Seventh-day Adventists by Editor

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Nov 29, 1864

Seventh-day Adventists.

By Editor

THE MESSAGES.

According to announcement in last Review we proceeded to examine Eld. Himes' reply to the questions addressed to him in Review No. 12, last volume. As the reader will remember, the questions were called out by the announcement of Eld. H. in the Voice of the West that he is now giving the first angel's message of Rev. xiv. If he is now giving the first angel's message, we were curious to know in what he would make the fulfillment of the other messages to consist; for we remember that there is a second and a third message, to intervene between the first message and the coming of the Son of man, which coming Eld. H. places in 1868. In the article referred to in No. 12, occurs this passage: "There is but a short time, a little more than three years at most, according to his theory, remaining for the accomplishment of these messages. What then will fulfill the message, Babylon is fallen? and what the other message, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark, &c.?" These points he has passed over, and confines himself to the secondary questions, "What constitutes Babylon? What is meant by its fall? What is the object of the message? What is the beast mentioned in the third message? What is his image, what is his mark, and? What is meant by the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus?" In relation to these points we said, "S. D. Adventists have for some time fancied that they were able to give a reason of the hope, or belief that is in them." To which Eld. H. replies,

"But on what authority do they base the reason of their belief? Certainly not upon the Bible alone, but upon the visions of Mrs. White. Dare he [the editor of the Review] deviate from her visions on this subject? Would it not cost him his place in the editorial chair? He knows it would. Then what follows, when he says, 'If there is a better, we are not the ones who wish to be ignorant of it.' But suppose we show you a better, or the true view, what would you be benefited so long as you are pledged to abide by the visions that give a different one?"

And this testimony is from the man who thinks it an awful thing to have motives impeached, or, at least, to have his impeached! Dare he deviate from the visions? he inquires, and then asserts that we know it would cost us our place in the editorial chair! And thus for the sake of retaining this position, we are represented as maintaining a servile abjection to the visions, and elevating them above the word of God, which, one would judge from the representations of our opponents, they contradict at every turn. It would probably amount to nothing with him were we to deny that we are the arrant hypocrite here set forth. We will only state again, however, that we profess to hold the word of God supreme, and to be ready to discuss whatever that condemns; and we have repeatedly called, and still call, upon our opponents to show any discrepancy between the visions and that word, and they have not done it.

But to the question: 1. What is Babylon? To answer this objection he quotes Rev. xvii, 3-6, where the papal church is spoken of as "Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth." "This," says he, "is the papal church, and is here called Babylon." He then goes on arguing upon the assumption that that church alone constitutes Babylon. But we inquire, Is that the case? The text speaks of the papal church as the "mother" of harlots. If she is a mother, she must have daughters; and these daughters must belong to the family; showing us that something more than merely the papal church is included in the term, Babylon. So far does he come short of the truth in his first effort.

2. What is its fall? "Of this," he says, "we must judge from the facts of its rise. This took place in A. D. 583." Eld. H. places the commencement of the 1260 years of papal supremacy in A. D. 583, and ends them in 1798, where he contends civil power was taken away from the pope, and this latter event, he argues, was the fall of Babylon. These dates for the commencement and end of papal supremacy, it is not the province of this article to discuss. We will only state in passing, that the original dates 538, and 1798, can be easily vindicated against this new view. The question for consideration now is, Is the end of papal supremacy, place it where we will, the fall of Babylon, as Eld. H. contends? We say it is not. To learn what the fall is, other scriptures must be taken in connection with Rev. xiv, 8. Thus chap. xviii, 2, speaks not only of the fall, but gives us some of the results, by which we can judge of the nature of that fall. It says, "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." This is the result of that fall; and it shows us that the fall is a moral one. It affects character, not temporal dominion. Now attempt to apply this to the close of papal supremacy. Did the papal church, as the result of that event, become the hold of foul spirits, and a cage of unclean and hateful birds? Did that event affect its character? Was it a pure church before that, but as a consequence has since become corrupt? Absurd. And what event does Eld. H. point to, as the fulfillment, at that time, of the message, "Babylon is fallen, is fallen?" Answer. Walter Scott, in writing a history of the event sometime afterward, exclaims, "A Puritan might have said of the power seated on the seven hills, 'Babylon is fallen, it is fallen, that great city.'" Oh! a Puritan might have said so. But did any Puritan ever say any? Not that we know of. And so this thing that might have been done, but never was done, is symbolized in prophecy by an angel flying through Heaven? To adapt itself to the facts which Eld. H. presents, the prophecy should have read like this: And a second angel might have followed, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; but for some reason never did!

Again, after the fall, God's people are called out of Babylon. Verse 4. "And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Here the fact is again stated, that as a consequence of her fall, Babylon becomes exceedingly sinful, and God's people are called out so as not to become partakers of her sins. Then this great degree of wickedness did not exist previous to her fall, else the people of God would have been called out, before that event. But here is another fact of vital significance, and that is, that the people of God as a whole, as a body, are in Babylon at the time of her fall, and are called out subsequent to that event. With this fact in view, we inquire, Were the people of God as a body in the church of Rome in 1793, where Eld. H. places the fall? Have they since been called out, so as not to receive of her plagues? Absurd again. So the papal church does not alone constitute Babylon, and the loss of papal supremacy is not the fall of Babylon. Eld. H. succeeds no better on his second question, than he did on his first.

In contrast with this, look a moment at the harmony of what we regard as the truth on this subject.

1. That the papal church is only that portion of Babylon represented by the mother. 2. That there are harlot daughters, which are all included under the term Babylon. 3. That these daughters are the various degenerate Protestant sects, which are bound by human creeds, and, cherishing many of the heresies of the papacy, are following in its footsteps. 4. That the Scriptures seem to speak of Babylon under the two divisions of mother and daughters, Rev. xvii, dealing specially with the mother, or Papal Babylon, and chap. xviii, with the daughters, or Protestant Babylon. This conclusion is necessary, from the fact that the testimony taken together, must embrace them both; and there are statements in chap. xvii, which cannot apply to Protestantism, and others in chap. xviii, which cannot apply to the Papacy. 5. That scattered through these various Protestant sects, the people of God were to be found almost exclusively, prior to the proclamation of the Advent doctrine, or first angel's message from 1840 to 1844. 6. That in consequence of their rejecting the doctrine of the Advent, these churches met with a change, grieved God's Spirit by shutting their eyes to the truth, and suffered a moral fall. From that time on, their destitution of the Spirit of God has been the burden of hundreds of lamentations through their public journals; and they are now fast tending to the condition described in Rev. xviii, 2. 7. That there are multitudes of Christians still in these churches, who are yet to be called out in accordance with Rev. xviii, 4. A comparison of our views on this point, we now leave with the reader, referring for a full exposition of the subject, to the pamphlet entitled the Three Messages of Rev. xiv.

3. "What is the object of that message?" We asked this question in reference to the second message; but Eld. H. seems to understand it of the first; for he says in reply:

"It was to proclaim in every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, that the hour of his judgment had come on the papal power, as predicted in Dan. vii, 26."

The first angel's message, then, according to this, has reference to the fall of the papacy, and is designed to give the world a knowledge of that event. But Eld. H. says, that he is giving the first message. Is this the burden of his work? Is it the object of the publication of the Voice of the West, to make known that the hour of God's judgment has come on the papacy? Certainly not. His theory and practice on these points, do not seem to agree. The connection between Dan. vii, 26, and Rev. xiv, 7, remains to be shown. We contend that there is nothing in the first message which would in any wise connect it with the papacy. That message contains the proclamation of the everlasting gospel, which was to go to every nation. It has a deeper significance, and a broader application, than to herald the downfall of the papacy. We believe it was given to announce the commencement of the judgment work in the sanctuary in Heaven, at the close of the 2300 days in 1844.

4. What is the beast mentioned in the third message? On this we are both agreed that it is the beast of Rev. xiii, 4, the papacy.

5. What is the image? This question Eld. H. answers as follows:

"It must be something like itself, or the similitude, a likeness. It is the imitative assumption of temporal power, by the Pope, in the middle ages which the imperial hand of the Roman Empire had so long enjoyed. And by this assumption in the middle and latter ages of the papacy, its armies exercised such control over the kingdoms he wished to subdue, that as many as would not submit or worship, were conquered or killed. Rev. xiii, 15."

To this we reply, that the image of a thing is not the thing itself. The image of the papacy is not, and cannot be the papacy itself in any of its forms, as the above answer assumes. Again, what beast makes the image? Ans. The two-horned beast of Rev. xiii, 11. And this two-horned beast is not the papal beast; for it is a beast that exists cotemporary with the papacy, and does great wonders before him, or in his sight. Here, Eld. H. has fallen into the confusion of having the papacy make the image to itself! and the image when made is itself!! But further, this image was formed, according to his reasoning, in the middle ages. But the third message, which is a warning against the worship of the beast and his image, must have gone forth prior to the formation of the image, or we should have men exposed, for a time, to a fearful sin, with no warning against it, which is not the order in which God accomplishes his work. Now look at it. Here we have the third message going forth in the middle ages, the second in 1798, and Eld. H. is now giving the first in 1864!! In the name of reason, is this the way prophecy backs up, and turns things topsy-turvy? Besides this, no work can be pointed to in centuries past, which would at all answer to the second or third messages.

But perhaps it will be said that the messages commenced together and run parallel with each other. This assumption cannot be maintained; for if the inspired language is meaningless, it means that one follows the other. To follow, means to come after, at a later period of time; and although the first message is merged into the second, and the first and second into the third, still the first must commence its work before the second, and the second before the third. To interpret otherwise, is to violate the sacred record. And hence we say again, if Eld. H. is now giving the first message, as he claims, then a second and a third is to

follow; and these must both come in between this and 1868, where he places the coming of the Lord. It is of no use for him, when pressed upon the point, to try to get over it by flying back eight or nine hundred years into the past. Let him show what is to fulfill these messages between the present time and the coming of the Lord.

6. What is his mark? To this we have the following reply:

“It is an adherence to the papal power, and the constant marking themselves, in the right hand and forehead, by the holy water, as they enter the church, and on other occasions.”

The mark of the beast is evidently a sign or symbol of its power and authority. Has the Catholic church ever claimed the sign of the cross made with holy water, as a sign of its power? What has it claimed as such sign? Ans. The changing of the Sabbath into Sunday. But the worship of the beast and the mark of the beast, evidently go together. It will then help us to determine whether the sign of the cross constitutes the mark, by considering how extensive this is. In Rev. xiii, 8, we read, “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him whose names are not written in the book of life.” Then the time will come when beast-worship will be so universal that all except true Christians will be engaged in it; and the converse of this is true that at that time all who are not involved in beast-worship are true Christians, and have their names in the book of life. But does Eld. H. believe the time will ever come when all except true Christians will be making the sign of the cross? Infidels, the wicked and the whole unbelieving world do not worship the beast in that sense; and shall we thence conclude that their names are in the book of life? This will not answer. How much more natural to consider the mark of the beast some institution which he assumes as the badge of his power, and which is erected in opposition to the commandments of God with which it stands in contrast. What else can this be but Sunday-keeping which the beast sets forth as a sign of its power, and which it claims to have instituted in place of the true Sabbath of the Lord?

7. What is meant by the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus? To this we have the general and indefinite reply that it refers to the saints who have lived under papal oppression, and resisted the corruptions of that church, thus making the third message date from the rise of the papacy. This is indefinite and unsatisfactory. The commandments of God are one thing, the faith of Jesus, another. We want to know what they each mean. Does not the faith of Jesus include all the teachings of the New Testament peculiar to the present dispensation? All must admit it. Then what are the commandments of God which are coupled with it? Can they be anything else but the law of God the ten commandments? It is conceded on all hands that the papal power has been tampering with that law. Those who keep the commandments are set forth in opposition to those who worship the beast. This must have reference to some act of the papal church touching those commandments. And those who keep the commandments, spoken of thus in contrast, are those who are reforming some such papal abuse. What is this reform? Answer. Restoring to its place in the law, the true Sabbath, which the papacy has attempted to supplant by its counterfeit Sunday.

Perhaps we should apologize to the reader for introducing this subject; for what Eld. Himes wrote was not intended for the benefit of S. D. Adventists. In introducing his answer to the questions he said:

“What we say, then, on this subject, with any hope of good, must be to those who take the Bible alone, without the supposed inspired visions. And we write in the hope that some who have been perplexed on this subject may be enlightened, and set right.”

True, so far as Seventh-day Adventists are concerned he might have spared his effort; for they have studied the word of God enough on this subject to see the utter discrepancy of such views. And as to those whom he regards as taking the Bible alone, we only hope they will study it sufficiently to get its true teaching in this matter.