A LETTER TO A FRIEND, by J. N. Loughborough

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 22, 1857

A LETTER TO A FRIEND,

By J. N. Loughborough

ON THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

DEAR W.—You ask me in your letter what I think of the position taken by some, that the mark of the beast in the forehead or hand, is the sign of the cross made by Catholics in their ceremonies, which is made in their forehead, or hand, on Ash Wednesdays, &c.? I think in short, that we shall see by looking carefully, that it cannot be claimed with much plausibility that the mark of the beast is the sign of the cross as used by Catholics. I am aware that the position of which you have spoken is the one taken by many on the subject of the mark of the beast, and I will therefore assign some reasons for dissenting from that position.

You seem to express satisfaction in regard to the position we have taken respecting the two-horned beast, as we think every one will, who carefully weighs the argument. But, if our view of the two-horned beast is correct, this government is the power that is to enforce the mark of the beast. As you have noticed in our writings on this subject, the beast and two-horned beast are two distinct powers. Catholics enforcing their peculiar forms on the members of their church, cannot be claimed to be fulfilling the work of the two-horned beast; but for the fulfillment of that work, we must find another power which enforces some of the beast's sentiments by law. We shall object to the position referred to on the mark of the beast, for the following reasons.

1. If the mark of the beast is the sign of the cross made by Catholics, then this government must yet enforce upon its subjects the sign of the cross, and that under penalty of death; for the two-horned beast is thus to enforce the mark of the beast. Rev. xiii. 15. But this you see at once we cannot expect. The religion of this government is Protestant. Protestants do not believe in the sign of the cross. This two-horned beast in its profession is a different power from the first beast. Its religion is professedly different, although in some points it occupies Catholic ground; but it does not on the sign of the cross. You may say, "Perhaps the Catholics will establish their religion here." That would not be an image to the first beast. The first beast was the Catholic church clothed with civil power. It would look more like an image to that power to put Protestants in a position where they can sustain and enforce their peculiar tenets by law. An image to anything is not the thing itself, but something that is like the thing. So an image to the first beast is not the Catholic church established by law, but another church established in a similar manner.

2. This mark of the beast which is to be enforced by the image-beast, is something that is contrary to God's Commandments, because after the Third Angel's Message of Rev. xiv, warns against the mark of the beast, it says, "Here are they that keep the Commandments of God, &c," thus showing that those who are not in unison with that message, and are subject to the mark of the beast, are not keeping all of God's Commandments. I know of no commandment that forbids a man's making a sign of a cross on his forehead, yet I look upon it as a useless ceremony.

3. The mark of the beast, if received, will incur "the wine of the wrath of God" without mixture of mercy, the same as the worship of the beast. But is the mere making of the sign of the cross upon a person, of sufficient importance to call down the wrath of God without mercy? But as it has been, and can be clearly shown that Sunday-keeping as a Sabbath is purely of Papal origin, and as such clear light is shining forth upon this subject. I can see a consistency in the position that the judgments of God will fall on a class of people that shall reject the clear light of his Commandments, and understandingly persist in keeping an institution of the beast—Papacy.

The mark of the beast, if it is to be enforced by Protestants, must be something which Protestants regard. What do they and Catholics agree in that leads them to break one of God's Commandments? I answer, they are agreed in neglecting the fourth Commandment and in substituting Sunday-keeping in place of the Sabbath. That they have done this, you have already seen from the arguments upon this subject.

The mark of the beast is called (Rev. xiv, 11) "The mark of his name," or title as the word is frequently said to mean. It is of the same import as the word in chap. xi. 13. The Roman power has assumed high sounding titles. "Christ's vicar on earth," in other words, a substitute for Christ. The Pope has not only assumed the position of law-maker, but he has changed the institutions of the Lord, and unblushingly acknowledges that it is by the authority of the Papal church that the keeping of Sunday as a Sabbath has been brought in. When asked for their authority for making laws, they point you to Sunday-keeping as a mark or sign of their right to make laws.

As we read in one of their Catechisms, entitled "Abridgement of Christian Doctrine," the question is asked, "How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?" This is certainly calling for the mark of the name of the Catholic church, or in other words, for the sign of their royalty, or assumed power. Mark the answer, "By the very act of changing Sabbath into Sunday." Here they have plainly and frankly admitted that Sunday is the mark of their name.

There is another reason that might be assigned here for calling Sunday the mark of their name or royalty. That is this—this substitute sabbath of the Pope has taken the place that was formerly occupied by the sign (seal or mark) of the living God. We see by reading Ex. xxxi, 13, 17, and Eze. xx, 12, 20, that the Sabbath is the sign of the living God. Sign and seal are synonymous terms in the Bible. We read of Abraham, that "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Rom. iv, 11. A seal of any law-making power, is a sign between them and their subjects, that they may be shielded from imposition. Then whatever is given as a sign between God and his subjects, that they may know him is his seal. The four texts we have quoted above show conclusively that the Sabbath occupies that place. God's Law evidently has a seal to it, and the power that has "thought to change it," (Dan. vii, 25.) could not effect a complete change without removing the seal of God; this they have done by mutilating the fourth commandment, and throwing away that part of it which enforces what the Bible recognizes as the seal of God. God's Law has a seal and should be taught now as a sealed Law.

A testimony is found in Isaiah viii, 16, which shows that in this dispensation God's Law will have a seal to it. This text is the only Old Testament scripture in which the word, disciple, occurs. A disciple is a learner of Jesus. The text says, "Bind up the testimony, seal the Law among my disciples." But when is this to be? The connection shows it is when they say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar spirits," &c.

We have in this dispensation come to just such a time. The call is going forth for us to seek to spirits, but in this time God calls upon us to "seal the Law." We see there is occasion for such a work. Papacy has torn the seal from God's Law, and placed the sign of its own power in the place of it. Sunday-keeping has taken the place of God's seal or mark, and for the reasons assigned within, we hesitate not to call it "the mark of the beast." And as you see from the work you read on the two-horned beast, steps are being taken in this government that begin to look towards a rigid enforcing of this Sunday institution of the Papal church by Protestants.

From these considerations we have come to the conclusion we have in regard to the "mark of the beast," and we confidently expect Protestants will go on with their efforts to enforce this Sunday institution. The Lord help us to search for his truth as for hid treasures, practice his Commandments, and prepare for the coming conflict.

Your brother in hope of life. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. Waukon, Iowa, Oct. 6th, 1857.