people the dogmas which the different denominations can all adopt as the basis of union, and what do we have? Just what the prophecy represents: an image to the papal beast, endowed with life by the two-horned beast, to speak and act with power.

And are there any indications of such a movement? The preliminary question, that of the grand union of all the churches, is now profoundly agitating the religious world.

In May, 1869, S.M. Manning, D.D., in a sermon in Broadway Tabernacle, New York, spoke of the recent efforts to unite all the churches in the land into co-operation on the common points of their faith, as a "_prominent and noteworthy sign of the times_"

Dr. Lyman Beecher is quoted as saying:--

"There is a state of society to be formed by an extended combination of inst.i.tutions, religious, civil and literary, which never exists without the co-operation of an educated ministry."

Chas. Beecher, in his sermon at the dedication of the Second Presbyterian church, Ft. Wayne, Ind., Feb. 22, 1846, said:--

"Thus are the ministry of the evangelical Protestant denominations not only formed all the way up under a tremendous pressure of merely human fear, but they live, and move, and breathe, in a state of things radically corrupt, and appealing every hour to every baser element of their nature to hush up the truth and bow the knee to the power of apostasy. Was not this the way things went with Rome? Are we not living her life over again? And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world's convention!

Evangelical Alliance and Universal Creed."

The _Banner of Light_ of July 30, 1864, said:--

"A system will be unfolded sooner or later that will embrace in its folds Church and State; for the object of the two should be one and the same. The time is rapidly approaching when the world will be startled by a voice that shall say to every form of oppression and wrong, 'Thus far shalt thou go and no farther.' Old things are rapidly pa.s.sing away in the religious and social, as well as in the political, world. Behold all things must be formed anew."

The _Church Advocate_, in March, 1870, speaking of the formation of an "Independent American Catholic Church," a movement now agitated in this country, said:--

"There is evidently some secret power at work which may be preparing the world for great events in the near future."

A Mr. Havens, in a speech delivered in New York, a few years ago, said:--

"For my own part I wait to see the day when a Luther shall spring up in this country who shall found a great American Catholic church, instead of a great Roman Catholic church; and who shall teach men that they can be good Catholics without professing allegiance to a pontiff on the other side of the Atlantic."

There is every indication that at no distant day such a church will be seen, not indeed, raised up through the instrumentality of a Luther, but rather through the operation of the same spirit that inspired a Fernando Nunez or a Torquemada.

Chapter Ten.

The Mark Of The Beast.

The princ.i.p.al acts ascribed to the two-horned beast, which seem to be performed with special reference to the papal beast, are, the causing of men to worship that beast, causing them to make an image to that beast, and enforcing upon them the mark of the beast. The image, after it is created and endowed with life, undertakes to enforce the worship of itself. To avoid confusion, we must keep these parties distinct in our minds. There are three here brought before us: 1. The papal beast. This power is 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. 2. The two-horned beast. This power, after its introduction in verse 11, is represented through the remainder of the prophecy by the p.r.o.noun "he;" and wherever this p.r.o.noun occurs, down to the 17th verse (with possibly the exception of the 16th verse, which perhaps may refer to the image), it refers invariably to the two-horned beast. 3. The image of the beast. This is, every time, with the exception just stated, called the image; so that there is no danger of confounding this with any other agent.

The acts ascribed to the image are speaking and enforcing the worship of itself under the penalty of death; and this is the only enactment which the prophecy mentions as enforced under the death penalty. Just what will const.i.tute this worship, it will perhaps be impossible to determine till the image itself shall have an existence. It will evidently be some act or acts by which men will be required to acknowledge the authority of that image and yield obedience to its mandates.

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 reception of his mark, the third angel's message of Rev. 14:9-12, is a most solemn and thrilling warning.

Here, then, is the issue before us. Human organizations, controlled and inspired by the spirit of the dragon, are to command men to do those acts which are in reality the worshiping of an apostate religious power, and the receiving of his mark, or lose the rights of citizenship and become outlaws in the land; and to do that which const.i.tutes the worship of the image of the beast, or forfeit their lives. On the other hand, G.o.d says by a message, mercifully sent out a little before the fearful crisis is upon us, Do any of these things, and you "shall drink of the wine of the wrath of G.o.d 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; and he who does comply, exposes himself to the most terrible threatening of divine wrath to be found in the word of G.o.d. The question whether we will obey G.o.d or man is to be decided by the people of the present age, under the heaviest pressure, from either side, that has ever been brought to bear upon any generation.

The worship of the beast and his image, and the reception of his mark, must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against G.o.d, to call down so severe a denunciation of wrath against it. This is a work, as was shown in chapter 4, which takes place in the last days; and as G.o.d has given us in his word most abundant evidence to show when we are in the last days, so that no one need to be overtaken by the day of the Lord as by a thief, so likewise it must be that he has given us the means whereby we may determine what this great latter-day sin is which he has so strongly condemned, that we may avoid the fearful penalty so sure to follow its commission. G.o.d does not so trifle with human hopes and human destinies as to denounce 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.

That we are now living in the last days, the volumes both of revelation and nature bear ample and harmonious testimony. Evidence on this point we need not here stop to introduce; for the testimony already presented in the foregoing chapters of this series, showing that the two-horned beast is now on the stage of action, is in itself conclusive proof of this great fact, inasmuch as the power exists and performs its work in the very closing period of human history. All these things tell us that the time has now come for the proclamation of the third message of Rev.

14, to be given, and for men to understand the terms which it uses, and the warning it gives.

We therefore now call attention to the very important inquiry, What const.i.tutes the mark of the beast? The figure of a mark is borrowed from an ancient custom. Says Bp. Newton (Dissert on Proph., vol. iii, p.

241):--

"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 foreheads, and consisted of some hieroglyphic character, or of the name expressed in vulgar letters, or of the name disguised in numerical letters according to the fancy of the imposer."

Prideaux 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 G.o.d, Bacchus) impressed upon them with a hot iron, under pain of death. (Connection B.C. 216.)

The word used for mark in this prophecy is [Greek: charagma]

(_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. We are not, of course, 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 ill.u.s.trate certain acts that will be performed in the fulfillment of this prophecy. And 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, acknowledged the authority of, or professed allegiance to, the person whose mark he bore. So the mark of the beast, or the papacy, must be some act or profession by which the authority of that power is acknowledged. What is it?

It would be naturally looked for in some of the special characteristics of the papal power. Daniel, describing that power under the symbol of a little horn, speaks of it as waging a special warfare against G.o.d, 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." These laws must certainly be the laws of the Most High. To apply it to human laws, and make the prophecy read, "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change human laws," would be doing evident violence to the language of the prophet. But to apply it to the laws of G.o.d, and let it read, "And 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"--then all is consistent and forcible. The Septuagint reads, [Greek: nomos]

(_nomos_), in the singular, "the law," which more directly suggests the law of G.o.d. So far as human laws are concerned, the papacy has been able to do more than merely "think" to change them. It has been able to change 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; and that is, to change the laws of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.

Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thess. 2; and he describes it, in the person of the pope, as the man of sin, and as sitting as G.o.d in the temple of G.o.d (that is, the church), and as exalting himself above all that is called G.o.d 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 G.o.d. And now we ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself _above_ G.o.d. Search through the whole range of human devices; go to the extent of human effort; by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above G.o.d?

He might inst.i.tute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but so long as G.o.d had requirements which the people felt bound to regard in preference to his own, so long he would not be above G.o.d. He might enact a law and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of G.o.d. Then he would only make himself equal with G.o.d. 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 G.o.d, and demand obedience to his own in preference to G.o.d's. There is no other possible way in which he could place himself in the position a.s.signed in the prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of G.o.d; and if he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in place of the original enactment, then he, the law-changer, is above G.o.d, the law-maker. And this is the very work that Daniel said he should think to do.

Such a work as this, then, the papacy must accomplish according to the prophecy; and the prophecy cannot fail. And when this is done, what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding from them obedience: one, the law of G.o.d 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. And 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 G.o.d as given by him, they worship and obey G.o.d. 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 should set aside the law of G.o.d 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 as it comes from G.o.d, and the law as it comes from the hands of the papacy, are precisely alike, excepting the change which the papacy has made therein. They 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 G.o.d's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that precept whether he designed to obey G.o.d rather than the pope, or the pope rather than G.o.d. But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by G.o.d is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of G.o.d; and he who keeps it as changed, is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. In no other way can the two cla.s.ses of worshipers be distinguished. From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent; but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question before us, "What const.i.tutes the mark of the beast?" THE MARK OF THE BEAST is THE CHANGE HE HAS MADE IN THE LAW OF G.o.d.

We now inquire what that change is. By the law of G.o.d, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, the law of which Webster says, defining the terms according to the sense in which they are almost universally used in Christendom, "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of G.o.d on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."

If, now, the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two commandments to make up the lack of leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing ma.s.s devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them const.i.tutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or, are they all included in that change? 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 so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments. So they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth commandment, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.

In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as G.o.d 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 _intentional changes_. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by G.o.d. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work ent.i.tled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:--

"The word of G.o.d commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week. Acts 20:7; I Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory, and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause, indeed, to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which G.o.d commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? _Not_ one of those is expressed in the written word of G.o.d."

In the "Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion," on the subject of the third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers:--

"_Ques._ What does G.o.d ordain by this commandment?

"_Ans._ He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation.