FRIEND MILLER:—If you are striving to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, I can heartily bid you God speed; for these two constituted the primitive, or apostolic platform, and though men professing christianity have apostatized from, and corrupted both, still the remnant will be found upon the same platform when Jesus appears for their deliverance. Now if you will show clearly the dividing line between the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, without making any use of the ten commandments, which you think have "ceased of obligation," I will admit that you know whereof you affirm. Will you undertake it? If there are, in your own mind, definitely two things which you are striving to keep, you can doubtless tell what they are separately; if not, have you not borrowed an expression from your opponents without due consideration on the meaning of its terms? Do look at this seriously; for it is high time that we should be able to give a reason of the hope that is in us, with meekness and fear.
I will now proceed to notice several points in your letter, and, to avoid quotations, will refer to them by figures.
1. God has one standard of right and wrong for the human family which has no reference to the plan of redemption. What has the progressive development of the plan of redemption to do with this? Sin is sin, whether there is any plan of redemption or not; and sin is the transgression of the law. Consequently the law existed before sin; and had not man broken that law, no plan of redemption had been needed, and no dispute would ever have arisen about the Sabbath. Whatever you may say about the other nine precepts, the Sabbath existed before man sinned; and when it was made, it was made for man.
2. Supposing man had not sinned, would 4000 years training have prepared him for a law somewhat different from the original one? The difficulty seems to be this: you take man already a sinner, and make the law different at different times, corresponding to his different degrees of light on the plan of redemption. In other words, you make no distinction between the commandments of God, which prove man a sinner, and the faith of Jesus, which offers him pardon. Disease and medicine are two things.
3. James does not call the precept, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, the royal law; but would have that law fulfilled in a manner to accord with this scripture. That is, he would not have them profess to do two positive, and eight negative duties, and leave their next door neighbor to starve and freeze, while their own covetous selves had plenty of the gifts of Providence. This would be "negative" obedience indeed—no obedience at all. "The law is spiritual"—the "commandment is exceeding broad," it reaches the motives and desires of the heart, though summed up in so small a compass; and he that loves it can see in every negative precept a corresponding positive virtue inculcated. The prohibitions of having other gods and worshiping images, teach us that we should have one God and worship him. Does the Atheist, who says he has no God, keep the first commandment? According to your view of negative precepts he does; but Jesus would have us keep the first four precepts of the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. In the precept, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, I see the duty of revering his name as my God, and not the duty of never mentioning his name at all.
The second division of the royal law must be fulfilled according to the scripture which James quotes. Merely to refrain from killing, or positively injuring our brother is not enough. We must love him, not in word only, but indeed and in truth. He that hateth his brother is a murderer. We have not only the law, but the scripture to teach us how to keep it; so we are left without excuse for its violation, or for obedience to the letter merely, without love to the law or its giver. Merely to rest from labor on the Sabbath is not enough; it must be done from heartfelt honor to the Creator.
You say, "The Apostle tells what he means by the royal law; viz., Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, which is no part of the ten." Then we may read it thus: If ye fulfill the royal law, according to the royal law, &c. And then you set the Apostle to illustrate this one-precept, royal law, by the ten-precept, abolished law. How much easier it is, to understand the Apostle according to his most obvious meaning! Think, Brother, think, would you ever have thought that the "Sinaiatic code" was used here merely for "illustration," if that code had contained no sabbath precept? How much more natural to understand you do quote from the royal law. Hear him:
If ye fulfill the royal law, (not in the letter only, but) according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the (royal) law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all; for he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
What law? One which is abolished? When a law is abolished, it ceases to be a law; therefore it cannot be transgressed; for where there is no law, there is no transgression. Do you say it is the royal law which is transgressed? Then carry out the Apostle's reasoning, and you will find that he that gave one precept, gave another; and he that gave these two, at the same time gave ten "and added no more." If there never was a time when it was right to break any, and every one of the ten commandments, then there never was a time when "the ten commandments ceased of obligation." It is beyond my powers of mind to grasp the idea, much more to explain it, how the ten could cease of obligation, and nine of them be of continual force. Consequently I see no way for myself, or for any of the little children of my capacity, to please God, but by keeping them all. How can the poor little children ever get into the kingdom of heaven, if such hard tasks are required of them? I must comprehend the theory, or I dare not risk myself upon it, since it is not plainly declared in the Bible.
4. Does the prohibition of eating of a certain tree include the whole law given to Adam in Eden? No: he had a God, and was under obligation to reverence and obey him; he had a wife, and he was under obligation to love her as himself, and of consequence not to wrong her in any way; he had a Sabbath, and was under obligation to love it as a gift of God, and in so doing honor the Giver. The tree of knowledge he had no right to: God had not given it to him. On the contrary, it was forbidden. In pertaking then he dishonored his God and Parent, coveted what did not belong to him, and stole it. Yet you say "Adam might have obeyed every one of the ten, and transgressed this." In regard to the transgression of a code 2000 years before it was given, I would ask, Did Cain kill his brother, and then lie about it, 2000 years before there was any law against these crimes? If so, he did not sin in so doing; for sin is the transgression of the law, and where there is no law, there is no transgression. I regard the prohibition of the tree of knowledge, as a peculiar test of our first parents' fidelity, similar to the trial of Abraham's faith; yet in transgressing it, they broke some of the ten commandments. Now, were it not for this bone of contention, the Sabbath, I do not believe you would ever have doubted the existence of the nine from the beginning. And since we can prove the existence of the Sabbath from the creation week, why not drop this point by admitting that the nine, which all say are binding now, are as ancient and honorable as that?
5. How many precepts are there in "the law of faith," and "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus"? What distinguishes them from the faith of Jesus? Does the phrase, "perfect law of liberty" imply a liberty to break one of the precepts of that ancient law, which David said was perfect converting the soul? We read of some who promise people liberty, while they themselves are the servants of corruption.
6. I will again attempt to show that Jesus did speak of the ten commandments, in Matt. v, 18. In drawing a conclusion in verse 19, from what he had said in the preceding verse, he changes the terms from law to commandments, showing that the law and the commandments are the same. He says, "these commandments," which must refer to a code then existing. Now go to Luke xvi, 17. "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail." The law here mentioned is, most evidently, the same as in Matt. v, 18. "Whosoever putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery." This fastens it to that law which forbids adultery: the ten commandments. Now mark what Jesus says, "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall (future) teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."
These scriptures most certainly prove that there existed at that time a code of commandments, known to Jesus and his hearers as the law. It was not some unknown, unembodied and unexpressed principles floating at random in the mental atmosphere, but a definite, well-known code, as familiar to the Jews as were the prophets mentioned in connection with it. What sane man will deny this? It would have been unjust to threaten wrath upon the violator of an unrevealed law. Again, it is equally certain that these commandments, whatever they were, were ratified to all people, in all future ages, as a test of character for the kingdom of heaven. "Whosoever therefore shall," includes everybody, and extends down through all time to the kingdom of God. "I am not come to subvert, but to ratify." (Campbell's translation.) The previously existing law is thus handed down to after generations, as the rule of Christ's house. Now I would ask, (if the ten commandments and what you are pleased to call "the balance of the Levitical law," expired at the cross,) of what law, existing in the form of commandments, did Jesus speak? If all laws then existing were limited in duration to three years and a half, why did our Saviour say, Verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass?
But it is claimed that the clause, Till all be fulfilled, limits the law to that period; that Christ fulfilled it and that put an end to it. If the law, only, is referred to in this expression, I can see no hint of its abolition. In what way can a law be fulfilled but by keeping its precepts? and does keeping the precept, Thou shalt not kill, abolish it? Jesus said to John, It becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Did it become them to abolish all righteousness? But I would call your attention again to the fact, that the prophets, as well as the law, are the subject of discourse. Think not, said he, that I am come to destroy, the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. And it is perfectly reasonable to understand it, that nothing shall pass from the law, till all the prophets be fulfilled. Wesley's exposition, however, differs superficially from this, but when fathomed, completely agrees; for the prophets mark out the course of all things in heaven and earth. He says:13"One jot or tittle shall in no wise pass, till heaven and earth pass; or as it is expressed immediately after, eos an panta genetai, till all (or rather all things) be fulfilled, till the consummation of all things. Here is, therefore, no room for that poor evasion (with which some have delighted themselves greatly) that 'no part of the law was to pass away, till all the law was fulfilled; but it has been fulfilled by Christ; and therefore now must pass, for the gospel to be established.' Not so; the word all does not mean all the law, but all things in the universe; as neither has the term fulfilled, any reference to the law, but to all things in heaven and earth."
It is absurd in the extreme to suppose that Jesus made this solemn and important declaration concerning a law which he knew would cease of obligation within four years. Equally absurd to think that he spoke of a law which was unknown to his hearers, and which, in fact, did not exist in the form of commandments. He came not to destroy the law; he did not do it.
If David, when he said, How love I thy law! and Paul, when he said, I delight in the law of God after the inward man, did not mean the ten commandments, what law did they mean? Do you say, “the balance of the Levitical law”? If David and James, in speaking of a “perfect” law, do not mean that law which Jehovah spake with his own voice, and wrote upon stone with his own finger, what do they mean? Some law that had never been published to the world, and of which David, certainly, knew nothing?
7. I will now look at the metaphor of Rom. vii. If you were discussing the life and death question, you would admit no inferences, drawn from parables, and metaphors, to weigh against the plain and positive declarations of the word of God. Bear this rule in mind while I examine your inference from this text.
In the figure, the woman is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he liveth. Not so long as the law liveth. There is nothing said about the law dying; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law. Not because the law is dead, but her husband is dead. The law remains as it was before, but it does not condemn her as an adulteress, though she be married to another man. Then, in making the application, does the Apostle say that the law is dead, as you infer? By no means; but he tells his brethren, Ye are become dead to the law—the law is still holy, just and good, (verse 12,) but it does not condemn you, because your former husband, master and lord is dead.
I agree with you that the law here spoken of is the ten commandments; which is proved by the precept quoted, Thou shalt not covet. Paul had not known sin, but by this law. In verse 12, he acknowledges that this law and the commandment which condemned him, are holy, just and good, in the present tense. In verse 14 he says the law is spiritual, and in verse 22 he says, I delight in the law of God after the inward man. “If you can find two laws in these passages, you have a system of grammar with which I am unacquainted.”
But there is “another law” mentioned towards the close of this chapter, and I would suggest that it is the husband referred to that ought to be dead—the only thing that stands in the way of our being freed from the condemnation of a holy law by means of the crucified body of Christ, and being married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead. Verse 23. It is the law in the members, warring against the law of God, which is approved of the mind, and bringing the person into captivity to the law of sin, and consequently to the law of death, the wages of sin. What is sin? Transgression of the ten commandments; for Paul had not known himself a sinner, had the law been minus the tenth precept. He had led a life so exemplary, he was not conscious of having broken any other. But sin against this commandment slew him. Verse 11. The good, unabolished law would never have harmed him, but for sin. Verse 13. Now if he can become dead and buried with Christ, he will be freed from sin. The law cannot touch him now; for he is not under the law, but under favor. Now shall he sin (transgress the law) because he is not under the law, but under favor? God forbid! If he yields himself to sin again, he will be the servant of sin. The former master or husband will revive, and the same law will condemn. Chap. vi, 1-16.
Now, friend Miller, if there is in you a law warring against the holy law of God, written in the fleshly tables of the mind, you are indeed in captivity—in bondage to a cruel husband. In that case, the best advice I can give you is to crucify the old man with his deeds; become dead indeed to sin, and put on the new man; be married to him who is raised from the dead, and bring forth fruit unto God. Then you can say with the Apostle, There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; for the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
In conclusion I wish to address a few words to the “inward man” for that delights in the law of God. You can see how we can be freed from a good, holy unabolished law; that (sin) wherein we were held, being dead by the body of Christ, who suffered the penalty of sin to save us, not from obedience to his Father’s law, but from our sins. You can also see that the law of ten commandments is the only real code mentioned in this connexion; the law of sin and death, and the law of the spirit of life having no more precepts than the law of gravitation. The ten commandments then are spiritual, holy, just and good. Your inference from 2 Cor. iii, is equally baseless. I have not examined that chapter because it has been so frequently discussed in our publications, to which I would refer you for an answer. The Bible nowhere declares that the law of God, or one of its precepts is abolished; on the contrary, Jesus Christ, our only hope of salvation, has affirmed it stronger than the pillars of the universe. What a fearful position then you occupy, while you assert, upon groundless inferences, that the whole code has ceased of obligation. If this is the case with the “whole code,” it is the case with each of its precepts. But your inward man tells you that nine precepts, at least, of that law never did cease; and why should the other? Why should that precept which requires especial honor to our Parent and Creator be labeled “Jewish” and thrown aside? The Law-giver knew where to place it; and then if he had wished it removed, he could have told us plainly, and not left us to infer, from metaphorical expressions, that the whole ten were abolished to get rid of the one. Is this wisdom from above? Is it not rather from the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be? With feelings of unfeigned love, I entreat you, as you desire salvation, to look at this subject seriously, and try that spirit which rises in opposition to the unpopular, down-trodden fourth commandment, and, to attain its unworthy end, dares to say, with impious tongue, that the entire code of the Great God, the only code of morality he ever gave to man, is dead! Crucify that spirit, I entreat you, and then you can say with David, All his commandments are sure; THEY STAND FAST FOREVER AND EVER. Ps. cxi. Come, taste of the sweets of obedience.
Yours, striving to keep the ten commandments of God, and every requirement of the faith or gospel, given by Jesus and his apostles.
R. F. COTTRELL.
Mill Grove, Erie Co., N. Y., Jan. 5th, 1854.
Rules for Home Education.
1. From your children's earliest infancy inculcate the necessity of instant obedience.
2. Unite firmness with gentleness. Let your children always understand that you mean what you say.
3. Never promise them anything unless you are quite sure you can give them what you promise.
4. If you tell a little child to do something, show him how to do it, and see that it is done.
5. Always punish your children for willfully disobeying your commands, but never punish them in anger.
6. Never let them perceive that they can vex you or make you lose your self-command.
7. If they give way to petulance and temper, wait till they are calm, and then gently reason with them on the impropriety of their conduct.
8. Remember that a little present punishment, when the occasion arises, is much more effectual than the threatening of a greater punishment, should the fault be renewed.
9. Never give your children anything because they cry for it.
10. On no account allow them to do at one time what you have forbidden, under like circumstances at another.
11. Teach them that the only sure and easy way to appear good, is to be good.
12. Accustom them to make their little recitals with perfect truth.
13. Never allow tale-bearing.
14. Teach them that self-denial, not self-indulgence, is the appointed and sure method of securing happiness.
15. Guard them against the indulgence of an angry and resentful spirit.
If these rules were reduced to practice—daily practice—by parents and guardians, how much misery would be prevented, how many in danger of ruin would be saved, and how largely would the happiness of a thousand domestic circles be augmented. It is lamentable to see how extensive is parental neglect and to witness the bad and dreadful consequences in the ruin of thousands.—Sab. Recorder.
Blasphemy.
By Roswell Fenner Cottrell
It is said of the beast having seven heads and ten horns, that he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his Name, and his Tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. Rev. xiii, 6.
There are three ways by which God is blasphemed.
1. By blaspheming his Name. The Papal beast did this by applying those titles to mortal men which belong exclusively to God. For example: the Pope has been titled, His Holiness, The Lord God the Pope, &c. The effects of this blasphemy may be seen even among Protestants. Whenever men take to themselves titles calculated to cause their fellow-men to look up to them with veneration, as possessing superior holiness, they detract from him whose name alone is to be exalted. The inspired Psalmist, in speaking of Jehovah, says, "Holy and reverend is his name." Ps. cxi, 9. Here is the only place in the Bible where the term, reverend, is used; and it is applied to God alone. Those who dispute the right of the Pope, to assume the title of Holiness, should not prefix "Rev." in their own names.
2. By blaspheming his Tabernacle. The Sanctuary or true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man, is in heaven. This has taken the place of the earthly sanctuary which was a pattern of the things in the heavens, and now there is no holy place on earth. When Jesus was crucified, the vail of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom, and now the Christian's mind is pointed to the antitype in heaven. But that blasphemous power has erected his sanctuaries on earth, and diverted the minds of men from the true, so that the latter has been almost entirely lost sight of. How often have we heard men speak of going to the sanctuary on the Holy Sabbath, when they meant nothing more nor less than going to the meeting-house on the first day of the week! And when men have been reproved for their pride in building costly houses of worship, how often have they plead as an excuse the magnificence and splendor of the temple built by Solomon, as though they were building the antitype of that temple, or forgetting that it was a shadow, pointing us to the true! Is not this blaspheming the Tabernacle?
And then the house must be dedicated, and the minister reads the prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple, asking God to hear their prayers, when they should pray towards the temple. Do they desire the people to look towards the meeting-house when they pray?
My mind was lately called up anew to this subject by seeing a new meeting-house built by one of the most enlightened denominations, or perhaps I might say the most enlightened. Above the spire, and surrounding the lightning-rod, was what I understood to be a representation of the seven golden candlesticks—seven small pillars, overlaid, probably, with leaf gold. Had they but known how soon the Lord will come, and remove those candlesticks out of their place, they might have saved themselves the trouble of building this new house, and worshiped God more acceptably in the old one, the little time we have remaining here.14But thanks be to God, we have a Tabernacle to which we may look, and beauty and strength are there. The Lord send us help from the Sanctuary, and strengthen us out of Zion. Amen.
3. Those that dwell in heaven are blasphemed. Jesus and the holy angels dwell there. Jesus is our High Priest, and the only mediator between God and men. The beast, in causing men to confess to priests on earth, to gain their intercessions in their behalf, has blasphemed the Minister of the Sanctuary in heaven. Angels are ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation. The Holy Spirit says by David, The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him, and delivereth them. Is not the doctrine that the spirits of the dead are our guardian spirits, blaspheming against the true ministering spirits—"them that dwell in heaven," and consequently against God? The Catholics pray to Mary and the "saints," and others talk of the dead—those who were so weak as to fall by the hand of the destroyer—as being our guardian spirits, interposing their strength (?) to save us from destruction!
R. F. COTTRELL.
A CHURCH IN THE AIR.
ONCE wandering through the land of dreams,
In search of something new,
A church,—'twas on a Sabbath morn—
My curious notice drew;
And thinking I should see the mode
Of Christian worship there,
I entered just in time to hear
The closing hymn and prayer.
The church was rich without display;
From gorgeous colors free;
Through unstained glass the light of heaven
Was shining cheerfully.
And rich and poor sat side by side;
I saw no cushioned pews,
Whose doors the meanest of the flock
An entrance might refuse.
And when the hymn was given out,
With what astonished face
I watched a lady clad in silk
Bend forward from her place,
To share her book with one whose robes
So scanty were and mean,
No maiden form of earthly mould
To greet her would be seen.
And yet I saw not that the deed
Lessened a single grace,
But rather that a sweeter look
Beamed on the maiden's face.
And while I pondered in my mind,
How such a thing could be,
The whole assembly joined to sing
Some time-worn melody.
Vainly I strove with modern ear
To catch the organ's tone;
These simple Christians swell the praise
Of God by voice alone.
And here no fashionable airs,
The tedium to beguile,
Are set to solemn hymns of praise,
And sung in opera style.
And yet the music of that choir
Right pleasant was to hear,
Though nothing in the strain I found
To please a critic's ear;
But childhood joined in ringing tones
With those of faltering age,
And rich, and poor, and old and young
In the blest work engage.
I listened, and my thoughts recurred
To many a boasted choir
In city church, who weekly meet
To praise the Lord for hire;
And well, thought I, the church of God
This mockery might spare.
I ceased—for every head was bowed
In reverential prayer.
And all in spirit seemed to join,
Nor could I well forbear,
For Christ, and not the minister,
Was most apparent there.
Its words of charity and love
Did the whole world embrace,
Unfettered by the love of sect,
That modern Christian grace.
And little did I care to know
If Old the School or New,
From whence the soul of such a man
Its rich instruction drew,
His teacher none could well mistake;
Only one can impart
Lessons of wisdom that can guide
A sinful human heart.
Too soon that fervent prayer was o'er,
The benediction asked,
And slowly down the spacious aisles
The congregation passed.
Slowly, as one might turn his back
Upon the gates of heaven,
After a taste of angel's food
Unto his soul was given.
And now kind greetings were exchanged,
With many a friendly word,
And Christians met as Christians should
Who serve one common Lord.
One heart, one mind, one earnest will
Seemed to inspire the whole,
As friend to friend with freedom told
The welfare of his soul.
Strange, though it seem, no single word
These curious folks did say,
Of "politics," of rise in stocks,
Or gossip of the day,
Not only did they "shut up shop,"
And lock the office door,
They turned the key on worldly thoughts,
Till holy time was o'er.
The sermon, while a group discussed,
I listened in amaze,
And marvelled at the words they used,
When speaking in its praise.
They did not call it "great" or "deep,"
"Ingenious," "witty," "smart,"
Or "thank their stars they had a man
After the people's heart."
But whispered low, with moistened eyes,
"How precious was the word;
How full of hope the promises
Their strengthened souls had heard;"
And murmured blessings on his head,
Who, laboring by their side
In all simplicity and truth,
Preached Christ the crucified.
I heard and could not silence keep,
"Thrice happy souls!" I cried,
"Am I in heaven?" With sudden start
My eyes I opened wide—
Looked round a moment in amaze—
Saw my mistake with pain,
And never since have dared to take
A nap in Church again.
[Hartford Courant.
The Minister's Might in God.
PHILIP HENRY thus wrote upon a studying day: "I forgot when I began, explicitly and expressly, to crave help from God, and the chariot wheels drove accordingly. Lord, forgive my omission, and keep me in the way of duty."
Another old divine observes: "If God drop not down his assistance, we write with a pen that hath no ink. If any in the world need walk dependently upon God more than others, the minister is he."
It was once said to a minister of Christ, whose labors had been abundantly successful. "Sir, if you did not plough in your closet, you would not reap in your pulpit."
The eminent author of "The Saints' Rest," being reminded of his labors on his death-bed, replied, "I was but a pen in God's hand, and what praise is due to a pen?"
"After having composed and delivered a sermon," says Bishop Horne, "I have often thought of and repeated the following lines of Thompson:—
'Be gracious, Heaven! for now laborious man
Has done his part. Ye fostering breezes blow!
Ye softening dews, ye tender showers descend!
And temper all, thou world-reviving sun,
Into a perfect year.'"
A minister has no ground to hope for fruits from his exertions until in himself he has no hope; until he has learned to put no faith in the point and energy of sentences; until he feels that a man may be mighty to compel the attention, and mighty to regale the imagination, and mighty to silence the gainsayer and yet not mighty to the pulling down of strong holds."
The Scarlet-Colored Beast.
By J. M. Stephenson
By J. M. Stephenson.
This is evidently the last phase of the Papal beast; [Rev. xiii, 1, 2;] for, first, he has the same number of heads; second, the same number of horns; third, the same location, i. e., the city of Rome; and, fourth, the same Papal, Anti-Christian church, is allied to both. The seven heads and ten horns of the red dragon, [Rev. xii, 3,] refer to the same facts in the world's history.
These three beasts represent all the phases the fourth universal monarchy (i. e., the Roman Empire) will present, from its establishment, to its utter and entire subversion by the "stone cut out of the mountain without hands," and the establishment of the Kingdom of God under the whole heavens. If so, we must find the facts in the history of that Empire analogous to the seven heads and ten horns. We have them. They are these: 1. The Roman Empire has had seven distinct forms of government, or has presented to the world seven phases. We find a clue to this exposition in Rev. xvii, 10. "And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come." Five of those forms had past at the time John had his vision: the sixth was then in existence, i. e., the Imperial: the seventh (i. e., the Papal) had not yet come. The seven mountains (Rev. xvii, 9) mark the city of Rome as the seat of all these beasts. That the foregoing view of the seven heads is correct, is evident from the relation the sixth and seventh heads sustain to each other, and to the facts in the case. The dragon gave his power, (civil power,) and his seat, (the city of Rome,) and great authority, to another beast, having the same number of heads, horns, and the same location. Rev. xiii, 2. The facts are these: The Imperial form of the Roman government in the West, gave place to the Papal form of the same government. This took place A. D. 538, when the Roman Emperor invested the Pope with civil power to correct heretics, and gave him his seat in the West.
But John saw one of this last beast's heads, as it were, wounded to death. Verse 3. If these heads represent forms of the Roman government, which of those forms received the deadly wound? Ans. The seventh, or Papal. This was fulfilled A. D. 1798, when one of Napoleon Buonaparte's generals deposed the Pope; led him captive into France, where he was retained until his death: thus he who had led millions of God's people into captivity, was, in his turn, led into captivity. See verse 10. His successor surrendered to Napoleon his civil power, except a small vestige in Italy. The life of the Papal head consisted in civil power to suppress heresy; consequently the deprivation of that power would constitute a deadly wound. But has the deadly wound ever been healed? I think not. That power which constituted the original life of the Papal head, and the deprivation of which inflicted "deadly" wound, has never been given back. Napoleon did not give it back: nor did the world's alliance: hence it must be a future event. The fact that John saw the wound healed, previous to his vision of the two horned-beast, is no objection to this view. We are in this, as in many other prophecies, dependent on the chronological order in which the events occur, for their prophetic order. John saw in one vision the whole history of the beast. He15subsequently speaks of the beast as he saw him in vision, without any reference to the order, or the time in which the events would occur.
Now, I believe the scarlet-colored beast, and the woman who is riding him to judgment, symbolize the last phase which Papacy will present after the deadly wound is healed. This woman is analogous to the Papal part of the wild beast. The ten horns of both these beasts, together with those of the dragon, the fourth beast of Dan. vii, and the ten toes of the image, [Dan. ii,] all represent the ten kingdoms into which the Western Empire of Rome was broken, between A. D. 353 and 483.
The deadly wound consisted in the separation of Papacy from a beast with ten horns. The ten horns represent ten kingdoms. The ten kingdoms the civil power, or life of the beast. Now, if the dissolution of the union between Papacy and those ten horns constituted the deadly wound; then their re-union would be a healing of the deadly wound. This re-union, or alliance of Papacy with the original ten kingdoms, is shadowed forth by a woman riding (in alliance with) a scarlet-colored beast, having seven heads and ten horns. Rev. xvii, 3.
We are emphatically told that the ten horns of this beast are ten kings who have received no kingdoms as yet. Verse 19. These must be kings who shall be appointed (doubtless by Absolutists, after the now reigning kings, of the ten kingdoms, shall have been deposed by their Republican subjects, and those Republican armies shall have been defeated by the combined forces of Absolutists) to reign over the original ten kingdoms; for the image is to have but ten toes, the fourth beast of Daniel but ten horns, when Christ comes. To have twenty kingdoms in the dominion of the Papal beast would destroy the harmony of prophecy in reference to that power. But the following view is natural and easy, and in harmony with all the prophecies. Those ten kings who have received no kingdoms as yet, will be appointed to reign over the original ten kingdoms; and when they receive their kingdoms, they will agree, and give their power (civil power) and strength unto the beast, (Papacy,) and thus heal the deadly wound. See verse 12 and 17. "These have one mind and shall give their power and strength unto the beast; for God hath put it into their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God (what words? evidently that the deadly wound shall be healed) shall be fulfilled." Here is a literal fulfillment of the prediction, that the deadly wound was (shall be) healed: "an event yet future. This beast was, (Papacy united with a beast of seven heads and ten horns) and is not, (Papacy separated from the above named beast,) and yet is (or shall be) (Papacy re-united to the same beast. See verses 3, 12, 13, 17) verse 8. He is of the seven, (i. e., the same Papal church which was allied to the seventh. See Rev. xiii, 1-10) and is (shall be) the eighth, (a new alliance, or the eighth phase of the seventh beast) and goeth into perdition. [Verse 16] see verse 11. This alliance will continue one hour. (15 days.) The manner in which those ten kings [Rev. xvii, 3, 7, 12, 13, 17] come to their end, is analogous to the destruction of the ten toes of the image. Compare Rev. xvii, 14, with Dan. ii, 34, 35, 44, 45.
Metomen, Fond du Lac Co., Wis., Dec. 18th, 1853.
MARIA E EDSON
By Maria E. Edson
From Sister Edson.
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—It is cheering to hear through the Review from the dear brethren and sisters scattered abroad, and that God is at work in different parts of his moral vineyard. The dear children of God that have been scattered in a dark and cloudy day are now being united under the third angel's message, and are coming into the unity of the faith. Jesus' prayer was that his people might be one, and I believe his prayer will be answered. Yes, praise the name of the Lord, although satan is permitted to work with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish because they will not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. I praise the Lord that there is a remnant who are turning their ears away from the fables of these last days, to keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus.16
The Lord is at work for his people, and he will accomplish the work gloriously. He is now in the Most Holy Place of the heavenly Sanctuary, and will now pardon all the transgressions of Israel, that they may be blotted out when the times of refreshings shall come. When Jesus leaves his mediatorial office, every case will be decided.
Jesus will soon finish his work, and O let us realize the solemn moment in which we live, and feel to humble ourselves before him, and seek meekness, that we may be hid in the day of his anger; for he says the meek he will guide in judgment, and the meek he will teach his ways. I rejoice in the bright prospect that lies before us. If faithful a little longer we shall outride the storm of affliction, and be where sorrow can never come. Let us then bear up under all our trials, and trust wholly in God, and he will keep us, and we shall come off victorious. His poor, despised children, that are despised by the world, and have all manner of evil spoken against them falsely, for the sake of Christ will soon be gathered home, to inherit a rich reward, and possess the kingdom for ever and ever. Yes, soon we shall gain the victory over the beast and his image and stand upon Mount Zion and sing the song that no man could learn but those who were redeemed from among men. O glorious thought! Shall I be there with that happy number that shout victory on the sea of glass? We have but little time to work for God, and to prepare for the great and last conflict, when we shall need to have on the whole armor, that we may be accounted worthy to escape all things that are coming upon the earth and to stand before the Son of Man.