Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Jan 13, 1852
THE SABBATH
By C. Stowe
From the "Bible Advocate" of 1847.
THE SABBATH.
BY C. STOWE.
"Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy."
BROTHER, SISTER:—Does a secret disgust arise in your heart, as you read the command adopted as a motto for this article? And are you inclined to turn away with indifference or contempt? Reflect; it is the command of Jehovah, uttered audibly, amid the thunders of Sinai; and if not abolished, repealed, or amended, it is still in force, and as fully binding on you, and on me, now, as it was on ancient Israel in the wilderness of Sinai; and will continue to be so, on all; 'till that same voice which then shook the earth, shall once more shake not the earth only, but also heaven; and the glorious rest, of which this is the type* and earnest, shall dawn on the renovated earth, and its redeemed and blissful inhabitants.
'It is a principle which no proficient in the science of government, human or divine, will deny, that a law once enacted and in force' remains in force, 'till repealed or amended by the same authority which enacted it'; except when a law is enacted for a specific object, and a limited time, the object being accomplished, and the time expired, it has then fulfilled its design, and consequently null and void. As for instance the ritual law, which was a shadow, extending to the body, which is Christ; and which was abolished in his flesh. But it is a fact so evident as scarcely to need no proof, that the seventh day Sabbath had no such design or limitation. I ask any one who believes that the weekly Sabbath was one of the shadows thus abolished, to point out the particular ritual for which it was appointed,—Sacrifices were indeed, offered on that day, and so they were on every other day. (Num. xxviii, 3, 9.) But did not that change the character of the days, after those sacrifices ceased to be offered? Ask a child the simple question, whether the value of any number would be changed by adding a certain number to it, and then subtracting the same from it. His reply would be, that the original number remained the same as before the addition and subtraction. So the days on which sacrifices were offered, remained the same after those sacrifices ceased, that they were before they were appointed. Those which were common days before, were so after. And that which was a Sabbath before, must remain Sabbath after. Indeed the Sabbath suffered no change at any time. It was no more holy, its rest no more sacred, under the Levitical law, than it was previously; when the Israelites were commanded to prepare all their bread on the sixth day, and to abide every man in his place on the seventh. Ex. xvi, 29. Consequently, the ritual law could not take from it, a sacredness it never imparted to it. As therefore the Sabbath has not been abolished, our next inquiry is, has it been repealed or amended, by the authority which enacted it? To this, there can be no other rational answer, than, that in the absence of any testimony to this effect, we have no right to infer that it has been thus repealed, or amended. God has given mankind a Sabbath of rest, particularly designating the day which was to be observed, with the reasons for the same, and the manner of observing it; and afterwards incorporated it into that law, which is holy, just and good; and which in the new covenant, he has promised to write, not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart. How then, can any portion of this law, be repealed or amended by the unchangeable Jehovah? But admitting that he has done this, where in all his revealed will to man, shall we find a transcript or amendment? We look, and ask in vain. No one, I believe, pretends to bring positive evidence of such repeal or amendment from the word of God. Human inferences from circumstantial evidence with the usages of the fathers, is all which has been, or can be brought, to prove that the Sabbath has been repealed or changed. Have we any right on such grounds to 'change the ordinance, and break the everlasting covenant'? Is it not presumption thus to treat the positive commands and institutions of Jehovah?
But let us examine some of this inferential evidence, and giving it all the weight it will admit, see if it will justify an abandonment of the Sabbath, either with, or without a substitute. But here so many inconsistencies at once present themselves, that I hardly know where to begin. First it is contended, that Christ, in performing cures, and permitting his disciples to satisfy their hunger from the fields through which they passed, did as he was accused, that which is not lawful to do on the Sabbath; and that in his reply to the ever murmuring Pharisees, he intimated that it was not then in force. And at the same time it is asserted that he afterwards abolished it at his crucifixion: and again, that it was changed to the first day of the week, at his resurrection. Again that being abolished, Paul was afraid of those who observed it, and yet, that it is immaterial whether it be observed or not; only let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind. Truth is always consistent with itself, and with every other truth. But let me ask, which two of these four propositions can be harmonized? I think it is evident, not only that the above inferences cannot be harmonized with each other, but that neither of them, has any foundation in the word of God.
1st.—Christ did not annul, or break this command, for his own testimony is, 'I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill.' Therefore, though Lord of the Sabbath, he did not make it void. But instead of giving any such intimation, he showed the Pharisees that in eating the ears of corn as they passed, they no more profaned the Sabbath than the priests did, in performing in the temple the labor necessary in preparing their sacrifices. And that in releasing the afflicted from disease and infirmity, he no more violated the Sabbath, than they did, in similar acts of humanity to their beasts. Thus exposing their inconsistency; and assuring them, that it was lawful to do well on the Sabbath; by which, he tacitly acknowledged its validity. (Mat. xii, 5—13.) Dare any infer from these circumstances, that the Saviour worked or broke any portion of that law, which he declared he came not to destroy, but to fulfill? Neither should such an inference be made from the circumstance of his omitting the fourth commandment in his reply to the young man, Matt. xix, 18, 19, for the first, second, third and sixth are also omitted.
Such an inference would also contradict another express declaration of his, Matt. v, 19, 'Whosoever therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven.' The 17th, 18th and 21st verses, show the ten commandments to be the ones intended. Campbell renders it, 'shall be in no esteem in the reign of heaven.' May we then be found humbly seeking to know, and faithfully striving to do, all the commands of God; and especially beware of encouraging any to break even the least of them.
2d.—The Sabbath has not been abolished, as has been already proved.
3d.—It cannot be a matter of indifference whether it be regarded or not. For if abolished or annulled, there is none to be regarded. A decision on its validity, must therefore, settle this point. If neither repealed nor abolished, it is still in force; and its observance every where represented in the Bible as a matter of the greatest importance. What day it was, that the Romans (chap. xiv) could not agree about observing, we are not informed. But its being ranked with the use of meats and herbs, is far from indicating it to be the Sabbath.
4th.—The law of the Sabbath was not amended, either by Christ, the Apostles, or the primitive Christians. 1st. Christ did not amend this law by substituting another day for the seventh. Or if he did, the Apostles never recorded it, and the women who prepared spices to anoint his body, did not know it, otherwise they would not have delayed that office of affection for their Lord, and 'rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandment.' 2d. The Apostles did not change the day, as we have any account; nor had they any right thus to invade the prerogative of God. 3d. Neither had the early Christians any authority to amend the law of God. If they did it, it is an evidence that 'the mystery of iniquity began to work, which thought to change times and laws.' That this leaven did begin to steal insensibly upon the church from the days of the Apostles, (as Paul affirms, 2 Thes. ii, 7,) we have evidence from the fact, that the early Christians began to observe the first day of the week as commemorative of the resurrection of Christ, though not as the Sabbath; 'till Constantine began to legislate in its favor. Eusebius says, (Life of Constantine, B. 4, ch. 18, Basle Ed.) that 'he, (Constantine) appointed as a suitable day for prayers, the Dominical day.' His body guard observed the day, and offered in it prayers written by the Emperor. 'He determined that those obeying Roman power, should abstain from every work upon the days named after the Saviour; that they should venerate also the day before the Sabbath in memory as seems to me, of the events occurring in those days, to our common Lord.' Sozoman also says, (Ecc. Hist. B. 1, ch. 8) 'that Constantine also made a law that on the Dominical day, which the Hebrews call the first day of the week, and the Greeks the sun, and also in the day of Venus, (i. e. Friday) judgments should not be given, or other business transacted; but that all should worship God with prayers and supplications, and venerate the Dominical day, as in it Christ rose from the dead; but the day of Venus, as that on which he was fixed to the cross.' 'Sylvester, who was the Bishop of Rome, while Constantine was Emperor, changed the name of Sunday, and gave it the more imposing title of Lord's day.' Lucius Ecc. Hist. Cent. 4, p. 740. From this circumstance, and the custom thence derived, probably arose the impression that John in Rev. i, 10, applied the term Lord's day to the first day of the week:—while not an intimation is given in all the word of God, that the first day ever received that appellation, either from Christ or his Apostles. But God called the seventh day 'the Sabbath of the Lord'; 'the holy of the Lord'; 'my holy day,' &c., and Christ styles himself 'Lord of the Sabbath.' And in all places in the New Testament, where the Sabbath is named, reference is had to no day but the seventh. Matt. xxviii, 1; Acts xiii, 14, 27, 42, 44 and xvi, 13 and xviii, 4. The last of these references state that Paul reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath; and verse 11, tells how long he did so, viz., a year and a half. This was at Corinth. But we find, chap. xvii, 2, that he had been accustomed thus to do, in other places. The historical facts above ci-74ted, show the fallacy of substituting the usages of the fathers, (which at best are but the traditions of men,) for the commands of God; and the Scripture references prove, that in the New Testament the Seventh day is called the Sabbath, without intimating that there was any other. Had there been, they would have been distinguished as now, by the appellation, Jewish and Christian. But in fact, the Bible recognizes no Jewish Sabbath. But 'the Sabbath of the Lord.' 'My holy day,' and the Sabbath, in distinction from all others.
Let us now hastily glance at some of the circumstances from which the first day is inferred to be the Sabbath. First, it is said that the Saviour rose the first day of the week, thus completing the work of redemption, and as this is more important than that of creation, therefore we shall honor Christ more by observing the first day. Ah! human wisdom. 'Shall mortal man be more just than God?' 'Shall a man be more pure than his maker?' Shall we attempt to instruct the Almighty, and to amend his work, and think thus to honor Christ?—Behold, to obey, is better than sacrifice. If the Lord had seen fit to appoint a day to commemorate his resurrection, still, it would have been a new institution having altogether a different design; and would in no wise affect the Sabbath. But he has no where given any intimation of the kind. And any such addition or substitution by human authority or tradition, might with the same propriety be followed; the celebration of the day of his nativity, Good Friday, and all the other festivals by which the Papal church seeks to honor Christ, and to 'change times and laws.' Let us beware that we 'partake not of her sins.' Neither the resurrection of the Saviour on the first day of the week; his appearing to his disciples, who were to be witnesses of the same, in that day; their being assembled on the evening of the same day; Paul's meeting his brethren to preach to them, and to break bread just before leaving them, occurring on the evening of the first; nor their being requested to lay by their contributions on that day, can prove it the Sabbath, when not even an intimation of it is given; unless it can also be proved, that the Saviour should rise, or give proofs of his being alive on no day but the Sabbath; that the disciples assembled on no other day; and that it was customary to break bread, and to attend to such acts of benevolence on no other; while there are considerations in the circumstances themselves, which are unfavorable to such a conclusion.
In the first case, two of the disciples had spent a considerable part of the day in other business; traveling 60 furlongs to Emmaus, and returning the same distance after it was 'towards evening, and the day far spent:' then attending the meeting of the disciples and while relating their interview with Jesus on the way, he appeared in their midst. Luke xxiv, 30, 31, 33, 36. Again, the breaking of bread at which Paul presided, did not take place 'till past midnight, consequently not 'till the second day;—and lastly, their contributions were not to be brought together, but to be laid by in store; which to say the least, might be done with as much propriety on any other day as the Sabbath. And now, could we divest ourselves entirely of prepossessions contracted by early instruction, and confirmed by long custom, and the influence of public opinion and example, where I ask, in all these circumstances or any others furnished by the word of God, should we discover that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week? That myself, with all who may read this may be constantly found among those who call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord honorable, and who shall honor him, not finding their own pleasures, speaking their own thoughts on his holy day; yea, by doing all his commands, we may have right to the tree of life, and soon enter on that rest typified by the Sabbath, is the fervent desire and prayer of C. STOWE.
THE LAW.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
BY ROSWELL F. COTTRELL.
"And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament." Rev. xi,19.
When God "confirmed" his law to men,
To Israel's waiting flock,
He spoke aloud his precepts ten,
And graved them in the rock.
Within the Tent's most holy place
The law of God was laid;
Within the sacred Ark's embrace
It was deposited.
But God well knew, perdition's son
Would ne'er his precepts love;
He gave a duplicate alone,
And kept his own above.
There, in the "Tabernacle true,"
Pitched not by hands of men,
The sacred law is kept in view,
The holy precepts ten.
And when the seventh trump's behest
Withdrew the veil between
The holy and the holiest,
The precious Ark was seen.
Then let us "serve the law" of love,
And in it take delight:
By day, obedience to prove,
And meditate by night.
Mill-Grove, N. Y.
Popular Objections Answered
It is not uncommon for those, upon whose attention the claims of the seventh day are urged, to attempt to escape the force of truth by a variety of objections. This is often done by such as are convinced that the Scriptures require the observance of the seventh day and not the first. It is a remarkable feature of these objections, that they are totally unlike and destructive of each other. But as they are often presented and much relied on, we will mention a few of them.
1. "The original Sabbath cannot be observed in different parts of the earth, as the day begins at different points of time." This objection if it were of any force, would affect the observance of the first, or any other day of the week, equally with the seventh. It is, therefore, an objection to the appointment of any particular day, and of course charges God with folly in giving the commandment. All that can reasonably be inferred from the difference of time, is that the original Sabbath was not observed at exactly the same time in all parts of the world. And since all the nations of the earth agree in the numbering of the days of the week, no practical difficulty could ever arise from this.—The same may be said in regard to "sailing around the world." If it is really an objection, it lies against the appointment of any day. Those, therefore, who acknowledge the wisdom of God, should be slow to make such an objection to his commandment. Those who object to the seventh day because they can gain or lose a day by sailing around the world, may consistently with themselves call two nights and an intermediate dark day one night. The truth does not require that men should thus "put darkness for light," and so "wrap it up." A cause which demands it, ought for this reason to be abandoned.
2. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews." It is not uncommon, in discussions on this subject, to speak contemptuously of the seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath. An enlightened person, however, will look upon this as the fruit of ignorance or malice. The Sabbath was given long before the existence of the Jewish nation, and is in the Scriptures often called the Sabbath of the Lord, never the Sabbath of the Jews. It is true, we are told by one of the prophets that the Lord made known to Israel his holy Sabbath; but if this makes a Jewish Sabbath, then the other nine precepts of the decalogue are Jewish, and may with the same propriety be reproached as such. This conclusion would reach still further, make the Scriptures Jewish, and the Saviour of men and his salvation Jewish. Such, therefore, as consider this an objection to the seventh day, to be consistent with themselves, should reject the religion of Jesus altogether. But how does it correspond with the spirit of Christ thus to reproach and speak contemptuously of a people to whom we are so deeply indebted, and of whom, as concerning the flesh Christ came? "Boast not thy self against the branches; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee." *
3. "The first day of the week is so generally observed." It is often said, If the first day be not the Sabbath, why do so many observe it? With equal pertinence might we ask, If all the systems of religion which heathen men have lived and died by are false, why have they been suffered so to abound as to swallow up almost every vestige of true religion? Why have the disciples of Mahomet been suffered to exceed in numbers the professors of Christianity? Why is the purest denomination of protestants permitted to bear such a disproportion to the church of Rome? The reason is obvious; truth is not more easily propagated than error, and pure religion has always been connected with persecution and reproach. If we are to determine between truth and error by the "show of hands," we shall be compelled to adopt the greatest absurdities. The number of those who observe the first day, therefore, can be no evidence for or against its claims.
4. "Whether Christians ought to observe the seventh day or not is a doubtful question; and therefore inquiry on the subject is unprofitable and ought to be avoided." It would be wrong for disputants to cherish an unchristian spirit in the discussion of this question, and it would be equally wrong to neglect honest and thorough inquiry on the subject. To consider both sides of a question involving religious duty, with moderation and candor, is safe and profitable. The fact that some doubts are connected with it, is the very reason why it should be examined. That which at first seemed doubtful may thus become clear and certain. The noble Bereans were commended for their spirit of inquiry, and in this respect they should be an example for us. The assertion that inquiry in regard to things revealed is unprofitable, implies that we ought not to concern ourselves about what is our duty, and is contrary to the exhortations of Scripture to add knowledge to faith and virtue, and to grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour. "Buy the truth, and sell it not," is the advice of the word of God. We should not therefore, be hindered from our inquiries by any earthly considerations.
5. When the claims of the original Sabbath are plainly presented, many seem to be convinced of their justness, but, at the same time, think that a general return to the seventh day is impracticable. They allege that the custom of keeping the first day has been so long and generally maintained—that it is so intimately wrought into the habits, calculations and business of life—that it has received such explicit sanction from the civil powers, and is so often and ably vindicated by ministers and commentators—that it is in vain to expect a change, and that the cause of Sabbath-keeping is rather retarded than promoted by efforts to promote a change.—The principle of expediency here acknowledged is at war with the Bible, and extremely dangerous. When men can gravely question whether it is better to follow their own customs than to return to the law of God, their case is critical. God delights not in such. He will dwell only with those who "tremble at his word." Not those who say "Lord, Lord," but those who "do his will," are accepted of him.—Again, if the views here expressed had been adopted in other cases, what would have become of the various reforms which have already blessed the world? What would have become of the whole subject of Protestantism? There is nothing more impracticable in a Sabbath reform, than in any other reform. In other cases, difficulties which at first seemed insurmountable, have given way to laborious and prayerful effort; so may they in this. At any rate, we ought to "obey God rather than man."
[Sabbath Vindicator.]
A More Sure Word of Prophecy
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day-star arise in your hearts." 2 Pet. i, 19.
Who has left the Sure Word?
By Editor
We are often charged with following our experience, instead of the unerring word of God; but such a charge is unjust and untrue. It is true that we "hold fast" our advent experience in the past, which has so perfectly fulfilled prophecy; but in so doing, we do not neglect nor depart from the sure word. The Bible is our chart, our guide. It is our only rule of faith and practice, to which we would closely adhere.
In order to show the fulfilment of prophecy, we have to refer to history. To show the fulfilment of prophecy relating to the four universal kingdoms of the second and seventh chapters of Daniel, we have to refer to the history of those kingdoms. Deny the history, and the prophecy is of no use. Just so with the prophecies relating to the advent movement.
If we deny our holy experience in the great leading movements, in the past, such as the proclamation of the time in 1843 and 1844, then we cannot show a fulfilment of those prophecies relating to those movements. Therefore, those who deny their past experience, while they were following God and his holy word, deny or misapply a portion of the sure word.
It is cruel and unjust to represent us as having abandoned the PRECIOUS BOOK OF BOOKS, the Bible, to follow impressions, fancies &c. when we have done no such thing, and when those very men that charge us thus leave or misapply a portion of the sure word. Once, the whole advent host believed that the parable of the ten virgins applied exclusively to the advent movement; and that the first going forth, in the parable, was fulfilled by us, as we came up to the first specified time; and that the cry in the parable, "Behold the bridegroom cometh, go ye out to meet him," and the trimming of lamps &c. were also fulfilled by us, as we gave the seventh month cry. We still believe what the whole host once believed, and with holy confidence and energy published and preached to the world. And strange to tell, many of those who have abandoned the fulfilment of prophecy in our past experience, are ready to brand us with fanaticism, and rank us with Shakers, &c. for believing what they once believed, and for carrying out and showing a consistent fulfilment of the parable, in all its parts.
These men should be the last to oppose our views, and complain of a lack of charity on our part, when they, in such an unsparing manner, rank us with apostates for holding fast and carrying out what they once believed and boldly proclaimed. When we in 1843 sang, "My Bible leads to glory," we sang a true sentiment. It did not stop in 1844, and "lead" us back around another way, no, no; but it led onward through the WAITING TIME, and keeping of "the commandments of God," into the kingdom. Glory to God, "My Bible leads to glory." Amen.
The truth, in answer to the question, "Who has left the sure word," is that we closely adhere to the sure word of God, which plainly marks out our holy experience, and acknowledge the mighty work of God in calling out the advent people from the world and fallen church; while those who deny this work of God and their own experience have "left" those portions of the "sure word" which relate to the advent movement. While standing on the sure word, and acknowledging our experience, wrought in us by the living word of God, and while keeping the commandments of God, we are safe—yes, we are safe. Let the storm of persecution rise, and the fiery darts of the wicked fly all around us, thus armed with holy truth, we are safe. Glory to God, we are on the Rock. My spirit grows warm, as I contemplate this glorious theme.
"For He has been with us—still is with us,
And He's promis'd to be with us to the end."
BABYLON.
By O. Nichols
BY O. NICHOLS.
The article in the last “Review and Herald” from the “Voice of truth of Sept. 1844,” concerning “What is Babylon, her fall, and Come out of her my people,” was read with much interest. It is the most excellent piece that I ever read on that subject.
The following language clearly defines Babylon: “The woman (Rev. xvii) is symbolical of the church, and as she is called Babylon, there can be no dispute but that the church is Babylon. What church? It is a mother and her daughters, a family of harlots. The mother represents the Catholic church, the eldest member of the family, and the daughters represent the Protestant sects. The whole family most strikingly represent a great city. Take the whole and the figure is perfect; leave out the children, and it is imperfect.”
There are some things which we think are erroneous, which we will briefly notice.
1st. “The harlot woman in chap. xvii, and the woman clothed with the sun in chap. xii, are the same churches.” There is a wide distinction in the character of the woman of Rev. xii, and the mother of harlots of chap. xvii. The latter is a cruel persecutor, “drunken with the blood of the saints.” Verse 6. The woman which brought forth the man-child was persecuted, “and they loved not their lives unto the death.” Chap. xii, 11, 13. Also, the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Verse 17.
This applies to the last state of the woman of chap. xii. The last state of the woman of chap. xvii is described in chap. xviii, and their characters are widely different. We believe the truth to be this: The woman of Rev. xvii, seated upon a scarlet beast, symbolizes the established church, incorporated and united with political governments; [the beast;] and when the church and state were united, they were emphatically one body, civil and ecclesiastical, symbolized by a beast. Rev. xiii, 1—10. The church symbolized by a woman, and the civil power which carried the church, by a beast.
The woman of Rev. xii we believe symbolizes a church of a different character: a holy people which are God’s chosen witnesses to proclaim the simple truths of the Bible, and which would not conform to the established church, or follow their tenets and creeds, but chose the New Testament for their christian guide; and for so doing they were denounced as heretics, and were persecuted unto death. “They overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony.” Chap. xii, 11. “All that will live godly shall suffer persecution.”
God has in all ages had a holy peculiar people, that were persecuted for not obeying or following the tenets of the worldly church. It is not true that the woman of chap. xii has degenerated, “and become a fallen church.” Neither is it true that “she was holding unlawful connection with the beast, or kings of the earth during the 1260 years” she was in the wilderness.
2d. “During the 1260 years the supremacy was vested in the beast, (the political power,) not in the woman,” (the church,) of chap. xvii. Both the prophecy and history prove this incorrect. During this period of time, the woman was seated upon the beast, held the reins, dictated, guided, and was the mouth of the beast, (chap. xiii, 5,) had the “dominion” and reigned over the (ten) kings of the earth. The history of the Catholic church proves this to be literally true. She did actually have dominion over the crowned kings and emperors.
3d. “The chronology of the woman seated on the beast commenced at the end of the 1260 years, A. D. 1798, when she takes her seat upon the beast.” “Now she is a drunken harlot, and guides the beast which carries her, or holds the supremacy over the state. Has not the church held this station over the kings and rulers of the earth since A. D. 1798? The facts in the case prove that she has. She sits upon many waters; and reigneth over the kings of the earth; not by physical power, but by artifice, cunning and deception.”
The facts in the case forbid such an application. It cannot be demonstrated that either the Papal or Protestant churches have in any sense reigned over the kings of the earth or “held the supremacy over the state” since A. D. 1798.
To practice “artifice, cunning and deception” is one thing, but to “reign,” or “hold the supremacy over the state” is quite a different thing. “To reign” signifies, 1st. “To exercise sovereign power or authority; to rule; to exercise government as a king or emperor; or to hold the supreme power” 2d. Reign signifies royal authority; supreme power; sovereignty. 3d. Reigning signifies “holding or exercising supreme power” &c. [Webster.]
“The woman is that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” That is the church or the Pope at its head, holding or exercising the supreme power over the kings &c. This is the only reasonable application of the word “reigneth” in this verse. Has the church exercised this supreme power over kings and rulers since 1798? Neither the Papal or Protestant church has had this power, but the reverse, since that period. The Papal church did hold and exercise the highest authority and “dominion” over the kings for a long period during the 1260 years, and their “dominion” was taken away in 1798—9, and this church power has not been established since. But in instituting the “image” of papacy, I fully believe that Protestant church supremacy will be established, and “they will exercise all the power of the first beast,” or Papal beast.
Rev. xvii, 16, 17, shows conclusively the chronology of the “whore” seated upon the beast, as it is described in verses 3—6, to be previous to 1798.
“The ten horns shall hate the whore, make her desolate, &c. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will.” This has been literally true with regard to the Papal church supremacy. For the last 50 years the ten kingdoms have hated the temporal dominion of the Pope, who is the head of the Catholic church. The reign of Napoleon made her desolate and naked; “for God put in their hearts,” to do this, to “fulfill his will.”
The Protestant church authority is the last that will exercise dominion and she will be made desolate under the seven last plagues. Then the “great city” will be destroyed forever, and “found no more at all.” The “great city” I understand symbolizes the church incorporated, and united to the state. Both the Catholic and Protestant are included. Its primitive existence commenced with the Catholic church, the “mother.” The Catholic church as a “mother” or parent, exercised its authority during its appointed time, 1260 years. Then her daughters came on the stage, and as her children have been growing in strength, influence and power, the mother’s power has been diminishing, as our parents naturally do, through enfeeblement by age. Take them as a whole, mother and children, they are one family, “that great city, Babylon.” Rev. xviii.
Rev. xvii, I understand, is an explanation of chap. xiii, particularly the seven heads and ten horns. The beast is the same as in chap. xiii, 1, a symbol of the Roman Empire, while united with the Papal church.
Some think the woman on the scarlet beast applies in its chronology since 1798, because there are no crowns specified on the ten horns. There are no crowns specified upon the ten horns of the great red dragon, the symbol of Pagan Rome. Chap. xii, 3. But it is well known that those were ten crowned horns, or kings, under Pagan Rome; and they continued to be crowned kings throughout the 1260 years; but the Pope’s crown was higher in authority and reigned over them; and the ten kingdoms have generally continued regal governments since A. D. 1798. [Crown signifies “royalty, regal government.” Webster.] Kings, or crowns still continue in the old Roman Empire, and nothing can be shown from chap. xvii, to prove they will not still continue, until the battle of the great day of God Almighty. See Rev. xvii, 12, 14.
It is true that the woman represents one thing, (the church power,) and the beast another, (the political power.) But when the church and state are united, or blended together by an act of incorporation by the state, do not these two powers become one? And as the beast, or civil power, has incorporated and united the church with their governments, hence the church becomes a part of their government, or a part of the beast, and is fitly called “the beast.” All the authority that the church ever had, was given them by the civil government.
It is considered by some that this chapter produces positive proof that the law, or ten commandments that were written and engraven in the two tables of stone by the finger of God, are “abolished,” “done away,” when in fact it gives not the least intimation of the kind.
The apostle Paul in this chapter is contrasting the ministration of the old covenant under Moses, with the ministration of the new covenant under Jesus Christ. It is well known that there is an essential difference between a law, and the ministration of a law. A law is the constitution necessary for the government of the people. The ministry is the ordained powers to carry its laws into execution.
Verse 3. “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” This verse declares the Corinthians to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, Paul, Silvanus and Timotheus. Chap. i, 19. It is not written with ink as it was by Moses in a book under the old covenant, “But with the Spirit of the living God.” The ten commandments are not written in tables of stone as they were under the ministration of Moses, “But in fleshly tables of the heart.” See Heb. viii, 10.
Verse 6. “Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” The minister, or ordained power under the old covenant killed the transgressor of the law written on tables of stone. The man that broke the letter of that law was stoned to death. There was no promise of life to the sinner. It is properly called the ministration of death in the next verse. The minister administered death to the sinner under the old covenant. “But the Spirit giveth life.” The minister under the new covenant administers life through Jesus Christ, instead of death. One is the ministration of the letter that killed, the other the ministration of the spirit that giveth life.
Paul considered “the ministration of death,” when the law was “written and engraven in stones.” A glorious one; but that “was to be done away,” and the one that excelleth to remain. “For if that which is done away was glorious much more that which remaineth is glorious.” What is “done away?” The ministration of death is done away, and the ministration of the Spirit, that giveth life, remaineth.
Verse 12. “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech.” Hope of what? Of life through “Jesus Christ who hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel?” 2 Tim. i, 10. The glory of the latter ministration eclipses the glory of the former. The children of Israel could not see that death was abolished when they read Moses, because the veil was upon their heart; but “when it (the heart) shall turn to the Lord, the veil shall be taken away.” That veil is the ministration of Moses; that would be taken away when they looked at the blood of Christ for the atonement that taketh away sin; and faith is revealed by the Spirit. “Now the Lord is that Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” That is, if they have the spirit of Christ dwelling in them, they are free from the bondage of death and condemnation that they were under, while under the ministration of Moses; and while they are beholding the glory of the Lord, they are changed from glory to glory, by the spirit of the Lord.
Thus we see the difference of the two ministrations clearly taught in this chapter, and not the abolition of the Law of God written on the tables of stone. But the abolishment of death, and the bringing in a better covenant, established on better promises, when the holy laws of God are written in the fleshly tables of the heart, and put in the mind by the holy Spirit. For, said Jesus, “the Holy Ghost shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” And under this covenant the promise of mercy through Jesus Christ, and life by the holy Spirit is a more glorious ministration. May we all with open face behold this glory, and be changed into the same image from glory to glory, until we are changed from mortal to immortality, and caught up to meet the Lord in the air, and behold the glories of the New Jerusalem, and the earth made new. Amen.