Appendix

Appendix

General Notes

Note 1. Page 53—Constantine’s Sunday law, issued A.D. 321,

was as follows:—

“Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation of all

trades rest on the venerable day of the sun; but let those who are

situated in the country, freely and at full liberty attend to the business

of agriculture; because it often happens that no other day is so fit for

sowing corn and planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let

slip, men should lose the commodities granted by heaven.”

Of this law, so high an authority as the “Encyclopedia Brittannica”

plainly says: “It was Constantine the Great who first made

a law for the proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to

Eusebius, appointed that it should be regularly celebrated throughout

the Roman empire. Before him, and even in his time, they

observed the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Sunday.” As to the degree

of reverence with which Sunday was regarded, and the manner of

its observance, Mosheim says that in consequence of the law enacted

by Constantine, the first day of the week was “observed with

greater solemnity than it had formerly been.” [Eccl. Hist. Cent.

4, part 2, chap. 4, sec. 5.] Yet Constantine permitted all kinds of

agricultural labor to be performed on Sunday! Bishop Taylor declares

that “the primitive Christians did all manner of works upon

the Lord’s day.” [Duct. Dubitant., part 1, book 2, chap. 2, rule 6,

sec. 59.] The same statement is made by Morer: “The day [Sunday]

was not wholly kept in abstaining form common business; nor did

they [Christians] any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such

was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service.”

[Dialogues on the Lord’s Day, p. 233.] Says Cox: “There is no

evidence that either at this [the time of Constantine], or at a period

much later, the observance was viewed as deriving any obligation

from the fourth commandment; it seems to have been regarded as

an institution corresponding in nature with Christmas, Good Friday,

and other festivals of the church.” [Cox’s Sabbath Laws, p. 281.]

Note 2. Page 54—In the twelfth chapter of Revelation we have

as a symbol a great red dragon. In the ninth verse of that chapter

this symbol is explained as follows: “And the great dragon was cast

out, that old serpent, called the devil, and Satan, which deceiveth

the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were

cast out with him.” Undoubtedly the dragon primarily represents

Satan. But Satan does not appear upon the earth in person; he works [680]

through agents. It was in the person of wicked men that he sought to

destroy Jesus as soon as he was born. Wherever Satan has been able

to control a government so fully that it would carry out his designs,

that nation became, for the time, Satan’s representative. This was

the case with all the great heathen nations. For instance, see Ezekiel

28, where Satan is represented as actual king of Tyre. This was

because he fully controlled that government. In the first centuries of

the Christian era, Rome, of all the pagan nations, was Satan’s chief

agent in opposing the gospel, and was therefore represented by the

dragon.

But there came a time when paganism in the Roman empire fell

before the advancing form of Christianity. Then, as is stated on page

54, “paganism had given place to the papacy. The dragon had given

to the beast ‘his power, and his seat, and great authority.’” That is,

Satan then began to work through the papacy, just as he had formerly

worked through paganism. But the papacy is not represented by the

dragon, because it is necessary to introduce another symbol in order

to show the change in the form of the opposition to God. Previous

to the rise of the papacy, all opposition to the law of God had been

in the form of paganism,—God had been openly defied; but from

that time the opposition was carried on under the guise of professed

allegiance to him. The papacy, however, was no less the instrument

of Satan than was pagan Rome; for all the power, the seat, and the

great authority of the papacy, were given it by the dragon. And so,

although the pope professes to be the vicegerent of Christ, he is, in

reality, the vicegerent of Satan—he is antichrist.

The beast which is A symbol of the papacy is introduced in Revelation

13; And following it, in the same line of prophecy, “another

beast” is seen “coming up,” [Revelation 13:11-14.] Which exercises

“all the power of the first beast before him,” that is, in his sight.

This other beast must therefore be a persecuting power also; and

this is shown in that “it spake as a dragon.” The papacy received all

its power from Satan, and the two-horned beast exercises the same

power; it also becomes the direct agent of Satan. And its Satanic

character is further shown in that it enforces the worship of the image

of the beast, by means of false miracles. “He doeth great wonders, so

that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight

of men, and deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of

those miracles which he had power to do.”

The first persecuting power is represented by the dragon itself; in

heathenism there was open alliance with Satan, and open defiance of

God. In the second persecuting power, the dragon is masked; but the

spirit of Satan actuates it,—the dragon supplies the motive power. In

the third persecuting power, all traces of the dragon are absent, and a

lamb-like beast appears; but when it speaks, its dragon voice betrays

the Satanic power concealed under a fair exterior, and shows it to be

of the same family as the two preceding powers. In all the opposition

to Christ and his pure religion, “that old serpent, called the devil,

and Satan,“—“the god of this world,“—is the moving power; earthly

persecuting powers are simply instruments in his hands.

[681] Note 3. Page 328—That the reader may see the reasonableness

of Mr. Miller’s position on the prophetic periods, we copy the

following, which was published in the Advent Herald, Boston, in

March, 1850, in answer to a correspondent:—

“It is by the Canon of Ptolemy that the great prophetical period

of the seventy weeks is fixed. This canon places the seventh year

of Artaxerxes in the year B.C. 457; and the accuracy of the canon

is demonstrated by the concurrent agreement of more than twenty

eclipses. The seventy weeks date from the going forth of a decree

respecting the restoration of Jerusalem. There were no decrees

between the seventh and twentieth years of Artaxerxes. Four hundred

and ninety years, beginning with the seventh, must commence in B.C.

457, and end in A.D. 34. Commencing in the twentieth, they must

commence in B.C. 444, and end in A.D. 47. As no event occurred

in A.D. 47 to mark their termination, we cannot reckon from the

twentieth; we must therefore look to the seventh of Artaxerxes. This

date we cannot change from B.C. 457 without first demonstrating

the inaccuracy of Ptolemy’s canon. To do this, it would be necessary

to show that the large number of eclipses by which its accuracy has

been repeatedly demonstrated, have not been correctly computed;

and such a result would unsettle every chronological date, and leave

the settlement of epochs and the adjustment of eras entirely at the

mercy of every dreamer, so that chronology would be of no more

value than mere guess-work. As the seventy weeks must terminate

in A.D. 34, unless the seventh of Artaxerxes is wrongly fixed, and

as that cannot be changed without some evidence to that effect, we

inquire, what evidence marked that termination? The time when the

apostles turned to the Gentiles harmonizes with that date better than

any other which has been named. And the crucifixion, in A.D. 31,

in the midst of the last week, is sustained by a mass of testimony

which cannot be easily invalidated.”

As the 70 weeks and the 2300 days have a common startingpoint,

the calculation of Mr. Miller is verified at a glance by subtracting

the 457 years B.C. From the 2300. Thus,

2300

-457

——

1843 A.D.

The year 1843 was, however, regarded as extending to the spring

of 1844. The reason for this, briefly stated, is as follows: Anciently

the year did not commence in midwinter, as now, but at the first new

moon after the vernal equinox. Therefore, as the period of 2300

days was begun in a year reckoned by the ancient method, it was

considered necessary to conform to that method to its close. Hence,

1843 was counted as ending in the spring, and not in the winter.

But the 2300 days cannot be reckoned from the beginning of the

year 457 B.C.; For the decree of Artaxerxes—which is the startingpoint—

did not go into effect until the autumn of that year. Consequently

the 2300 days, beginning in the autumn of 457 B.C., must

extend to the autumn of 1844 A.D. (See small diagram on plate

opposite page 328.)

This fact not being at first perceived by Mr. Miller and his [682]

associates, they looked for the coming of Christ in 1843, or in the

spring of 1844; hence the first disappointment and the seeming

delay. It was the discovery of the correct time, in connection with

other scripture testimony, that led to the movement known as the

“midnight cry” of 1844. And to this day the computation of the

prophetic periods placing the close of the 2300 days in the autumn

of 1844, stands without impeachment.

Note 4. Page 373—The story that the adventists made robes

with which to ascend “to meet the Lord in the air,” was invented

by those who wished to reproach the cause. It was circulated so

industriously that many believed it; but careful inquiry proved its

falsity. For many years a large reward has been offered for proof

that one such instance ever occurred; but the proof has not been

produced. None who loved the appearing of the saviour were so

ignorant of the teachings of the scriptures as to suppose that robes

which they could make would be necessary for that occasion. The

only robe which the saints will need to meet the Lord will be that of

the righteousness of Christ. See Revelation 19:8.

Note 5. Page 374—Dr. Geo. Bush, professor of Hebrew and

Oriental Literature in the New York City University, in a letter

addressed to Mr. Miller, and published in the Advent Herald for

March, 1844, made some very important admissions relative to his

calculations of the prophetic times. Mr. Bush says:—

“Neither is it to be objected, as I conceive, to yourself or your

friends, that you have devoted much time and attention to the study

of the chronology of prophecy, and have labored much to determine

the commencing and closing dates of its great periods. If these

periods are actually given by the Holy Ghost in the prophetic books,

it was doubtless with the design that they should be studied, and

probably, in the end, fully understood; and no man is to be charged

with presumptuous folly who reverently makes the attempt to do

this.... In taking a day as the prophetical term for a year, I believe

you are sustained by the soundest exegesis, as well as fortified by

the high names of Mede, Sir Isaac Newton, Bishop Newton, Kirby,

Scott, Keith, and a host of others, who have long since come to

substantially your conclusions on this head. They all agree that the

leading periods mentioned by Daniel and John do actually expire

about this age of the world, and it would be a strange logic that

would convict you of heresy for holding in effect the same views

which stand forth so prominently in the notices of these eminent

divines.” “Your results in this field of inquiry do not strike me as so

far out of the way as to affect any of the great interests of truth and

duty.” “Your error, as I apprehend, lies in another direction than your

chronology.” “You have entirely mistaken the nature of the events

which are to occur when those periods have expired. This is the head

and front of your expository offending.... The great event before the

world is not its physical conflagration, but its moral regeneration.

Although there is doubtless a sense in which Christ may be said

to come in connection with the passing away of the Fourth Empire [683]

and of the Ottoman power, and His kingdom to be illustriously

established, yet that will be found to be a spiritual coming in the

power of His gospel, in the ample outpouring of His Spirit, and the

glorious administration of His providence.” Evidently, Mr. Bush

looked for the conversion of the world as the event to mark the

termination of the 2300 days. Both Mr. Miller and Mr. Bush were

right on the time question, and both were mistaken in the event to

occur at the close of the great periods.

The doctrines taught by Mr. Miller did not originate with him;

every point advanced in his expositions of prophecy, taken separately,

was admitted by some among his opponents. Hence there were none

who condemned all his views, and those who attempted to refute

him found that there was as great diversity among themselves as

between him and them. They had not only to overthrow Mr. Miller’s

theory, but each had to correct those of the others. This being the

case, their arguments could, of course, have little weight with those

who had received his views.

To oppose Miller, men who had been regarded as leaders of

religious thought were ready to abandon long-established principles

of Protestant interpretation. The Boston Recorder (Orthodox Cong.)

Said: “it must needs be acknowledged that our faith is greatly shaken

in the interpretations on which, in common with most of our own

brethren, we have heretofore relied, and which form the foundation

of the baseless theories of Miller”!

In their determination to disprove Mr. Miller’s positions, some

were ready even to join with universalists, adopting indefinite and

spiritualizing methods of exposition, in place of those principles of

literal interpretation which are an essential feature of the Protestant

faith. Of the arguments brought forward by Professors Stuart and

Bush the New York Evangelist spoke as follows: “The tendency

of these views is to destroy the scripture evidence of the doctrine

of any real end of the world, any day of final judgment, or general

resurrection of the body. The style of interpretation, we assert, tends

fearfully to universalism. This tendency we are prepared to prove.”

So also the Hartford Universalist said of Professor Stuart: “He puts

an uncompromising veto upon the popular interpretations of Daniel

and Revelation, and unites with universalists in contending that most

of their contents had special reference to, and their fulfillment in,

scenes and events which transpired but a few years after those books

were written.” It was thus that popular ministers prepared the minds

of thousands to lightly regard the testimony of the scriptures.

Note 6. Page 411—That the earth is the sanctuary was inferred

from those scriptures which teach that the earth will be purified and

fitted up for the eternal dwelling-place of the saints, according to the

original design of the creator. Adventists understood this just as it

was taught by Wesley and others. And their minds did not rest on

any other dwelling-place or any other thing which needed cleansing.

The only scriptures which we ever knew to be offered in favor of the

earth or any dwelling-place of man being called the sanctuary, fairly

disprove the position. They are only three in number, as follows:—

[684] Exodus 15:17: “Thou shalt bring them [the people] in, and plant

them in the mountain of Thine inheritance, in the place, O Lord,

which Thou hast made for Thee to dwell in; in the sanctuary, O Lord,

which Thy hands have established.” Without taking time or space to

give an exposition of the text, it is sufficient for the present purpose

to remark that it disproves the idea of the earth being the sanctuary.

Whatever construction may be placed upon the text, it teaches that

the people were not then in the sanctuary; but they were in the earth.

Then it is claimed that it referred to that part of the earth into which

they were to be brought, namely, Palestine. This is disproved by the

second text.

Joshua 24:26: “And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the

law of God, and took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak,

that was by the sanctuary of the Lord.” The stone and the oak were

in Palestine, but they were by the sanctuary of the Lord—not in it.

And the other text is more restrictive still, and equally conclusive

against the inference to which reference is herein made.

Psalm 78:54: “And he brought them [his people] to the border

of his sanctuary, even to this mountain, which his right hand had

purchased.” The mountain was Mount Moriah, on which the temple

of Solomon was built; yet being brought unto it is called being

brought “to the border of his sanctuary.” Thus these texts do not

prove that the earth is the sanctuary, but rather the reverse.

Jehoshaphat’s prayer gives the true idea of the relation of that

land to the sanctuary: “Art not thou our God, who didst drive out

the inhabitants of this land before thy people Israel, and gavest it

to the seed of Abraham thy friend forever? And they dwelt therein,

and have built thee a sanctuary therein for thy name.” 2 Chronicles

20:7, 8. This corresponds to the command in Exodus 25:8: “And

let them make me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them.” In

this same book is given a minute description of the sanctuary, its

erection, and approval by the Lord. The process of cleansing the

sanctuary is described in Leviticus 16. While the children of Israel

possessed Canaan, Solomon built a temple, in which was a holy and

a most holy place; and the vessels of the movable sanctuary, which

was made in the desert of Sinai, were transferred to the temple. This

was then the sanctuary,—the dwelling-place of God’s glory upon

the earth.

Some have inferred that the earthly sanctuary was a symbol of the

church, reasoning from those scriptures in which the church is called

the temple of God. But it is not infrequently the case in scripture that

in different connections the same figure is employed to represent

different objects. The Bible plainly teaches that the holy places of the

earthly sanctuary were “patterns of things in the heavens.” Hebrews

9:23. The expression, “temple of God,” is sometimes employed to

designate the sanctuary in heaven, and sometimes the church. Its

significance, in each case, must be determined by the context.

Note 7. Page 429—Almost all Adventists, including Mr. Miller,

did, for a short time after their disappointment in 1844, believe

that the world had received its last warning. They could hardly

think otherwise, with their faith in the message which they had [685]

given,—“the hour of his judgment is come.” Revelation 14:6, 7. They

naturally thought that this proclamation must close the dispensation.

But the idea that the work of the gospel was finished was soon

renounced, except by some fanatical ones who would neither be

counseled nor receive instruction. One class who relinquished the

view that “the door of mercy was shut,” were led to do this because

they discovered that Other messages were to be proclaimed after that

declaring, the hour of judgment is come; and that that of the third

angel, the last one, was to go to “many peoples, and nations, and

tongues, and kings.” They learned that the judgment sits in heaven

before the coming of the Lord; that the judgment of the righteous

is fully accomplished while Jesus is yet their advocate before the

father’s throne; that eternal life is instantly given to the saints when

their saviour comes, which is proof that they have been judged and

acquitted.

With the light on the third message they also received light on

the sanctuary and its cleansing, by which they understood that the

antitypical work of the Day of Atonement, which was accomplished

in the most holy place, was that which was pointed out by the message

which they had given. They saw that there were two veils or

doors in the temple of God (Hebrews 9:3), and that at that time one

was shut and the other was opened. With earnest zeal and new hope

they preached these truths, and urged their fellow-men to seek an

entrance by faith into the most holy place within the second veil,

where our great High Priest is gone to blot out the sins of all his

faithful ones, from Abel to the present time.

Note 8. Page 435—Revelation 14:6, 7, Foretells the proclamation

of the first angel’s message. Then the prophet continues: “there

followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, ... And

the third angel followed them.” The word here rendered “followed,”

means, in constructions like that in this text, “to go with.” Liddell

and Scott render the word thus: “to follow one, go after or with him.”

Robinson says: “To follow, to go with, to accompany anyone.” It

is the same word that is used in Mark 5:24: “And Jesus went with

him; and much people followed him, and thronged him.” It is also

used of the redeemed one hundred and forty-four thousand, where

it is said: “these are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he

goeth.” Revelation 14:4. In both these places it is evident that the

idea intended to be conveyed is that of going together, in company

with. So in 1 Corinthians 10:4, where we read of the children of

Israel that “they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them,” the

word “followed” is translated from the same Greek word, and the

margin has it, “went with them.” From this we learn that the idea in

Revelation 14:8, 9, Is not simply that the second and third angels

followed the first in point of time, but that they went with it. The

three messages are but one threefold message. They are three only

in the order of their rise. But having risen, they go on together, and

are inseparable.

Note 9. Page 447—The bishops of Rome began, very early,

to demand obedience from all the churches. Of this the dispute

between the Eastern and the Western churches respecting Easter is a

striking illustration. This dispute arose in the second century. Says [686]

Mosheim: “the Christians of this century celebrated anniversary

festivals in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ....

The day which was observed as the anniversary of Christ’s death

was called the Paschal day, or Passover.” Like the Jews, Christians

celebrated “a sacred feast, at which they distributed a paschal lamb

in memory of the holy supper.” The Christians of Asia Minor kept

this feast on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, when the

Jews celebrated their Passover, and when Christ is said to have eaten

the paschal lamb with his disciples. Three days thereafter, a festival

was observed in honor of the resurrection. TheWestern churches, on

the other hand, celebrated the resurrection of Christ on the Sunday

following the Jewish Passover, and observed the paschal feast on

the night preceding Sunday, thus connecting the commemoration of

Christ’s death with that of his resurrection.

“Toward the conclusion of this [the second] century, Victor,

Bishop of Rome, endeavored to force the Asiatic Christians, by the

pretended authority of his laws and decrees, to follow the rule which

was observed by the Western churches in this point. Accordingly ...

He wrote an imperious letter to the Asiatic prelates, commanding

them to imitate the example of theWestern Christians with respect to

the time of celebrating the festival of Easter. The Asiatics answered

this lordly requisition ... With great spirit and resolution, that they

would by no means depart, in this manner, from the custom handed

down to them by their ancestors. Upon this the thunder of excommunication

began to roar. Victor, exasperated by this resolute answer of

the Asiatic bishops, broke communion with them, pronounced them

unworthy of the name of his brethren, and excluded them from all

fellowship with the church of Rome.” [Mosheim, Eccl. Hist., cent.

586 The Great Controversy 1888

2, part 2, chap. 4., para. 9, 11.] This, says Bower, was “the first

essay of papal usurpation.”

For a time, however, Victor’s efforts availed little. No regard was

paid to his letters, and the Asiatics continued to follow their ancient

practice. But by enlisting the support of the imperial power, which

the church for so many centuries controlled to serve her purposes,

Rome finally conquered. The Council of Nice, “out of complaisance

to Constantine the Great, ordered the solemnity of Easter to be kept

everywhere on the same day, after the custom of Rome.” [Bower’s

History of the Popes, Vol. 1, pp. 18, 19.] This decree, “backed by

the authority of so great an emperor,” was decisive; “none but some

scattered schismatics, now and then appearing, that durst oppose the

resolution of that famous synod.” [Hevlyn, History of the Sabbath,

part 2, chap. 2, secs. 4, 5.]

Note 10. Page 565—There is no more remarkable movement of

the present day, and no one fraught with more vital consequences to

men and nations, than the rapidly reviving influence of the papacy

in national affairs. The papacy is fast moving into the place of

the greatest influence of any earthly organization. In Europe, to

say nothing of Catholic countries, which, as a matter of course,

are subject to the pope, Chancellor Bismarck has made Germany

virtually subject to the dictation of the papacy; England has invited

[687] the interference of the pope in her political affairs in the contest with

Ireland; and even the Czar of Russia has shown himself willing to

make overtures to the papacy. On the occasion of the golden jubilee

of the priesthood of Leo XIII., it is well known that, except the

kingdom of Italy and the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway,

every nation, Protestant as well as Catholic, paid grateful respect to

Rome.

If any nation might justly be expected to keep clear of Romish

influences, the United States of America should be the one above all

others, as it is constitutionally pledged to have nothing at all to do

toward “an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof.” Yet this nation is in nowise behind the others in paying

assiduous court to Rome. When the papal delegates came to America

bearing to Cardinal Gibbons the trappings of his Romish dignity, a

government vessel was dispatched down New York Harbor to meet

them, with the papal flag, instead of the stars and stripes, flying from

the place of honor. And at the investiture of Cardinal Gibbons with

the purple of a papal prince, President Cleveland sent him a letter of

congratulation. The Converted Catholic says that a larger number of

senators and representatives send their sons to the Jesuit College at

Georgetown—one of the suburbs of the national capital—than to all

the other institutions of learning at Washington, which proves either

that the larger number of senators and representatives are Catholics,

or that Rome has more influence with senators and representatives

than have all the educational institutions in Washington put together.

In view of this fact, it is not to be wondered at that Rome decided to

build her national university at the national capital.

Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, Secretary of the Interior under President

Cleveland, was charged with giving to Catholics more positions in

his department than to other denominations. His reply was that “if

Roman Catholics have been recognized to a greater extent than other

denominations, it is only because they have asked more largely;” and

explained this by saying that the Romish church has at Washington

“an energetic and tireless director, who is active to seize opportunities

for extending missionary and educational work among the

Indians.” The Christian Union says that four-fifths of the government

Indian schools, under religious control, have been given to Roman

Catholics. The Assistant Attorney-General, of the Department of

the Interior, under President Cleveland’s administration,—Mr. Zach

Montgomery,—is a Roman Catholic, with all the Roman Catholic

enmity to the public schools, and hesitates not to use his official position

and influence to show it. During his term of office, in an address

at Carroll Institute, he openly denounced the public-school system as

godless, anti-parental, and destructive of happiness. And the United

States Senate fully knew his enmity to the public schools when it

confirmed his appointment as Assistant Attorney-General. The New

York Observer says that the only public hospital that receives any

government aid is a Roman Catholic one.

In a published letter to Hon. Warner Miller, one of the delegates

at large from New York to the National Republican Convention,

1888, Hon. John Jay, late Minister to Austria, says that the Roman

Catholics even now “coolly discuss the disposition they will make

of the United States, as a people already subject to the vatican by the

Irish votes. Archbishop Lynch, of Canada, wrote to Lord Randolph [688]

Churchill (the Churchman, New York, April 2, 1887): ‘The Irish

Vote is a Great Factor in America.’ ‘The power of their organizations

is increasing every day.’ ‘They hold already the balance of power

in the presidential and other elections.’” Further Mr. Jay says: “The

announcement of Mr. Chamberlain’s appointment as Fishery Commissioner

was promptly followed by a reminder that no treaty he

might make would stand a chance of ratification. The suggestion

that Mr. Phelps, our Minister to England, might be nominated as

Chief Justice, brought a quick announcement that the nomination

would be defeated.... It was recently stated in the United States

Senate (February 16, 1888), in a debate on the bill for ‘national aid

in the establishment and temporary support of common schools,’

... That a senator had showed to the speaker, who had read it with

his own eyes, the original letter of a Jesuit priest. In this letter he

begged a member of Congress to oppose the bill and kill it, saying

that they had organized all over the country for its destruction, that

they had succeeded in the Committee of the House, and that they

would destroy the bill inevitably; and it is a fact that the bill, having

three times passed the Senate in three different congresses, each

time with a larger vote in its favor, has been repeatedly smothered

in the Committee of the House, by those who knew that there was

a majority in the House in favor of the bill; and for six years the

legislation of Congress has been [thus] arrested.”

The Roman church largely controls the secular press of the country;

and the leading “Protestant” religious papers, such as the New

York Evangelist, the Christian at Work, the Christian Union, and the

Independent, all pay flattering tribute to the papacy. The Evangelist,

of March 29, 1888, acknowledges Cardinal Gibbons as its “only

cardinal;” the Independent wishes pope Leo XIII. “a long reign and

godspeed in his liberalizing policy;” Christian at Work salutes him

as “holy father,” and in the name of “the whole Christian world”

glorifies him as “this venerable man whose loyalty to God and zeal

for the welfare of humanity are as conspicuous as his freedom from

many errors and bigotries of his predecessors is remarkable;” and

the Christian Union, January 26, 1888, acknowledges him as “a

temporal prince” and “supreme pontiff.”

Note 11. Page 573—These movements are apparent under diverse

forms and in different ways, but the organization which em

bodies almost every form, and works in every way to gain its end, is

the National Reform Association. It originated in a conference representing

“eleven different denominations of Christians from seven

of the states of the Union.” It now has the support of prominent

men from “all branches of the church,” of the National Woman’s

Christian Temperance Union, and the Prohibition Party. It proposes

to have our national constitution amended, “in order to constitute a

Christian government,” “acknowledging almighty God as the source

of all authority and power in civil government, the Lord Jesus Christ

as the ruler among the nations, His revealed will as the supreme

law of the land;” and so placing “all Christian laws, institutions,

and usages of our government on an undeniable legal basis in the

fundamental law of the land.” One of its propositions, announced

by David Gregg, D. D., Pastor Park Street Church, Boston, is that [689]

the state has “the right to command the consciences of men.” Another,

announced by the Christian Statesman, is that government

must “enforce upon all that come among us the laws of Christian

morality.” Another, announced by the Rev. E. B. Graham, is that

“if the opponents of the Bible do not like our government and its

Christian features, let them go to some wild, desolate land; and, in

the name of the devil, and for the sake of the devil, subdue it, and set

up a government of their own on infidel and atheistic ideas, and then,

if they can stand it, stay there till they die.” Another, announced by

Jonathan Edwards, D. D., is that Jews, and all Christians who keep

the seventh day, are to be classed as atheists, and “must be treated,

as for this [National Reform] question, one party” with atheists, who

“cannot dwell together on the same continent” with the national

reform Christianity.

Anybody can see at a glance that the establishment of the national

reform theory of government would be but the establishment of a

theocracy. And this is, in fact, what they propose to establish. They

say that “a republic thus governed is of him, through the people,

and is as really and truly a theocracy as the government of Israel.”

A monthly reading of the national W. C. T. U., written by Miss

Willard, on God in government, says: “A true theocracy is yet to

come, [and] the enthronement of Christ in law and law-makers,

hence I pray devoutly, as a Christian patriot, for the ballot in the

hands of women.” And in her annual address to the national W. C.

T. U. Convention, of 1887, Miss Willard said: “The kingdom of

Christ ‘must enter the realm of law through the gateway of politics....

There are enough temperance men in both [the Democratic and

Republican parties] to take possession of the government and give

us national prohibition in the party of the near future, which is to

be the party of God.... We pray heaven to give them no rest ... until

they shall ... swear an oath of allegiance to Christ in politics, and

March in one great army ‘up to the polls to worship God.’ ... I

firmly believe that the patient, steadfast work of Christian women

will so react on politics within the next generation that the party

of God will be at the front.” Now a man made theocracy is only a

scheme of government which puts man in the place of God. That

is precisely the theory upon which the papacy was built, and that

is just what the papacy is. The national reform theory is identical

with that of the papacy; therefore the establishment of the national

reform theory in this government will be but the setting up of a living

image of the papacy. Advocating, as these parties are, the papal

theory, it is not to be wondered at that they are anxious to secure

the co-operation of the papacy in carrying their scheme to success.

The Christian Statesman is the official organ of the National Reform

Association, and in an editorial, December 11, 1884, that paper said:

“We cordially, gladly, recognize the fact that in the South American

republics, and in France and other European countries, the Roman

Catholics are the recognized advocates of national Christianity, and

stand opposed to all the proposals of secularism.... whenever they are

willing to co-operate in resisting the progress of political atheism,

we will gladly join hands with them. In a World’s Conference for the

[690] Promotion of National Christianity—which ought to be held at no

distant day—many countries could be represented only by Roman

Catholics.” And in that same paper, August 31, 1881, Rev. Sylvester

Scovil said: “This common interest [“of all religious people in the

Sabbath”—Sunday] ought both to strengthen our determination to

work, and our readiness to co-operate in every way with our Roman

Catholic fellow-citizens. We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our

first proffers, and the time is not yet come when the Roman church

will consent to strike hands with other churches—as such; but the

time has come to make repeated advances, and gladly to accept

co-operation in any form in which they may be willing to exhibit it.

It is one of the necessities of the situation. The nexus between the

two great divisions of Christianity on questions of moral legislation

is a thing worthy the consideration of our best minds and our men of

largest experience in such affairs.” In perfect accord with this is the

encyclical of Pope Leo XIII., 1885, which directs that “all Catholics

should do all in their power to cause the constitutions of states, and

legislation, to be modeled on the principles of the true church, and

all Catholic writers and journalists should never lose sight, for an

instant, from the view of the above prescriptions.” Therefore as the

purpose of the national reform association is identical with that of

rome, it is only to be expected that they should show a readiness to

“gladly join hands.” And whenever Protestantism gains control of

the civil power, whether with or without the aid of Rome, that will

be but to erect an image of the papacy.

Note 12. Page 578—There are still observers of the Bible Sabbath

in Abyssinia. Joseph Wolff, in his journal for 1838, giving an

account of his visit to that country, says that “the Sabbath of the

Jews, i.e., Saturday, is kept strictly among the Abyssinians in the

province of Hamazien.”

Note 13. Pages 605, 613—The word “seal” is used in the scriptures

in various senses, even as in common life. The definition given

by Webster, the most comprehensive, is as follows: “that which confirms,

ratifies, or makes stable; assurance; that which authenticates;

that which secures, makes reliable, or stable.” The terms “mark” and

“sign,” also given by him, are used in the scriptures as synonymous

with seal, as in Romans 4:11.

In the covenant with Noah it is used in the sense of assurance,

or evidence of stability. The bow in the cloud was given as a sign

or token that God would not again destroy the earth by a flood.

Genesis 9:13. In the covenant with Abraham, circumcision was the

token or sign. This ratified, or made sure; for they who had not this

token were cut off. Genesis 17:11, 14. This sign or token was an

institution, a rite. Gesenius gives “a memorial” as one definition of

the word found in the original of these texts. But a memorial, in the

sense of a reminder, or a remembrancer, is a token or sign.

In Exodus 31:17 and Ezekiel 20:12, 20, The Sabbath of the Lord

is called a sign. It is a memorial of the Creator’s work, and so a sign

of his power and Godhead. Romans 1:20. This is also an institution,

as was circumcision; but there is this distinction: circumcision was

a sign in the flesh, while the Sabbath is a sign in the mind. “Hallow

my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye

may know that I am the Lord your God.” Ezekiel 20:20.

[691] In Ezekiel 9:4 the word used in the original is translated mark.

Gesenius says, “a mark, sign.” The Septuagint gives the same word

in this text that is given in the Greek of Romans 4:11, rendered

“sign.” Thus the words sign, mark, and seal are applied to the same

things, or used as of like signification, in the scriptures.

In Ezekiel 9:4 and Revelation 7:2, 3, the mark or sign is said to be

placed in the foreheads of the servants of God. Both these scriptures

refer to a time when utter destruction is coming on the ungodly. The

seal is placed upon God’s people as a safeguard to preserve them

from the evil impending. But “the forehead” is evidently used as

a figure, to denote the intellect or mind, as “the heart” is used to

denote the disposition or affections. To mark or seal in the forehead

is the same as to “write in the mind.” Hebrews 10:16.

The Sabbath is the sign of God; it is the seal of His law. Isaiah

8:16. It is the token of His authority and power. It is a sign whereby

we may know that He is God, and therefore it is appropriately said to

be placed in the forehead. The worshipers of the beast (Revelation

13) are said to receive his mark in their foreheads or in their hands.

As the forehead represents the intellect, the hand represents power,

as Psalm 89:48, “Shall he deliver his soul from the hand of the

grave?” Compulsory worship is not acceptable to God; His servants

are sealed only in their foreheads. But it is acceptable to wicked

powers; it has always been craved by the Romish hierarchy. See

chapter 25 for proof on the nature of this mark. The sign or seal

of God is his Sabbath, and the seal or mark of the beast is in direct

opposition to it; it is a counterfeit Sabbath on the “day of the sun.”

According to Revelation 14:9-12, they who do not receive the mark

of the beast keep the commandments of God; and the Sabbath is in

the fourth precept; they keep the Sabbath of the Lord; they have his

sign or seal. The importance of this sign is shown in this, that the

fourth commandment is the only one in the law which distinguishes

the Creator from false gods. Compare Jeremiah 10:10-12; Acts

17:23, 24; Revelation 14:6, 7, etc. and it is that part of his law for

keeping which his people will suffer persecution. But when the

wrath of God comes upon the persecutors who are found enforcing

the sign or mark of the beast, then they will realize the importance

of the Sabbath,—the seal of the living God. They who turn away

from that which the Lord spoke when his voice shook the earth, will

confess their fatal error when his voice shall shake the heavens and

the earth. Hebrews 12:25, 26; Joel 3:9-16, and others. See also

pages 639, 640 of this book.