"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 passing 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 principal 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
pronoun "he;" and wherever this pronoun 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 constitute 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 constitutes the
worship of the image of the beast, or forfeit their lives. On the other
hand, God 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 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; and he who does comply, exposes himself to the most
terrible threatening of divine wrath to be found in the word of God. The
question whether we will obey God 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 God, 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 God 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. God 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
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."