The Mark of the Beast by J. M. Aldrich

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 18, 1864

“The Mark of the Beast.”

By J. M. Aldrich

In the World’s Crisis appears an article, under the above heading, and over the signature of I. C. Wellcome, in which the writer proposes to unmask the “seventh-day theory” with reference to the mark of the beast, and let his readers “see how it looks.” As the process is labeled, “Wellcome,” in the Crisis, I will give it free to the Review. It is as follows:

“There is a fearful judgment awaiting all who have the mark of the beast. This is most clearly stated, and no other argument need be used to any conscientious Christian to dissuade him from a practice, than to make him believe that the mark of the beast is set upon him by such practice. But to show by evidence what the mark of the beast is, is quite different from asserting what it is.

The teachers of the seventh-day theory, assert in books, papers, tracts, charts, visions and pulpits, that the keeping of the first day of the week incurs the mark of the beast, and its terrible results. Let us take the mask off from this assertion, and see how it looks.

“1st. The beast whose mark is to be dreaded and shunned is admitted by all parties to have been brought into existence as late as three hundred years after Christ, and he could not have a mark before he existed.

“2nd. It is certain that all Christians kept the first day of the week for three hundred years before there was any such mark to receive. On this point we give proof.”

The writer then quotes Ignatius, Irenæus, Dionysius, Clement, Tertullian, Barnabas, and Mosheim; and says that the “quotations are made to show that Christians observed the first day of the week, from the establishment of Christianity, and long before there was a “Pope” or a “beast” to “put his mark upon Christians.” In the following select and very pacifying language, he then closes his article: “Let us not be deluded by those who would frighten us by false applications.”

Surely, with the mask removed, might we not expect to see, not only the seventh-day theory exposed in all its nakedness, but also the truth in its beauty and plainness? Such would seem to be a reasonable expectation. But what a failure! His effort to unmask the seventh-day theory, instead of bringing a particle of truth to the light, only shows what a dark mask of error is fastened upon his own head.—I was about to say upon his own theory, but alas! he has no theory. He ventures not even an opinion as to what the mark of the beast is. Although he admits there is a fearful judgment for those who have this mark, yet no sound of alarm—no note of warning does he give, as a faithful watchman is in duty bound to do; but rather with an admission still fresh upon his lips, that, “there is a fearful judgment awaiting all who have the mark of the beast;” and believing as he does, that the day of God’s wrath is just at hand, when this fearful judgment is to be executed; he ventures to calm all fear in the matter, by sounding the wonted “peace and safety” cry, “Let us not be deluded by those who would frighten us by false applications.”

Oh that the dark mask might fall from such minds, that the clear light of truth might shine thereon.

But it is said by this writer that the teachers of the seventh-day theory assert in books, papers, &c., that the keeping of the first-day of the week incurs the mark of the beast. Is it possible that our interpretation of the mark of the beast rests merely in assertion? I had supposed that the proof was made; that the Bible as well as our books, papers, tracts, &c., contained “evidence” unmistakable on this point.

Surely, it cannot be that we are left without “evidence” in regard to so important a matter as the mark of the beast, since God has so solemnly warned against its reception, and pronounced such a fearful judgment upon all those who have it. Indeed, the wisdom and justice of God requires a plain rule to be given, whereby his people may know what the mark of the beast is, and thus be fully guarded against its reception. Such a rule we must surely have. We are not left to doubt in the matter.

But let us notice his points. It is readily conceded that the beast could not have a mark before he existed; also that he was not brought into existence till “as late as three hundred years after Christ.” Keeping Sunday then, before there was a beast, could not be termed the mark of the beast. But what of all that? Is the “seventh-day theory” affected thereby? Not in the least. The third angel’s message of Rev. xiv, 9-12 in which is brought to view the mark of the beast, the solemn warning against its reception, and the fearful threatening of God’s wrath upon all who have it, has nothing to do with the remote period to which Eld. W. refers. Had he located this message where it belongs, it seems to me he would have seen the fallacy of his reasoning. It is easy to see that this message has its application just before the second coming of Christ. This is evident from several facts, but particularly from what immediately follows its proclamation. “And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto the Son of man, having on his head a golden crown, and on his hand a sharp sickle. And another angel came out of the temple crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud. Thrust in thy sickle and reap; for the time has come for thee to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe. And he that sat on the cloud thrust in his sickle on the earth; and the earth was reaped.” Verses 14-16. It is this third angel’s message then, that ripens the harvest of the earth; for it is the last one given prior to the time of reaping; and surely, the fearful and solemn nature of the message, is truly worthy such a solemn work. This message then, is not designed to correct the sins of eighteen hundred years ago, but to prepare a people for the Lord at his coming. It reveals, “If any man worship the beast and his image and receive his mark,” in the present tense, referring to the time when the message is given, and not to the time of Christ, or any other remote period when it is alleged that Christians kept the first day of the week. Indeed, Eld. W. expresses the truth on this point, in the first sentence he utters: “There is a fearful judgment awaiting all who have the mark of the beast;” not who had it eighteen hundred years ago.

As to whether Christians kept the first day of the week for three hundred years before there was a “beast” or “Pope,” is a question having no bearing upon the point at issue; but the observance of the first day under the sounding of the third angel’s proclamation, has doubtless quite a different and more essential bearing. But the readers of the Review who have read Eld. J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath are not deceived in regard to the quotations of Eld. W. in favor of Sunday-keeping by the early Christians. All who are inclined to the belief that the early Christians were accustomed to observe the first day as the Sabbath, are invited to a candid perusal of this work.

Let the “mask” be torn away; the truth will always appear the brighter.

J. M. ALDRICH.