The United States in the Light of Prophecy by Uriah Smith
U >>
Uriah Smith >> The United States in the Light of Prophecy
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 | 7 |
8 |
9
We therefore now call attention to the very important inquiry, What
constitutes 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 god, 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 illustrate 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 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." 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 God, 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 God. 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 God in the
temple of God (that is, the church), and as 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. And now 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; 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 so long as God had
requirements which the people felt bound to regard in preference to his
own, 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 in preference to God's. There is no other possible
way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the
prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of God; 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 God, 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 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. 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 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 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 as it comes from
God, 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 God'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 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 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 before us, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" THE MARK
OF THE BEAST is THE CHANGE HE HAS MADE 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,
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 God 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 mass devoutly, attending vespers, and
reading moral and pious books. Here are several variations from the
decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them constitutes 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
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 _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. A few quotations
from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work
entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words:--
"The word of God 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 God commanded
everlastingly to be kept holy? _Not_ one of those is expressed in
the written word of God."
In the "Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion," on the subject of the
third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers:--
"_Ques._ What does God 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.
"_Q._ What is this day of rest?
"_A._ The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six
days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1,
&c.
"_Q._ Is it then Saturday we should sanctify in order to obey the
ordinance of God?
"_A._ During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but _the
church,_ instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of
God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the
first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of
the Lord."
In "Abridgment of Christian Doctrine," we find this testimony:--
"_Ques._ How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts
and holy days?
"_Ans._ 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."
In the "Catholic Christian Instructed," again we read:--
"_Ques._ What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable
to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?
"_Ans._ We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and
apostolic tradition.
"_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."
In the "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."
And finally, W. Lockhart, late B.A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Cath.)
_Mirror,_ offered the following "challenge" to all the Protestants of
Ireland; a challenge as well calculated for this latitude as that. He
says:--
"I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to
prove, by plain texts of Scripture, the questions concerning the
obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 1. That Christians may work on
Saturday, the old seventh day. 2. That they are bound to keep holy
the first day, namely, Sunday. 3. That they are not bound to keep
holy the seventh day also."
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; and they claim it has a token or mark of
the authority of that church; the "_very act of changing the Sabbath
into Sunday_" being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For
further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a tract
published at the _Review_ Office, Battle Creek, Mich., entitled, "Who
Changed the Sabbath?" in which are also extracts from Catholic writers,
refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday Sabbath,
and showing that its only authority is the Catholic church.
"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great
many suppose so; and it is natural that they should; for they have been
so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against
any such for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it
is, in reality, one of the most enormous of all errors. We would
therefore remind such persons 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 Dan. 7, and the man of sin of 2 Thess. 2; and 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 sufficiently hideous to drive
any Christian from the view which leads thereto.
But why should any one 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. And 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 that it
should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are
unreliable. The matter had better stand as the propheqy has placed it,
and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth, had better be
granted. 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 that very
power in due time 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 out of this era of error and darkness and
corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it then be anything
strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the
reformation will be complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of
the different Prostestant sects, says:--
"All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastic
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."
The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect
in the law of God is worthy of notice. With true Satanic instinct, he
undertakes to change that commandment which, of all others, is the
fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the
Law-giver 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 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; for the God who here demands
our worship is not any created being, but the One who created them all.
The maker of the earth and sea, the sun and 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 would
undertake to change, which designed to exalt itself above God. God gave
the Sabbath as a memorial of himself, a weekly reminder to the sons of
men, of his work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier
against atheism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal of the law.
This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on
its own authority, an institution designed to serve another purpose.
This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to
which the prophecy points; and Sunday-keeping 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 it not
inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative.
But all these hypotheses can easily be shown to be certainties, See
History of the Sabbath, and other works on the subject, published at
the _Review_ Office. To these we can only refer the reader, in passing.
It will be said again, then all Sunday-keepers 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. We answer, _No_! And 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 to no such
conclusions. Give ear: The mark and 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 message of Rev. 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 reception of his mark, such as is contemplated
in the prophecy, till it is enforced by the two-horned beast. 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 to make it on
the part of any individual the reception 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.
But how with those referred to above who have kept Sunday in the past,
and the majority of those who are keeping it to-day? Do they keep it as
an institution of the papacy? No. Have they decided between this and the
Sabbath of the Lord, understanding the claims of each? No. On what
ground have they kept it, and do they 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 rendered to it.
But how is it to be? 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 proclaims the commandments of God, leading men to the true
in the place of the counterfeit. The dragon is stirred, and so controls
the wicked governments of the earth that all authority of human power
shall be exerted to enforce the claims of the man of sin. Then the issue
is fairly before the people. On one hand, they are required to keep the
true Sabbath; on the other, a counterfeit. For refusing to keep the
true, the message denounces 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 yield to them. I know that the power I am required to worship
is anti-Christian; but I yield 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 overthrowing his government and annihilating his
throne. Is it any wonder that Jehovah denounces against so Heaven-daring
a course the most terrible threatening that his word contains?
Chapter Eleven.
The Beginning Of The End.
We have now found what, according to the prophecy, is to constitute the
image which the two-horned beast is to cause to be made, and the mark
which it will attempt to enforce. The movement which is to fulfill this
portion of the prophecy, is to be looked for in the popular churches of
our land. First, a union must be effected between these churches, with
some degree of coalition also between these bodies and the beast power,
or Roman Catholicism; and, secondly, steps must be taken to bring the
law of the land to the support of the Sunday Sabbath. These movements
the prophecy calls for. And the line of argument 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.
Pages:
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 | 7 |
8 |
9