Earlier text: In the Wilderness

The Spirit of Progress the Boast of the Age.

By A. M. Lindsley

WITH all the boasted spirit of progress of the present time, one versed in Bible truth and Bible religion can but see the downward tendency of mind. As the so-called spirit of progression is really going away from God and his truth, it is easy to prove that it is not in reality a progression in that which is good; for the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. And unless it can be proved that the world is constantly approximating nearer to obedience to his truth, it cannot be said that they are growing wiser. Active they may be in the wisdom of this world, and in what goes to make them great in their own eyes, yet none are truly great or good but those who realize their own fallen condition by nature, and seek God for help through Christ. He has chosen the weak things of this world to confound those which are mighty, so that no flesh should glory in his sight.

The very spirit of exaltation which has come over this nation and mankind in general, is only indicative of a terrible fall; for he that exalteth himself shall be abased. The spirit of exaltation possessed those who built the tower of Babel; but see how quickly the Lord confounded them so that they ceased to build. Satan exalted himself when he rebelled, and quickly he was cast out of Heaven. So has every nation and people called down upon them the judgments of God when they have become so self-reliant as to stand independent of their Creator.

Judgments may not be executed so speedily always as on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah; yet, it may be even more tolerable for them in the day of Judgment than for such. Every nation and people are left to fill up their measure of sin and iniquity after the warning voice has reached them before they are visited and overthrown. Looking at our own land we see sin and crime, not seeking alone the midnight hour for its accomplishment, but high-handed and presumptuous sins are committed in open day; but, for all that, how few are they who sigh and cry for the abominations that are done in the land! How many, like the prophet Daniel, fast and pray for themselves and for the land, that God's fiery wrath may be restrained, and turned away from us?

But there is a redeeming feature to the dark picture. The sure word of prophecy encourages us with deliverance in prospect,—a new earth robed in Eden beauty; freed from the curse, and sin, and a tempting devil. The Lord will make bare his holy arm for the help of those who fear him, and he will place a mark on the foreheads of those that shun this great departure from him, and he will hide them in mercy when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth; for his word declares it.

A. M. LINDSLEY.

The A. & S. Business.

By The Christian

Once, in the earliest days of Christianity, the Almighty interposed by miracle and struck two persons dead—the only two from among the people of God, of whom we have any account since the dispensation of law gave place to that of grace. These persons were among the earliest adherents of Christianity, and were interested in the great work that was introduced by the Pentecostal baptism of the spirit. They had zeal and were disposed to make sacrifices “for the cause.” They were persons of some means, and were not like many Christians now-a-days, who keep buying more property, and so are always poor, always in debt, and always unable to give more than a mere pittance for the work of God and the necessities of his people. So far from this, they were ready to sell property, that they might have money to give away; and they probably were nearer the gospel standard in this respect than nine-tenths of the Christian professors are to-day. They sold a possession, and brought a certain part—doubtless a liberal portion—and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But they died. The curse of God smote them, and they were carried out from that place to their graves; and their names were left, clothed with infamy, as a warning to the church in all subsequent ages.

What did they do? They sold property, they gave money; but they wanted more reputation than belonged to them, and to gain it they gave part of the money, and told part of the truth; just that part that would favor their own reputation; concealed the rest; and tried to put on a smooth outside over a sinful heart. Peter said they lied, and lied not to men, but to God. But Peter had a very blunt way of speaking out. Now-a-days men would say, “There was a slight discrepancy between the statements made by Ananias and Sapphira and the facts in the case.”

The Ananias and Sapphira business flourishes still. God does not kill liars now as he did then, and men take courage and tell their smooth stories. Peter is dead, and no one corners them up, and so they keep at it.

Editors who publish just as much truth as will help their reputation and their party, and refuse to correct the falsehoods they have circulated and the misrepresentations that they have made; biographers who paint such immaculate saints that their subjects would not know their own lives if they should rise from the dead, and read them; preachers who blow their own trumpets, and magnify their great revivals which never happened, or which candid Christian people cannot find; swindlers who fail in business and put their property out of their hands, and pretend that they cannot pay their debts; members of religious societies who transact their affairs by craft and deception; leaders of associations who cloak the villainies of their friends and supporters; rich men who invest their own money where it will draw good interest, and then beg funds from the poor to pay their own salaries and sustain the cause of God; people who say, Peace, peace, when there is no peace, and who compromise truth, and indorse hypocrites and rascals who should be rebuked and exposed;—these and a thousand others of their kith and kin, who suppose that they are doing God service, and think themselves exceedingly shrewd—are they not getting into the Ananias and Sapphira business? The business seems safer now than it did in Peter’s time; so much so that if a man has truth in the inward parts, and tells it out to the world or to the church, he is at once liable to be denounced or set aside as a troubler of Israel, and is like his Master, “despised and rejected of men.” But possibly this seeming security is a delusion and a snare. There is a God of truth, and there is a day of Judgment. “And all liars”—those that make lies, and those that love lies, and would make them if they dared to, and even those who lie by keeping back part of the truth—“shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone.”

Good friends, if you are going into the Ananias and Sapphira business, please add into your reckoning not only the present profits, but also the “lake of fire,” and then ask, “What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?”—The Christian.

Going to Sleep on Scripture

By Luther

WHEN I am pressed with thought about worldly or home cares, I take a Psalm, or saying of Paul, and go to sleep on it.—Luther.

The Sabbath Made for Man.

By T. M. Steward

MARK 2:27. “The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath.” (Christ.) This is the language of Him who knew, and from whose authority there is no appeal.

1. Who made the Sabbath? Surely, not man, for it was made for man. Then God made the Sabbath. Ex. 20:10; Isa. 58:13.

2. When was it made? The record does not say he made it for himself and 2500 years after concluded to give it to man. But it was made for man. If it was made for man, there would be no object in making it before there was a man, neither was it wisdom to make it until man needed it. The wisdom of God is manifest in that he made man first, and then, as he immediately required a Sabbath, the Lord chose the first opportunity to make one. On the sixth day, he made man (and woman) which completed his work; “and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.” Gen. 1:26; 2:2. Then it was made at the close of the first six days of time, and becomes the turning point of the weekly cycle.

3. But how was it made? We read: “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” Ex. 20:11. This places before us the contrast between the first six days and the seventh, and tells us plainly that there are but six working days in the weekly cycle. Ex. 31:15: “Six days may work be done.” Eze. 46:1: “The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days.” Now if all days are working days, why has inspiration used such definite language in reference to these days as if there were but six working days?

Then again in explaining his own command he says: “Six days may work be done;” but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” So there is the widest contrast between the six days and the seventh. As the Bible recognizes six working days and there are seven days in each weekly cycle, then there is one day in each week that is not a working day. In making the Sabbath (which signifies rest), the Lord embraced one whole day for rest. He could not take one of the six, for he had appointed them for work. So he appoints the seventh (the last day in the weekly cycle) for a Sabbath (or rest) for man. Thus we have six working days and one day of rest in each week. Having thus made the Sabbath for man, God places his blessing upon it, and instructs man how to use it. Gen. 2:3. “He sanctified it,” or set it apart to a sacred or holy use. To say there is no Sabbath would contradict the record given, and would reduce the weekly cycle to six days instead of seven. Who would undertake this?

To say that the first day of the weekly cycle is the Sabbath is to call one of the six days which God appointed for work, a Sabbath; which would contradict God’s own testimony; and convert God’s holy Sabbath into a laboring or common day, which is strictly forbidden. Ex. 20:10; 31:15. “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Prov. 30:5, 6.

Then the Sabbath was made by the God of Heaven by resting on the seventh day, the last day of the first weekly cycle, thus setting an example for all time to come. All time is summed up in the six working days and the one rest (or Sabbath) day. It was so made for man that all the race may have one day in each week for rest and holy meditation, which marks the termination of each weekly cycle.

Then how consistent to say to all: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day [of each weekly cycle] is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it. Ex. 20:8–11. T. M. STEWARD.

Sunday Dreaming.

By Uriah Smith

We do not mean dreaming on Sunday, but dreaming about it. The spirit of sleep is not yet lifted from Christendom on this question; and in their state of somnolence, people seem to think that the Sunday Sabbath is very easily established. Like those who dream, they talk of it, if not incoherently, at least contradictorily, calmly, and complacently urging reasons in its favor which utterly devour each other.

A friend of ours proposed to a relative of his, a Baptist minister, some questions on the subject of the Sabbath. The minister replied by a quotation from a book entitled “Moses and Israel” by Dr. Franklin Johnson. The quotation illustrates how easily persons are satisfied on this question; for the positions taken by Mr. Johnson are summarily these:—

1. Only an indefinite seventh part of time is required by the commandment.
2. The Creator’s rest from the work of creation, was a type of the Redeemer’s rest from toil and anguish, when he triumphed over death in his resurrection.
3. The apostles changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.

We propose to say a few words upon these propositions on their own merits, and then see how they stand together.

1. The indefinite seventh part of time theory is an opiate on the Sabbath question in about as free use among theologians as quinine is among western doctors. They seem to think that that never comes amiss anywhere. But of all loose theories upon the Sabbath question, this is the loosest. It is everything and therefore nothing. It is a virtual abandonment of the whole Sabbath institution; for by it, any day of the week, being a seventh after six days of labor, is the Sabbath, and therefore all days, as people may choose, are Sabbaths. But what is common to all days, cannot be used to distinguish any day; therefore, so far as divine appointment is concerned, this theory leaves us with no Sabbath; for to talk of all days being the Sabbath, is a most manifest absurdity.

Again, this theory supposes that the commandment requires every seventh day, with unvarying regularity to be observed as the Sabbath. If this is not so, then a person under a great pressure of business might work continuously six weeks, forty-two consecutive days, and then rest one entire week. This would be devoting one seventh part of his time to rest, if that is all that is required by the commandment. But this would make the Sabbath so loose an institution, as to practically abolish it. If then every seventh day with no disturbance of the interval, is required by the commandment, when the Sabbath was once established, a change would be an impossibility.

Thus at the first advent of Christ, the only divine Sabbath upon the earth was the day observed by that people who were then the depositaries of the word and truth of God, the seventh day of the week. Now we ask how a change to the first day of the week, for instance, could have been effected without breaking the commandment. We come up to the time when the last Jewish Sabbath had been kept according to the law. When could the observance of the first day commence? Could it have been the next day after that last Jewish Sabbath? No; for that would not be after six days of labor, as they had rested the day before, as the law required. We go on through the week. Before they come to another first day, they must pass the seventh. But when they come to the seventh day, six days of labor have passed, and they must rest again or break the commandment. Having then rested, they could not rest the following day, the next Sunday for the reason already given. We may take any other day of the week, and the result is the same. Whatever change therefore has been made in the Sabbath, even on this ground, has been made in violation of the Sabbath law, and he becomes participes criminis, who continues the practice.

This indefinite seventh-part-of-time theory is as unnatural as it is unscriptural. Everything about the institution is definite; everything about the commandment is definite. Not one particular is satisfied with any such indefinite arrangement as is proposed. God rested on a particular and definite day. The commandment requires the observance of the day corresponding to that very one in the numerical order.

It is more than a marvel to us how persons with the commandment before them, can deliberately say, “The expression, ‘the seventh day,’ seems not to point out any particular day of the week.”

In the name of reason, what then is it the seventh day of? Of the year? No. Of the month? No. It is not in this way that the days of the year and month are spoken of. We say that common sense demands that we refer such expressions to the most simple and common division of time, and that is the weekly cycle.

Here stands the week, a period of just seven days, unvarying through months or years, unaffected by the motions of sun, moon, or stars. It owes its origin to the great facts of creation. God there established it by working the first six days of time and resting on the seventh, or last day, of that cycle. The week comes from nothing else. Now, says the commandment, referring to this very fact, and God’s rest on that definite seventh day, You shall rest on the seventh day because God rested on the seventh day, and set it apart to a sacred use. Yet doctors of divinity have so dosed the theological world that we hear on every hand the response, This does not have any reference to any particular day of the week. Yet they betray their convictions by making the period of labor and rest just a week in length, showing that they know that all this does come from the events of the first week of time, and then nullify it all by not allowing their week to begin anywhere or end anywhere.

Strange to say this theory is used against the observers of the seventh day; whereas if it be true, we are obeying strictly the requirements of the fourth commandment. But custom has established the first day, and we should conform to custom. It is true if we thought that God had left this matter to be decided by custom, we would conform thereto; for we take no pleasure in differing with our fellow-men. But there is nothing binding in custom; there is nothing sacred about it. It was all wrong in Noah’s time, in Christ’s and in Luther’s. It may be wrong now.

But it is so inconvenient. Very true; but what is that to any but those who choose to keep the seventh day upon whom the burden of that inconvenience falls.

As to the Sabbath being a type, that is an impossibility, as it was instituted before the fall, before a type of anything connected with the work of redemption could have had an existence. But there is a fatal flaw in this argument in another respect. If it was a type of “Christ’s rest from toil and anguish” in his resurrection, when that point was gained, the type ceased; for types always cease when the antitype is reached. This leaves us again with no Sabbath.

Lastly, “the apostles by the direction of the Holy Spirit” appointed the first day of the week in place of the seventh. This argument is borrowed from the Roman Catholics. Alas! that Protestants should still be found following the leadings of that mother of errors and abominations. But if the apostles changed it Christ did not. That is some improvement on the common argument, as it relieves Christ from the fearful charge of changing his Father’s law. But if Christ or the apostles made such change, why has not some one of the sacred writers told us about it?

But further if Christ’s rest on the first day was the antitype of the Sabbath, and that fact fixed it to the first day of the week, as our writer argues, why need the apostles meddle with the matter at all? How could they change it, when it was already fixed by that great fact? Thus the argument falls to pieces.

Summed up, the instruction furnished us respecting the first day of the week, is as follows: 1. That the Sabbath is an indefinite seventh part of time, but no day in particular, which makes all days Sabbaths, and hence virtually none of them the Sabbath. 2. That the Creator’s rest, the old Sabbath, was a type of a definite day under the gospel when Christ rested; from which it follows that when this day is reached, the type accomplished its object and ceased, which leaves us with no Sabbath. 3. That after all this the apostles changed the day. Sunday somnambulists, what next?

U. S.

A Request, and What Came of It.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

The following request appeared in the Advent Christian Times of Sept. 23, 1874:—

“Bro. Burr: It has been stated several times in my hearing of late by a prominent Seventh-day Advent minister, that first-day Adventists cannot give from their standpoint, any consistent exposition of the angels’ messages as brought to view in Rev. 14: 6-14 inclusive. You probably are familiar with their view of them. You will greatly oblige a number of your readers by giving a brief or extended exposition, as you may deem best, at your earliest convenience. Your brother in Christ. Geo. W. Wright.”

If ever the “first-day Adventists” could be induced to make a strong effort to give an exposition of the third angel’s message, it would seem that this request would call it forth. With great interest we read the reply of the editor and were not disappointed in it, and certainly not disheartened by it.

The first paragraph contains some rather ill-natured remarks about the Seventh-day Adventists, but nothing looking toward a reply. The second is as follows:—

“The Seventh-day Adventists claim that the fulfillment of Rev. 14: 6, 7, took place during the proclamation of the time of the second advent in 1843. The belief of this depends entirely upon assertion, and there are many who do not believe it. Many believe it to be in the future. We do not propose to sit in the judgment seat to decide who is right or who is wrong, for doubtless we should be considered inconsistent by some, and it would be but man’s judgment at best.”

The conclusion here is direct that he has no position on this part of the question, stating, however, that some think it is in the future.

Yet in the third paragraph he expresses the opinion that “the Judgment” is the same as that of Dan. 7: 9-11, 26, and that it refers to the taking away of the civil power of the papacy, about the beginning of the present century. If so, the reference to those who think it future is of no consequence. And, if it were located there, it would fix the work of the two-horned beast and the third angel’s message in the present century; just where we think it belongs.

He further says: “The proclamation is not necessarily that of the general judgment yet to come.” We think it is a present judgment, now in progress, and several facts confirm this view. 1. The expression “is come” cannot refer to the future. 2. Two messages follow it, both of which are given before the second advent, therefore this judgment must precede the advent. 3. Rev. 22: 11, 12, shows that every case will be decided, and every character will be formed and fixed before the Lord comes. This judgment is especially in behalf of the Lord’s people, and while the priesthood of the Son of God continues; for his advocacy will certainly continue until he procures a final and favorable decision for his saints. 4. This is further confirmed by the fact that the saints get their reward, eternal life, in the resurrection, when the Lord comes. They are raised incorruptible, immortal, showing that the decision has been made, the judgment has set, before the advent and the resurrection.

Daniel, after introducing the judgment, says: “I beheld THEN because of the great words which the horn spake,” etc. Locating the hour of his judgment at the end of the 2300 days, in 1844, just where the proclamation placed it, and following down a few years, we find one of the most important of all the Roman Catholic councils in session, and it speaks “great words,” such as were never equaled by the words of any preceding council, even declaring the pope of the great Antichristian church infallible! All other great words which it has spoken are really included in this, and this excels all others. And speedily following this “his dominion,” as to civil authority, was entirely taken away. So literally is the prophecy fulfilled. The position taken by the Times is not at all opposed to our view of the location of the third angel’s message.

The fourth and fifth paragraphs have no special point, except that an effort is made to fix the name Babylon exclusively to the Roman Catholic church. On this, a few words.

“The woman” of Rev. 17, called Babylon, is doubtless the Romish church. The scarlet-colored beast upon which she sits, having ten horns, is the civil power which she controls. But these two symbols are combined in the beast of Rev. 13: 1-10, as the characteristics of both are ascribed to that. In Rev. 17 there is a change of symbols, or a double symbol; “the woman” is declared to be “that great city which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” This city, or woman, or church, is also declared to be “the mother,” a title which even Catholics have claimed for the church of Rome. In the second message of Rev. 14, which succeeds the proclamation that the hour of “judgment is come,” Babylon is called “that great city,” and it is said she “is fallen.” Before the fulfillment of this message, and before these prophecies were carefully studied in their connection, it was supposed that the fall of Babylon was her destruction, but that is now seen to be an error. For, in Rev. 18, it is shown that several events transpire between her fall and her destruction. She is certainly not destroyed before the coming of Christ. Compare 2 Thess. 2: 1-10; but the announcement of her fall is before the third message, which is also before the advent. Therefore we are shut up to the conclusion that her fall, instead of being a destruction, is a moral fall, and must therefore relate, not to “the mother,” but to her daughters, which, of course, in the symbol, must take the name of their mother. This fall is the consequence of their rejection of “the everlasting gospel” of the “judgment is come.” Let all take warning. They who wrest these messages from their connection and locate them somewhere else than where the Scriptures locate them, whether in the future, or far in the past, occupy a dangerous position.

That the churches of the United States have rejected the advent doctrine, as brought to view in the messages of Rev. 14, is a well-known fact. And that a great moral change has taken place in them in the last thirty years, is beyond dispute. The point needs no argument. And it is true that these messages, preceding the appearing of the Son of man to reap the harvest of the earth, are, by the events of Rev. 13: 11-17, connected with the chain of prophecy which reaches from Dan. 2 and 7 to the second advent. And it is truth that this is the only chain of consecutive prophecy, reaching to the advent, and having a given starting point, which the Bible contains. Therefore they who remove the messages of Rev. 14 remove the most notable second-advent landmark which is given to us by Revelation. And it is a fact, worthy of serious contemplation, that every branch of the people known as Adventists, do now either evade these messages, or remove them from their scriptural location, the Seventh-day Adventists only excepted. If they think this statement does them any injustice, we will withdraw it when they will take a well-defined position on these messages.

The sixth and seventh paragraphs contain only a brief notice of the views of the Seventh-day Adventists on the subject of the beast, image, and mark, assuming no position in regard to them except to object to our view of the commandments.

The gist of the whole matter is found in the eighth, the closing paragraph, which we copy entire as follows:—

“There are many theories extant in regard to the ‘beast and his image,’ and the fact that there are so many leads us to question closely the application of any. We say plainly, we are in doubt, in regard to the minute application of the symbols of the beast and image, but at the same time we are assured that the whole contrast in the message of the third angel consists in worshiping God instead of an earthly government. And also that this earthly government called the two-horned beast, is closely connected with the ‘first beast,’ and the ‘image’ is Babylonish in its character. Hence we do not look in the least for its fulfillment on this continent, but rather in the old Roman territory. If the fulfillment is in the future, any attempt to tell the government beforehand would be perfect folly, unless God should make a direct revelation for that purpose. No man can minutely define unfulfilled prophecy to a certainty. With these remarks we leave the subject, trusting the brethren will beware of those influences that would draw them into legal bondage, or those religious observances which ‘have indeed a show of wisdom in will worship and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honor to the satisfying of the flesh.’ Col. 2: 23.”

It may be that the Advent Christian Times thinks it has complied with the “request,” but we fail to see it. Instead of giving “an exposition” of the beast, image, and mark, without which its suggestions on other points are mere conjecture, it acknowledges that it does not accept133 any position which has been taken in regard to them! That the contrast is between the worship of God and of an earthly government is our belief also. But in this we differ: we have a definite position as to what that government is—they have not. That it is in some respect “connected” with the first beast, we admit, and that it is “Babylonish in its character,” is plain to all. But that it is to be looked for in the Roman territory, we cannot admit. Reason, analogy, and facts, all forbid it.

It is conceded that Christianity has flourished in the United States, say for a century or more past, in a purer form than in any other considerable part of the world. In fact, this has been the only considerable part of the world where it has had freedom to flourish untrammeled by civil bands and alliances.

Man was first placed in Asia; there were the wondrous works of God displayed; there the Saviour taught and suffered; there the gospel won its first great victories. Rejected there, its light went out gradually, in that locality, and removed westward. Europe enjoyed its blessings in a special manner. But there also it was oppressed, perverted, and obscured. Closely allied to the civil authorities, for centuries it was more caricatured than represented in Europe. In the providence of God, a new continent was opened to man, and the oppressed in conscience soon availed themselves of its privileges. It was a new land, where the foot of superstition and oppression had not trod. A free government could here be erected, without the necessity of subverting any other government, or coming in contact with established usages and customs. The wildness and great extent of territory not only offered a favorable opportunity to form such a government, but were calculated to inspire and foster the feelings of independence and personal freedom which soon took permanent form in both church and State.

With a growth unparalleled in the history of nations, it has silently extended the conquests of civilization and religion to the shores of the Pacific. The Pacific Coast is now to America very much what America was to the other nations a century and a half ago. Pride and custom, or fashion, have usurped the place of spirituality and power in the eastern part of the continent, and laborers in the gospel now find the most favorable and promising field of labor in the comparative freedom of the Pacific Coast. But no further move westward can be made. The tide of emigration and the march of civilization have girded the earth. “The sway of empire” has reached the utmost bound on “its way.” The mission of the gospel to “all the world” is near its close. And on this continent it is destined to finish up its great work.

It is to be noticed that a nation or government comes into prominent notice in the prophecies when it becomes prominently connected with the people and the work of God. Why should the United States be an exception? But it is an exception unless it is symbolized by the two-horned beast of Rev. 13. In this land, the doctrine of the second advent has received the most attention; here the prophecies are most studied, and here they must have their most marked fulfillment in the last days. And the two-horned beast, in every particular, finds a correct application here, while our opponents are not able to apply it to any other government! Why should we doubt its application here, when to doubt is to disarrange and mar the whole chain of prophecy, from Dan. 7 to the advent, and put out the light of the third angel’s message? Faith in this application sheds light on the messages, and gives a clear solution to the wonders of these last days.

Again, “the first beast,” having the body of the leopard, Greece, the feet of the bear, Persia, and the mouth of the lion, Babylon, and the ten horns of the dreadful and terrible beast, Rome, occupies in the symbol all the power or dominion of the beasts of Daniel’s prophecy. No reason can be given why the two-horned beast must be looked for in Europe, as the Times says, while many reasons can be given why it cannot be found in Europe. The ten horns being on the first beast shut it out of that field altogether.

In regard to the image to the first beast, which cannot be the first beast nor any part of the first beast, we now view a most formidable party rising up in the United States, having for its object a religious amendment to the Constitution, by means of which they intend to place all the usages and laws of Christianity on a legal basis in this land—that is, to make them subjects of legal enforcement. This would be an image to the beast, as that was a church and State power. To this we have looked for years as a fulfillment of Rev. 13: 14-17, and we are not disappointed either in its progress or its avowed intention, which is, as well expressed by the Times, “Sunday-keeping vs. Sabbath-keeping.”

The Times starts off with this declaration: “Undoubtedly, any exposition we might undertake to give of the passage referred to would be considered inconsistent by the Seventh-day Adventists.” Is this the reason why it offers no exposition? or is the reason found in its statement that it is undecided, dissatisfied with any position that has yet been taken? Why not give its exposition, if it has any to give, without regard to what S. D. Adventists may think? Perhaps there is force in the declaration made to me by “a prominent first-day Adventist minister” on this subject, namely, that the Times spoke as if it was afraid to give its position! Certainly there is force in his further remark that so far as the Times is concerned, it has only confirmed the statement referred to in the request.

The difficulty, we think, is not that it cannot give an exposition which the S. D. Adventists would think is consistent, but it cannot give an exposition which is consistent with itself! There can be but one consistent exposition of so marked a prophecy as that of Rev. 13: 11-17 and 14: 9-12, and, unfortunately for the position of the first-day Adventists, the Seventh-day Adventists have already developed that, and are extensively preaching it to the world. They have an exposition which is beautifully consistent, and which they are not afraid to present to all the world. It is emphatically “present truth,” and as such, we hail with pleasure every providence which enables us to extend the knowledge of it.

But the Times says: “If the fulfillment is in the future, any attempt to tell the government beforehand would be perfect folly.” Well, if the government symbolized by the two-horned beast is in the future, then as Adventists we are all mistaken; for this beast does all the work described in the prophecy prior to the advent. Hence, if it is future, the advent is not near at hand. This only seems to prove that the Advent Christian Times is deeply in the fog, either about the advent or the two-horned beast. And its emphasized remark about minutely defining unfulfilled prophecy does not offer relief to, but rather increases, its dilemma, as it has already located part of the prophecy in the past; and if the two-horned beast is indeed in the future, the word “Advent” can be dropped from the name of that paper, without danger of their being accused of inconsistency even by Seventh-day Adventists! We ask not for “a minute application;” we will be satisfied with general outlines, if they will only give a consistent exposition of Rev. 14: 6-14.

We feel no inclination to retort on the Times for its unkind misapplication of Col. 2:23. We have no hard words to utter, for we have no spirit of unkindness toward first-day Adventists. Among them we have many valued acquaintances, and we believe among them are many sincere worshippers of God, who are walking up to the light which they have thus far received. And we trust that many of them will take steps in advance of their present position when they see the light of fulfilling prophecy more clearly. We invite them to examine well their position; to mark the relation of the messages of Rev. 14 to the coming of the Son of man upon the white cloud to reap the harvest of the earth, and to mark, in Rev. 16, the relation of the seven last plagues both to the third angel’s message and to the second advent. And viewing this relation, seeing that this third angel’s message is the last message of warning to the world before the advent, can you trust to be led by those who, while professing to be Adventists, confess that they have no light on this message? Will you suffer your prejudices to be aroused by insinuations about “legal bondage,” when the message clearly unites the commandments of God AND the faith of Jesus? With Paul, we “delight in the law of God after the inward man,” and with him affirm that we do not make void the law through faith. Rom. 3:31. We have learned that the carnal mind is not and cannot be subject to the law of God; but we have also found that being justified by faith, the carnal mind of enmity against God is removed, and we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we love the law and consent that it is holy, and just, and good; through him we are led to obey, and clothed with ability to walk in the divine precepts. To him be all the glory for our present obedience and our hope of future salvation.

Brethren, the Lord is coming, and the earth will soon be reaped. The fruit of our lives will soon be made manifest. This advent truth of Rev. 14: 9-14 will soon meet you, if you put it away from you now. It will be honored, either now or when the wrath of God falls upon the world. We beseech you to heed the warning to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, that you may be accounted worthy to escape those things which are coming upon the earth, and to stand before the Son of man. This is a solemn time, and we have a solemn message. When Jesus closes the work of his priesthood, there will be no further room for preparation. He will say, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still,” at the same time that he says, “Behold, I come quickly.” And that time is near—fearfully near to all who will not heed the warning in mercy given; but gloriously near to all who get the victory over the beast and his image, and his mark, and the number of his name.

J. H. Waggoner.

Armada, Mich., Oct. 10, 1874.

Continue reading: Ecclesiastical Littleness