p. 3 | THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME by H. F. Ketring

Pacific Press Publishing Company · OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA · Jun 7, 1899

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 25, No. 23.

“THE NUMBER OF HIS NAME.”

By H. F. Ketring

“AND I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire; and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of His name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God.” “Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six.” Rev. 15:2; 13:18.

The Lord evidently wants us to know what is meant by this number, for He says, “Let him that hath understanding count the number.” Where is there to be found a man bearing the number 666? The pope bears the following title: “Vicarius Filii Dei,” “Vicegerent of the Son of God, or Vicar of Christ.” If from this Latin inscription we take the Roman numerals: V, I, C, I, U(V), I, L, I, I, D, I (A, R, S, F, and E are not numerals), and give them their proper value, we have as follows:—

V = 5 I = 1 C = 100 I = 1 V(U) = 5 I = 1 L = 50 I = 1 I = 1 D = 500 I = 1 —— 666

Here is the exact number given in the prophecy.

Now what does this number, as it is worn by the Roman pontiff indicate?—Simply this, that he assumes the prerogative of God. He, as head of the church, not only claims the power to forgive sins, but after he has forgiven the sinner, he gives him laws and “precepts” of his own institution. He says that if men will obey these laws, they shall be saved; but if they disregard them they will receive the recompense due to sinners. But all this would be of little consequence were it not for that most necessary prerogative, infallibility. For “without infallibility we could never be sure of our faith.”

This claim of infallibility, as officially taught and defined, is:—

That the Roman pontiff, when he speaks Ex Cathedra; that is, when, discharging the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by reason of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the whole church, he, by the divine assistance promised to him in Peter, possesses that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His church should be endowed in defining doctrines of faith or morals. . . . Consequently, Catholics believe that the pope is infallible when he teaches the faithful Ex Cathedra, that is, from the Chair of St. Peter, in matters of faith or morals.

So infallibility does not attach to him as a man, nor even as a pope; but he can exercise this prerogative only when he acts in his official capacity as “teacher of all Christians,” regarding a doctrine of “faith or morals.” That is, when he speaks on any other subject, such as “astronomy” or “geology” or “purely political questions,” no such infallibility attaches. But it is evident that he can decide what is a doctrine of faith or morals. That we have correctly analyzed this claim is seen from the following statement made by Cardinal Gibbons:—

Bear in mind, also, that this divine assistance that makes him infallible is guaranteed to the pope, not in his capacity as a private teacher, but only in his official capacity, when he judges of faith and morals as head of the church. . . . What, then, is the real doctrine of infallibility? It simply means that the pope, as successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, by virtue of the promise of Jesus Christ, is preserved from error of judgment when he promulgates to the church a decision on faith or morals.

We have seen that infallibility attaches to the Roman pontiff only as he occupies the “Chair of St. Peter.” Thus infallibility, instead of being in the pope as a man, is in the seat or “Chair of St. Peter,” and the pope has it only as he speaks from that chair.

But how does it come to be in the “chair of St. Peter”?—It was placed there by a vote of 363 bishops, archbishops, and cardinals against two. Notwithstanding the fact that these men were as destitute of infallibility as was the pope himself, yet by their vote that prerogative was conferred upon him as he should occupy that “chair.”

His assumed infallibility is the climax of all that he is represented as claiming in the number 666 of the prophecy, and is it not evident then that the number 666 represents his assumption of infallibility, a prerogative conferred upon him by those 363 bishops, archbishops, and cardinals? But the pope is no more responsible for bearing that number than are those who voted it upon him, since if “they which commit such things are worthy of death,” so are they also who “not only do the same, but consent with them that do them.” Rom. 1, 32, margin. Since by making that blasphemous claim the pope receives that number, and is judged for bearing it, those who voted it upon him receive the same number, and are judged accordingly.

Then, too, each pope must be elected from among the cardinals, by the vote of the cardinals. Each successive pope elected by the cardinals, bears the same number, as also do the cardinals who elect him to that position, since they are equally responsible with him.

It is a well-known fact—too well-known to need any proof here—that in nearly all the States, and in the United States, there is to be found the very essence of the principle of infallibility. The fact is also familiar, that among the people of the United States the idea of a large majority is that the authority of the civil magistrate reaches even to the control of the religious observances of the people. That this is true is proved by the fact that with scarcely a word of remonstrance, this nation is declared by the Supreme Court to be a “Christian nation,” and this people a “religious people;” which declaration is based upon the “religious nature” of the laws of the United States, among them the “laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath.” Not only this, but Congress has decided for the people that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is “the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday,” and this sabbath (Sunday) is enforced upon the people. Not only do the large majority of the people consent that this is power rightfully and legitimately exercised, but thousands demand that such laws be enforced.

It is evident that such power is derived wholly from the seat which the official occupies, and can be exercised only in his official capacity. Yesterday the assumption of any such authority would have been resented as the basest kind of impudence, but to-day it is admitted to be right and proper. Whence the change?—O, yesterday he was a man like other men, and as destitute of any such power; but like the other pope, he was elected to occupy the seat from which such authority is expected.

The extreme danger of the State meddling with religion was seen by the founders of this commonwealth. In the treaty made with Tripoli, it was declared that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.” This treaty was framed by an ex-Congregational clergyman and signed by President Washington.

Our fathers who made the nation, those able defenders of the rights of the people, declared: “It is impossible for the magistrate to adjudge the right of preference between the various sects which profess the Christian faith, without erecting a claim to infallibility, which would lead us back to the Church of Rome.” But it is an indisputable fact that the magistrates have adjudged “the right of preference between the various sects which profess the Christian faith,” and just as surely “a claim to infallibility” has been erected, which is leading us “back to the Church of Rome.” And so evident is this that Catholic leaders see it, and to-day are endeavoring to prove to Protestants the doctrine of papal infallibility, by citing this very action on the part of the magistrates. And whether or not they by word claim infallibility, the fact remains unchanged, since by act they claim it. For what purpose are the church people demanding the exercise of such power, and the enforcement of such laws, and for what purpose are the civil officers yielding to these demands? Let them answer for themselves:—

The National Reform Association does not aim at the individual, but at the nation. Its specific purpose is to bring the whole people, not as so many individuals, but as one organized body, being a living, active, moral person, to confess the Lord Jesus Christ as king.—Christian Statesman, Feb. 4, 1895.

In this statement from the prime movers in this work, their avowed purpose is declared to be the salvation of the nation; and to accomplish this end, they demand the enactment and enforcement of religious laws. But without an infallible lawgiver, salvation, as a result of obedience to the law, is impossible. Hence the confession of their purpose accuses them of claiming infallibility. So, even if they do not in word lay claim to infallibility, they do in deed. And if the pope of Rome received the prophetic number because of his blasphemous claim of infallibility, which is the embodiment of all his other claims, do not the rulers in the United States receive the same number by exercising the same prerogative?

Again, if those cardinals received the number of the beast by electing one of their number to the place where he would receive it, do not the people of the United States receive it also by casting the ballot which places it upon one whom they elect?

The prophecy declares that so great will be the pressure brought to bear upon God's people “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.” While the feeling on this subject has not risen to the height where all who will not exercise their franchise by voting are boycotted, yet a movement is on foot, which, when developed, will “outlaw” all who will not receive the “number of his name” by casting the ballot. Rev. J. H. Prugh, of Pittsburg, Pa., says:—

A Christian should not divorce his religion from his politics. It is bad enough to vote wrongly. It is worse not to vote at all. Christian citizens should be deeply interested in politics, and should go to the primaries, to the polls, and to the political conventions as regularly and as religiously as they go to church.—St. Louis Weekly Globe-Democrat, Sept. 8, 1896.

Rev. Geo. E. Reed, of Carlisle, Pa., says:—

Man owes to the State active participation in practical political affairs. To be a political indifferentist is to be a political criminal.—Id.

Just as they are enforcing the “mark of the beast” (Sunday as a legal sabbath, a mark of authority) upon the people; just so will they enforce the “number of his name” upon them by compelling participation (contrary to conscience) in political affairs.