Two Great Compromises

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 9, 1883

Two Great Compromises.

THE AMERICAN COMPROMISE—CONTINUED.

BEFORE saying more concerning the position of the several parties in the movement of which we have spoken, it may be well to notice the object of the compromise as stated in Rev. 13. It is the formation of

An Image to the Beast. An image must have a resemblance to the beast in some prominent features. But it cannot be the beast itself. Here is the error of some would-be expositors of the present day. They make the beast Catholicism, and they make the image Catholicism, as though anything could be an image to itself! The most prominent features of the beast were as follows:—

1. It was an alliance between the Church and the State. The State did not become the Church, but it became so far subservient to the Church that it upheld her in her claims and enforced her dogmas and decrees. The Church was exceedingly modest, too. It asked nothing but the punishment of crime; but it demanded a recognition of the declaration that “heresy is the worst crime,” and she was to be the sole judge of what was heresy! The result could not be a matter of conjecture: any one with even a small knowledge of human nature could foretell it.

2. This alliance, this virtual union of church and State, was made solely for the glory of God and for the advancement of his cause in the earth. It was far from the intention of those who effected it that it should ever be used for evil purposes. And though almost all the world, outside of the Roman communion, now unite in condemning its formation and its practices, they who are most nearly related to it are still satisfied that it was all right. They say the object was good, namely, to glorify God, and to benefit mankind. And the motive was right; for what better motive can actuate any one than an earnest desire to advance the glory and the cause of God in the earth, and to do good to our fellow-man? This was the object of its formation, and such the motive of those who upheld it and labored for it, and executed its decrees even to the dungeon and the tortures of the Inquisition.

3. In its inception and execution its promoters were moved by excessive zeal for the cause of God. They could not content themselves with the slow work of evangelizing the world by individual conversions; they must Christianize nations. And if people would not consent to act according to their views of Christian doctrine, they must be compelled to yield obedience, for the nation must be Christian. The result is too well known to need a word of comment.

We of this century and in this country have been wont to look back with astonishment at the actions of men of centuries ago, and think if we were in their places we would act in a far different manner. But in that very few judge aright. Looking forward they saw only the cause and the motive that impelled them to action, and their consciences approved it. We, looking back, see only the results, and we are filled with horror. Could they have seen the full result of their actions, they might have paused and considered well their motive; but they could not see it. And could the people of the present time look forward and see the full result of their course they might stand appalled as they now do in reviewing the course of their ancestors. It is the old story over again: “If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.” But they who spake thus clamored for the blood of Jesus of Nazareth, the chief of all the prophets. Thus ever “history repeats itself.”

And in the prophecy of Rev. 13 there is a further object—the main object—to be reached by this action. The formation of the image to the first beast will be made for the express purpose of

Causing people to receive a mark. As the image was an image of the beast, so this mark is called “the mark of the beast.” Can we ascertain what this means? Reader, will you try to ascertain? Are you willing to examine evidences on the subject? You may say: “We do not know that you have the truth on the subject.” But do you know that we have not? Have you ever inquired diligently and prayerfully to know what it means? To show you the immense importance of these questions we will here present a message of warning and of threatening which the God of Heaven has spoken on the very subject of which we are treating. It is in the following words:—

“If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

“Here is the patience of the saints; here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:9–12.

This is the most solemn warning, the most terrible denunciation, to be found in the holy Scriptures. Dear friend, you cannot afford to be indifferent when God speaks thus. Better sleep when your house is burning; better mock at him who would stay your steps from walking off a precipice. God has pronounced blessings upon those who tremble at his word; while only ruin stands before him who acts presumptuously.

In this message we find a solution of the greatest difficulty in the prophecy of Rev. 13. Two classes are presented in the message: one worships the beast and his image, and receives his mark; the other keeps the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Is there anything in the commandments of God, or in the faith of Jesus, which stands in opposition to “the mark of the beast,” spoken of in this prophecy? There is; it is found in God’s commandments.

By comparing the scriptures we find that several words are used to designate the same thing, as sign, seal, mark, etc. See Rom. 4:11; Eze. 9:4; Rev. 7:1–3. In Eze. 9 a mark is set upon the foreheads of God’s people before utter destruction comes. In Rev. 7 the servants of God are sealed in their foreheads before the four winds blow upon the earth. Thus we have in the Scriptures a seal or mark set upon the foreheads of God’s worshipers, and a mark set either in the foreheads or in the hands of the worshipers of the beast. We have no idea that these are literal marks put in their foreheads. These prophecies contain symbols or figures. The forehead represents the intellect of man, as the hand represents power. Now let us look at “the commandments of God” to ascertain what is God’s mark, or seal, or sign. In Ex. 31:13 we read: “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep; for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you.” And again in verses 16, 17: “Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; [for what reason] for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.”

The same was given through the prophet: “Moreover also I gave them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.” Eze. 20:12. And yet more impressively in verse 20: “And hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.”

Why was the Sabbath selected to be a sign whereby we may know that Jehovah is God? Because it is the memorial of his work of creation; the evidence of “his eternal power and godhead.” The title of “Creator” is the highest that Jehovah ever chose for himself. It is this which distinguishes him from false gods—“the gods that have not made the heavens and the earth.” Read Jer. 10:1–16. Compare Acts 17:22–24; Rom. 1:19, 20; Rev. 10:5, 6; and 14:6, 7. Thus we see that the sign, or seal, or mark, in “the commandments of God” is his Sabbath; the sanctified seventh day; the day on which he rested when he made the heavens and the earth. No other commandment in his law is thus spoken of, because no other contains the evidence of his creative power. The other commandments likewise reveal to us the will of God; this contains proof that Jehovah is God—the true God. And this is the proof given by God himself. “Hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.”

This God-given sign of the creative power of Jehovah is utterly destroyed, obliterated, by changing the Sabbath to another day than the seventh; to a day on which he did not rest when he made the heavens and the earth; to a day which is not the memorial of his creative work. Mark the language of Jehovah himself; the Sabbath is a sign that we may know him, that he is God, “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.”

We have identified the sign or seal (or mark) of God, in the evidence offered by himself. Can we in like manner identify the sign or mark of the beast power? We can, for that power has also furnished its evidence. And here our difficulty is not in finding the proof it gives, but to decide where to begin to quote, and which to choose, where the proof is so abundant. First we will state a few facts concerning the Sunday which are beyond dispute.

1. There is no law in the New Testament for keeping Sunday.

2. There is no Bible proof that it was ever blessed or set apart as a day of observance.

3. There is no proof that the Sabbath was ever changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. The claim in that respect rests on mere inference.

4. There is no Bible proof that anybody ever kept the first day of the week, or regarded it as a sacred day. Proof of this all lies this side of the Bible record. History or tradition is the only basis of the Sunday Sabbath.

5. The first law for resting from labor on Sunday was made by Constantine, A. D. 321. It was not a Christian edict but, as Dr. Schaff says, it was to honor “the venerable day of the sun” out of respect to “Apollo, the sun-god.”

6. The religious character of the first day of the week was given to it by the pastors of the Church of Rome. As a religious or church festival it is solely the property of the Catholic Church.

And what does the Church say on this subject? She has always claimed the “Christian Sunday” as the creature of her power. In a Catholic tract, an appeal to Protestants, are the following words:—

“The command to keep holy the seventh day is one of the ten commandments; you believe that the other nine are still binding; who gave you authority to tamper with the fourth? If you are consistent with your own principles, if you really follow the Bible, and the Bible only, you ought to be able to produce some portion of the New Testament in which this fourth commandment is expressly altered, or, at least, from which you may confidently infer that it was the will of God that Christians should make that change in its observance which you have made. . . . You keep the Sunday, and not the Saturday; and you do so rightly, for this was the practice of all Christians when Protestantism began; but you have abandoned other Catholic observances, which were equally universal at that day, preferring the novelties introduced by the men who invented Protestantism, to the unvarying tradition of above fifteen hundred years. We blame you, not for making Sunday your weekly holiday, instead of Saturday, but for rejecting tradition, which is the only safe and clear rule by which this observance can be justified.”

As the Creator of the heavens and the earth gave the Sabbath memorial as the evidence of his power, so the Catholic Church gives the Sunday, the opposing or counterfeit Sabbath, as the evidence of its authority. See the following from a book by M. Segur, entitled “Plain Talk about Protestantism”:—

“It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath [Sunday]—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath which is Saturday. It was the Catholic Church, which, by the authority of Jesus Christ has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the church.”

And still more emphatic, if possible, is the following from a Catechism:—

“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.”

That is, the Sunday-Sabbath is evidence that “the Church” has power to ordain Christian institutions, and to make that sinful of which the Lord has never spoken. And by the observance of Sunday, Protestants recognize and act upon the authority of the Catholic Church.