THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY by ABDIEL

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Dec 12, 1906

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 32, No. 48.

THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY

By ABDIEL

THE IMAGE AND MARK.

READ again Rev. 13:11-17, as follows: “And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like unto a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the authority of the first beast in his sight. And he maketh the earth and them that dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose death-stroke was healed. And he doeth great signs, that he should even make fire to come down out of heaven upon the earth in the sight of men. And he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by reason of the signs which it was given him to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast who hath the stroke of the sword and lived. And it was given unto him to give breath to it, even to the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as should not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, even the name of the beast or the number of his name.”

That the seven-headed beast of Revelation 13, under the fifth head, the head dominant for the forty-two months of the prophecy (Rev. 13:5-10), refers to the Papacy is demonstrated beyond question, unless we are disposed to reject all prophecy.

It is equally demonstrable that the Sunday institution is the mark of that power; that power claims it as such; it is Rome’s badge of assurance that she has power to “change the times and the law,” as the prophecy declares the little horn would “think to do.” Dan. 7:25. The little horn of Daniel 7 is identical with the beast power of Rev. 13:5-10. Around that change in God’s law revolves the great religio-political controversy of the last days.

That the two-horned beast of the latter part of the chapter referred to in the Scripture at the head of this article is a symbol of this country has also been demonstrated. It is in that prophecy declared that this nation shall make an image to the beast and enforce its worship; that it will legalize the mark of the beast and enforce its reception.

That “Mark of the Beast”

is not merely Sunday keeping; thousands upon thousands have observed Sunday in the past, believing that they were doing God’s will, believing that they thus were keeping His law. Light from His Word had not reached their hearts upon that question. Jesus said of the Jews, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloak for their sin.” John 15:22. Not until God’s message reveals to the soul the base counterfeit which Satan through apostasy has foisted upon the church, which loved tradition more than the Word of God, and that soul rejects God’s message and adheres to the counterfeit enforced by statute law, does he receive the mark of the beast. That time, that crucial moment, only God knows and He must be the judge; but His servants who know that message, who know the genuine and the counterfeit, must bear witness to the truth.

This message of truth has been going to the world for years. Thousands have embraced it; many thousands more see it, but have not yielded to it; many thousands more see that it is wrong to seek to enforce any kind of religious institution upon the minds and hearts of the people. Such freedom has been known in this country in the past that they feel, without weighing the evidence, that such a law never could be passed in this country.

But What Is the Prospect?

Let us lay before the reader two pictures. When this government was formed it was said by its founders in its Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That was the opinion of Washington, and Jefferson, and Madison, and Franklin, and scores of others, among which were the Baptists generally, and many of the other denominations. They felt that the only way to preserve the true principles of liberty was for the civil power to have nothing whatever to do with religion.

What Congress Said in 1829-1831.

There were others who felt otherwise, tho in the minority. Having little or no Scripture to establish Sunday sacredness, they did what has always been done in such a case—appealed to the civil law. This first appeal came before Congress in 1829, and a great mass of petitions was presented, praying that post-offices and post roads should be closed on Sunday. They came before both the Senate and House of Representatives. The Senate made answer in 1829; the House made answer to those petitions in 1831. The Senate said:

“It is not the legitimate province of the Legislature to determine what religion is true, or what false. It should be kept in mind that the proper object of government is to protect all persons in the enjoyment of their religious as well as civil rights, and not to determine for any whether they shall esteem one day above another, or esteem all days alike holy.

“If the principle is once established that religion or religious observance shall be interwoven with our legislative acts, we must pursue it to its ultimatum. . . .

“Let the National Legislature [or state] once perform an act which involves a religious controversy, and it will have passed its legitimate bounds. The precedent will then be established, and the foundation laid for that usurpation of the divine prerogative in this country which has been the desolating scourge of the fairest portions of the Old World. . . .

“To prevent a similar train of evils in this country [state], the constitution has wisely withheld from our government the power of defining the divine law. It is a right reserved to each citizen; and while he respects the rights of others, he can not be held amenable to any human tribunal for his conclusions.

“Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object are, in the opinion of the committee, always dangerous. . . . All religious despotism commences by combination and influence; and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it, and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequences.

“If the principle is once established that religion, or religious observances, shall be interwoven with our legislative acts, we must pursue it to its ultimatum.”

The House of Representatives said:

“The individual acts for himself, the representative for his constituents. He is chosen to represent their political and not their religious views; to guard the rights of man, not to restrict the rights of conscience. . . .

“If the measure recommended should be adopted, it would be difficult for human sagacity to foresee how rapid would be the succession, or how numerous the train of measures which would follow, involving the dearest rights of all,—the rights of conscience.

“The Constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual than that of a whole community. That representative who would violate this principle would lose his delegated character, and forfeit the confidence of his constituents.

“If a solemn act of legislation shall, in one point, define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may, with equal propriety, proceed to define every part of divine revelation, and enforce every religious obligation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowment of the church, and the support of the clergy.”

Not Toleration, but Inalienable Rights.

In contrasting conditions in America with past governments, Dr. Philip Shaff has well expressed the meaning of the inscription on the reverse side of the great seal of America, “A New Order of Things.” He said in “Church and State in the United States” (page 14):

“Toleration is an important step from state churchism to free churchism. But it is only a step. There is a very great difference between toleration and liberty. Toleration is a concession which may be withdrawn. It implies a preference for the ruling form of faith and worship, and a practical disapproval of all other forms. . . . In our country we ask no toleration for religion and its free exercise, but we claim it as an inalienable right.”

Such was the reply of the children of the fathers of the country, but with no agitation on the necessity of safe-guarding our liberties and with persistent agitation on the part of those who were clamoring for religious legislation, the minds of the grandchildren have become changed.

The Other Picture.

In 1863, the National Reform Association was organized, and held its first convention in Allegheny, Pa., Jan. 27, 1864. Its object is thus declared in the second article of the constitution then adopted:

“The object of this society shall be to maintain existing Christian features in the American Government; to promote needed reforms in the action of the government touching the Sabbath, the institution of the family, the religious element in education, the oath and public morality as affected by the liquor traffic and other kindred evils; and to secure such an amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will declare the nation's allegiance to Jesus Christ and its acceptance of the moral laws of the Christian religion, and so indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all the Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.”

The organ of that association in its issue of July 7, 1884, declared:

“Patriotism as well as piety demands a return to a strict compliance with the fourth commandment, as well as other divine requirements affecting the nation.”

Certainly it will not be denied in the face of these and hundreds of other evidences which might be adduced that the National Reform Association demands that the religious Sabbath—and there is no other, whether false or true—shall be enforced by law.

In the years 1885-87, the devoted band of accomplished and earnest women organized into the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, was wooed and won by the National Reform Association, and as a result introduced a new department into its work, for “the promotion of Sabbath observance, co-operating with the National Reform Association.”

Again in its national convention of 1887, the W. C. T. U. declared:

“The Woman's Christian Temperance Union, local, state, national, and world-wide, has one vital, organic thought, one all-absorbing purpose, one undying enthusiasm, and that is that Christ shall be this world's King; yea, verily, this world's King in its realm of cause and effect,—King of its courts, its camps, its commerce,—King of its colleges and cloisters,—King of its customs and constitutions. . . . The kingdom of Christ must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics.”

And in 1888, the following:

“Christ and His Gospel, as universal King and code, should be sovereign in our government and political affairs.”

No better reply need to be made to the above sentiment than that uttered by the United States Senate in 1829:

“Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God.”

We are glad to know that in this present current year they had nothing to say. Would to God that we might hope that they were seeing the evil of the movement to which they have given their support.

The American Sabbath Union

was organized in 1888, formed of the great evangelical denominations. Its object, “To preserve the Christian Sabbath as a day of rest and worship.” It has its branches in every state in the Union. Along this same line the Young People's Society of Christian Endeavor has been made to speak. Later on various labor unions in different parts of the country have also given their attention to the movement, tho we believe as a general thing the movement has not been approved by many of the workmen.

The effect of these religious combinations in politics and upon civil authorities was seen in 1892 and 1893. In February of the former year the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Trinity Church case, declared, contrary to the principles which gave birth and existence of the government, that “this is a Christian nation.”

The next year the legislative and executive branches of our government passed the Sunday-closing act pertaining to the Chicago World's Fair, thus deciding a religious controversy, and committing the government to religious legislation, the opposite picture to that presented in 1829 and 1831.

Further the mighty force which has been enlisted into the service of evil, conscientiously tho mistakenly, has been the two great federations which have spoken during the last year, the one the American Federation of Protestant Churches held in New York last autumn, the other the American Federation of Catholic Societies held in Buffalo last summer. Both of these have spoken emphatically in regard to the matter of preserving the Sabbath by law.

Certainly in the face of these things there is fair prospect that the movement will succeed, and the prophecy be fulfilled that this country shall speak with a dragon voice.

[The influence of this nation upon others will be considered next week.]