Review and Herald, Vol. 22, No. 18.
The Mark of the Beast, and Seal of thePage 1
Earlier text: The Mark of the Beast, and Seal of theLessons for Bible Students.
(PROPHECY OF DANIEL, PP. 14-27.) 1. In communicating instruction to the children of men, what has it pleased God to give? 2. For what purpose has he given us waymarks along the stream of time? 3. In what year did Daniel have his vision of the four beasts? p. 16, near bottom. 4. What is denoted in that vision by the "four winds?" 5. What does the great sea denote? 6. What was the result of the four winds' striving upon the great sea? 7. What are these four beasts explained to be? 8. What are they called in verse 23? 10. What was the first beast seen by Daniel, like? 11. What was represented by this beast? 12. What did the eagles' wings represent? 13. To what may the plucking of these wings refer? 14. What was the second beast like? 15. What is signified by its raising itself up on one side? 16. To what kingdom does this symbol apply? 17. For what was the Medo-Persian kingdom noted? 18. What did the three ribs in its mouth symbolize? 19. Over how many provinces did the Persian king, Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes, reign? 20. What was the third beast? 21. What kingdom was represented by this symbol? 22. What did the four wings denote? 23. What was denoted by the four heads? 24. What kind of a beast did Daniel next behold? 25. How many horns had this beast? 26. What change took place among his horns? 27. What event did the prophet behold next in order, as recorded in verses 9, 10? 28. Of what have we here a most vivid description? 29. What became of this fourth beast? 30. Is there anything said about the dominion of this beast being taken away? 31. What is said of the dominion of the other beasts? Verse 12. 32. How was this fulfilled in Babylon, Persia, and Greece? 33. What is said in verses 13, 14? 34. When does this prove that the kingdom of God is set up? 35. Is there any room for a temporal millennium before the kingdoms of this world are destroyed? 36. What kingdom was symbolized by the fourth beast? p. 21, first paragraph. 37. What was denoted by the ten horns? 38. What is the character of the little horn that arises after them? 39. Where else is the same character described? 41. Are Daniel's "little horn," Paul's "Man of Sin," and John's "blasphemous beast," identical? 43. What establishes the blasphemous character of that power? 44. Did Pope Innocent III claim that Christ had set one man over the world as his vicegerent, and that that man was the Pope? 45. Did Pope Gregory say that the Roman Pontiff was by right alone universal? 46. It is said that this horn should think to change times and laws; what laws are here referred to? 47. Why may not human laws be meant here? 48. What has the Roman power done in fulfillment of this part of the prophecy? 49. When did this little horn arise? 50. What three kingdoms were plucked up before it? 51. When was the last of these kingdoms, the Ostrogoths, plucked up? 52. When the Ostrogoths left Rome in the possession of the Greek emperor, March, 538, for what was the way open? p. 24, near bottom. 53. How long was this power to continue? 54. Was the dominion of the Papacy taken away at the end of that period? 55. By whom was it accomplished? 56. What became of the Pope? 57. Although a new Pope was chosen, and the Papacy restored, in a measure, has the Pope power now, as formerly, to depose kings, and put the saints to death? 58. Is the Papacy even obliged to tolerate Protestantism? 59. In ascertaining our whereabouts in the prophetic chain, we inquire, Have we passed the lion, or Babylon? 60. Have we passed the bear, with three ribs in his mouth? 61. Has the leopard, with his four wings and four heads, been passed? 62. Has the dreadful and terrible beast been seen? 63. Have we passed the little horn, having eyes, like the eyes of a man? The Tent Meeting in Alfred Center, N. Y.
By James White
ELDER JAMES WHITE, Dear Sir: A mutual friend has put into my hands a copy of the Review and Herald, bearing date Aug. 18, 1863, containing an article written by Eld. J. N. Andrews, containing an account of a meeting held by him and others in the vicinity of Alfred Center, beginning July 10 and ending August 2. As there are several errors in said article, I write this note in order as far as I may, to correct them. It is however my purpose to notice only those which seem to be most important, leaving the others to correct themselves. In this account I do not include the controversy between him and a certain "Professor" leaving them to settle that matter entirely between themselves. I also desire it to be distinctly understood that I do not represent Elder Andrews as intending to misrepresent in the matters I shall notice. I account for his errors of statement in this way. Eld. A. really knows but little of the people in this town, and of that little scarcely anything save what has come to him from persons somewhat alienated in their feelings and excited by the spirit of religious partisan controversy. He was also evidently chafed in his own feelings on account of the not very flattering manner in which his labors in the Advent interest were received here. Besides I find that almost always the infirmities of human nature are such that when a partisan attempts the duties of a reporter, he is likely at least to color questions of interest rather highly in his own favor. The several points I propose to notice are as follows. 1. Eld. Andrews in his letter says, "The Professors of the University are mostly Sabbatarian Ministers" &c., &c. Of the four Professors in the University at the time of his writing only one was a Sabbatarian Minister. 2. He further says, "The extent and bitterness of the prejudice that there prevailed against our views," &c., That the views of the Christians of this Town are in opposition to those of the Adventists in several important particulars I admit: that they are earnestly so too, to some extent may also be true. But that there is anything to justify the use of that strong term "bitterness" I think I am abundantly justified in denying. 3. "The most determined efforts were made to hedge up our way. We applied for a small piece of141 ground consisting of gravel and stones and almost destitute of vegetation and of no possible use to the owner. This he refused us though a very free-hearted man, simply because told to do so by his religious guides." There is here another mistake. The "religious guides" of this man told him no such thing. They told him most distinctly that he must act entirely upon his own judgment in the matter. It is not here pretended that the views of these "guides" as to their own obligations in no way influenced the judgment of this "very free-hearted man" but that they refused to take any responsibility as to the "ground" under consideration is a fact. The gentleman referred to, takes the entire responsibility of his own act in the premises. 4. The letter further says "For our doctrines and purposes were so effectually and industriously misrepresented that a large part of the community were induced to covenant together not to attend the meetings." I am glad to be able to say that no such "covenant" was made by the "people." The statement is entirely founded in error.
N. V. HULL.
Alfred Center, Sept. 11, 1863. REMARKS. A few words in reply to the points above enumerated. 1. I may be incorrect in stating that "the Professors in the University are mostly Sabbatarian ministers." If so it was not a willful misstatement. But the case as I understand it is this: Prof. Kenyon, the head of the institution, is pastor of a S. D. B. church. Prof. Allen bears the title of D. D. and preaches now and then especially on important occasions. Of the other two Professors I had the idea, perhaps an incorrect one, that one sustained a relation to the Sabbatarian ministry, similar to that of Prof. Allen. But if I was mistaken in this last case it is less inexcusable than the present statement of Eld. H. that but one of the Professors is a Sabbatarian minister. Only one of them is a pastor of a S. D. B. church, but two of them certainly are preachers of high standing in the denomination. But not to dispute about words I will state precisely what idea I wished to convey. It was that this University is under the control of the S. D. B. denomination and that for the sake of first-day patronage it is made to exert an influence deleterious to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. I am persuaded that Eld. H. himself will not deny this fact. If he does not, there is no controversy between us on the first point. 2. That bitterness did exist in many minds—I am far from saying in all—we have the amplest proof. I will come to particulars if required so to do, but otherwise choose to forbear. 3. It was not my intention to upbraid these "religious guides" as forbidding the gentleman in question to let us have the piece of ground. What I did mean to convey was this, that when he referred the matter to them for advice their influence led him to refuse us. Even Eld. H.'s language above, pretty strongly implies that such was the case. But if the owner of the ground assumes all the responsibility of refusing it, it is very evident that his "religious guides," on their own showing, would have done the same thing had the ground been theirs. 4. As to the misrepresentation of our doctrine, I need only say that it was set forth as Mormonism, Sadduceeism and infidelity. That there was a tacit understanding and agreement among the members of the churches in that vicinity as a whole, that they would not attend the tent meeting I was repeatedly informed. I referred to this thing publicly, and in private conversation while in Alfred Center, and do not remember that one individual denied the fact. Finally I am not conscious of writing under the influence of such motives as Eld. H. assigns. I have set down nothing in malice, but I have called attention to an alarming fact that this Sabbatarian school of science and theology and the able Sabbatarian ministry surrounding it, do occupy a position that makes the Sabbath of the fourth commandment a non-essential in the eyes of those who observe the first-day of the week. O that they might regard the Saviour's warning: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place except thou repent." Rev. ii, 5.
J. N. ANDREWS. A Promise.
By D. M. Canright
“SURELY the wrath of man shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” Here is a blessed promise for the faithful child of God. Oppressed and persecuted, perhaps a decree has gone forth that his goods shall be forfeited, his family disgraced, and himself slain, unless he will renounce his God and his religion. This promise assures him that it will be to the praise of the Lord if he suffers; and that beyond this God will restrain his enemies. Trusting to this, he can say with the three Hebrew children, “Be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods.” And well may he trust him; for “the Lord is not slack concerning his promise,” but ever has a watchful care to the fulfillment of his word. Thousands of instances are upon record where God has verified this promise to his children, when, according to all human calculations, the wrath of man must have swallowed them up. This was the case with Daniel, with the three Hebrew children, with Paul and Silas, and with John, the beloved disciple. These bore with faith and meekness the wrath of man, and God delivered them and brought honor to his name. The most mighty kings of the earth in all ages have lifted their hands against the Lord's children; yet he has always delivered them, to the utter shame and confusion of their enemies. Thus the emperor Charles V, of Spain, the most potent monarch of Europe at that time, employed all his resources to put down and exterminate the Protestants, who were but a handful of seemingly defenseless men. But their defender was the God of heaven. They relied upon his promises, and he did not forsake them. All the efforts of Charles were unavailing. When he slew one a score were raised up in his place. Charles, after spending the most of his life in warring against God's people, became discouraged, gave up the contest, and abdicated his throne? In his instructions to his son he warned him not to meddle with religion, and referred him to his own fruitless efforts against it. Hume relates an interesting incident of Tyndale. About the time of the Reformation he made a translation of the Bible into English, and put out an edition. But becoming more familiar with the original, he wished to make a new translation which should be more correct. He was very poor. How to obtain the requisite means for this new translation he did not know. But the wrath of man came to his assistance. A certain Catholic bishop was much incensed against these Protestant Bibles, and resolved to destroy them all. So he sent out his agents, bought up all of Tyndale's Bibles, and burned them. I suppose he then congratulated himself that he had struck a mighty blow against Protestantism; but he was sadly mistaken; for by the sale of his Bibles, Tyndale was supplied with means to prosecute the work which he so much desired to perform. “Surely the wrath of man shall praise thee.” Indeed, we see the same thing illustrated almost every day before our eyes. Many honest souls have had their eyes opened to the present truth by the bitter and malicious opposition of its enemies. Meeting in Nile, N. Y.
By D. T. Fero
Bro. WHITE: The regular conference meeting of the church in Alleghany Co. commenced Sabbath eve, Sept. 11. The meetings were superseded by those at the tent, while it was pitched in this vicinity, as all God's people here had become anxious to enjoy a social interchange of experiences and feeling, and to seek the blessing of God unitedly, to enable them to carry on the work which is assigned the "remnant." There was a general attendance of the church in this county, and quite a representation from Potter Co. Pa. Sabbath evening was occupied in prayer and conference, in which a good degree of the spirit of the Lord was manifested. Sabbath A. M., we were addressed by Bro. Fuller, after social meeting, from 1 John iii, 1-3, particularly the 3d. verse. His remarks led us to deep heart searching, to know if we were indeed the sons of God. P. M. He spoke from Titus ii, 12-14 particularly the 13th. After giving the meaning of the word "hope" he proceeded to examine the hope of those who are looking for the soon coming of the Lord—reminding us earnestly of the danger of coming up to the judgment with a false hope—and instructing us how best to impress upon the minds of unbelievers the security of those who rest upon the hope set forth in the gospel. First-day eve, after a short discourse by Bro. Lanphear from the words "Fear not little flock &c." the time was occupied in conference in which the blessings of the Spirit were given without measure, and many burning testimonies were given. With this the devotional part of the meeting closed. First-day morning during business meeting, eight were added to the church by vote. One sister is keeping the commandments, as the result of the tent-meeting here. God is working for this people and greatly blessing them, and while the work is going on, Satan is trying142 with all the power of which he is master, to bring in divisions and scatter the flock. O may the church come up where God can work for them, so that his glorious truth may shine forth in all its beauty, his great name be glorified, and his people be prepared to meet their glorious king, whose coming is near at hand. Brethren let us arise. Nile, N. Y. Sept. 15, 1863. SAYS one, is the answer of a good conscience. Says another, it is for the remission of sins. Another asserts, that baptism is a mere form of sprinkling, to be applied to infants. Another holds, that the water should be poured upon the subject. Another concludes, that the forms of water baptism, are all done away with the law, the Sabbath, &c. and with one single blow, he sweeps away all outward forms, and decides, that all are at liberty to do as they please, only believe. Another says, that baptism is a baptism of the spirit. In fact, there is a perfect Babel of views on this subject among religionists. But what is the meaning of this ceremony of baptism? We turn from tradition to the word of the Lord. By reading Romans vi, 3–9, and Col. ii, 12, it will be seen, that Paul considered baptism as connected with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. First, death to sin; the old man is slain with his deeds, crucified; dead with Christ; see Rom. vi, 8, crucified, Verse 6. Second, buried with him by baptism into death. As he was completely buried in the earth, so the convert is immersed, wholly buried. See verse 4, and Col. ii, 12. Nothing short of complete immersion will carry out this idea. Third, raised up out of the water, as a figure of Christ's resurrection. Rom. vi, 5; Col. ii, 12. Here, then, is a ceremony, which fully sets forth to the beholders, the faith of the baptized convert in the death burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus; a doctrine as unpopular and absurd, in the apostolic age, as the keeping of the ten commandments is now, in the 19th century. And this ordinance, is as binding now as ever, but as it is not very much opposed by the religious world, it cannot be as severe a test, as some other more hated and opposed doctrines. Still it is as clearly enforced and obligatory as any. He who is baptized thus into Christ's death, Rom. v, 1, 3, is baptized for the dead; see 2 Cor. xv, 29; that is, "into Christ's death" and fully understanding the import of the ceremony, he thus answers a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. See 1 Peter iii, 21. Hence it is clear, that the true Christian, the commandment keeper, will not be slow to obey the ordinance of baptism, for the remission of sins. How for the remission of sins? Simply this. The immersed convert by thus manifesting his belief in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, does so state to the world, that he believes in, and accepts the plan of salvation, which is built upon these three facts, Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Prove these facts, and the New Testament stands. Disprove them, and it fails. As the law of God is the faith and substance of the Old Testament, so the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, is the heart of the New. Glory to God, that under the proclamation of the third message, the connection existing between the law of God and the sufferings of Jesus, and his victory, has been so clearly set forth; and the greater woe to him who closes heart, and eye, and ear, to the charms of truth. The Two-horned Beast.
By T. M. Steward
[BRO. WHITE: This piece I wrote in reply to a piece printed in the Lafayette County Independent against my sermon on the two-horned beast. I sent it to their office, and they would not receive it into their paper. Quite a number of the people here take the Review, and if you will give it a place in our paper, you will oblige me and others.
Yours, striving for life. T. M. STEWARD.] To the Editor of the Lafayette County Independent, Darlington, Wis.: I want to correct some misrepresentations in your issue of Aug. 15th. We claim no right, neither do we wish, to distort the history of the past, to make an application of the two-horned beast to this government. The government is here, and its character is established, and perfectly corresponds to the symbol of the beast of Rev. xiii, 11. And whatever cause prompted our forefathers in coming to this country, it still remains a fact that they did come. You say, "Our brother stated that the New England Puritans were driven to this country by the persecution of Catholics." Here you mistake. I did say that under the oppressive reign of the beast (the civil power of England), they achieved the wonderful project of launching out on the trackless ocean, and braved the surges of the mighty deep to find an asylum for themselves and their children, and by the aid of divine providence they landed on Plymouth Rock. Now this I regard as true, and will give you a quotation from the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, p. 993: "The persecutions carried on against the Puritans during the reign of Elizabeth, and the Stuarts, served to lay the foundation of a new empire, and eventually a vast republic, in this western world. Hither, as into a wilderness, they fled from the face of their persecutors, and being protected in the free exercise of their religion, continued to increase, until at length they became an independent nation." This is my idea exactly. Again you say, "He states that they were the founders of civil liberty in this country." Now why not take it just as I stated it? My statement all can remember. There they planted the standard of equal rights. That this is true, I submit to history. These facts may be found interspersed among all our school readers. I will give one quotation: "One of the most prominent features which distinguished our forefathers, was their determined resistance to oppression. They seemed born and brought up, for the high and special purpose of showing to the world that the civil and religious rights of man, the rights of self-government, of conscience and independent thought, are not merely things to be talked of and woven into theories, but to be adopted with the whole strength and ardor of the mind, and felt in the profoundness of the heart, and carried out into the general life, and made the foundation of practical usefulness, and visible beauty and true nobility." Again you ask if "our brother is to be understood as saying that the constitution declares all men free and equal?" No; neither did I say it, unless by a slip of the tongue. I did repeat what may be found in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." You say, "He stated that Congress passed a law soon after the adoption of the constitution, prohibiting the traffic in slaves after twenty years." Here you are again in error. My statement was that those who hold slaves were given twenty years to adjust their business and arrange for the emancipation of their slaves; for at the termination of twenty years the slave traffic would be regarded as piracy. I will give a quotation from W. O. Blake's History of Slavery, p. 399: "The unrestrained power of Congress to enact navigation laws, was conceded to the northern merchants, and to the Carolina rice planters, as an equivalent, twenty years continuance of the African slave trade. This was the third great compromise of the constitution. * If this third compromise differed from the other two by involving not merely a political, but a moral sacrifice, there was this partial compensation about it; that it was not permanent, like the others, but expired at the end of twenty years by its own limitation." See also Hildreth's History of the United States, and Political History of the United States. That they intended slavery to cease at the end of the twenty years, is evident from another quotation from the same book, p. 402. "Cotemporary history proves that it was the belief of at least a large portion of the delegates that slavery could not long survive the stoppage of the slave trade, which was expected to (and did) occur in 1808." See Art. 5 of Amendments to the Constitution. "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the constitution slaves are called persons. So they can claim protection from this article. Again you say, "He stated that the constitution guaranteed the full exercise of conscience. Where does he find that law?" I find it in the Amendments to the Constitution, Art. 1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The congressional committee of 1830, on the intent of the constitution report: "The constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual than of a whole community." Again you ask, "By what logic does he claim to be absolved from all obligation to human law?" My logic is this: when human law conflicts with divine law, or God's law, I regard my obligation to God paramount to all human obligation. "Whether it be right to hearken unto men more than unto God, judge ye." That this government is controlled by two powers, civil and religious combined, no man that knows anything about the relations of church and state, will deny. Still with all you have said, we have the two-horned beast, a fair symbol of this government. Is God ever Blasphemed by our Prayers?
By M. W. Howard
OFTEN while listening to prayers offered in the worship of God, does the little line in an old spelling-book, "Blasphemy is the contemptuous treatment of God"—stand clearly out before my mental vision, while creeping over me is a shudder at the audacity of him who is ostensibly leading the devotions of others. What is prayer? Is it the breathing forth of the heart's desire to God; accompanied with confessions of our guilt, and with ascriptions of praise to his holy name? or, is it a convenient manner of communicating information to the Omnipresent, and thus incidentally to the audience? I remember once kneeling around a family altar, when I would fain have joined with devotional feelings, but he who led our devotions went off in a long list of doctrines, forgetful that God's word should ever be the teacher not the taught. As the oft-repeated phrase, "We know," fell from his lips, I could but query mentally, How? The Bible does not so inform us! Not long ago I was reminded of this forgotten scene, by a pulpit prayer. Yet the minister's prayer had this redeeming feature, though he advanced equally unscriptural views, instead of blasphemously asserting "We know," he more prudently said, "We understand," so and so. The spirit that prompted each, might have been the same; yet I honored the seeming modesty, that only offended God, with the assertion that his purposes, were thus and thus understood. In each case, I was pained at such audacity, yet my heart whispered, "Wait!" There is great power in patience. The Lord himself with all power in his hands is yet "long-suffering." But be it remembered, that God's forbearance ere long reaches its appointed bounds. And the point may come when our forbearance will cease to be a virtue, when we should, Stand up! stand up for Jesus,
And strength to strength oppose.
It is my misfortune, if in my remarks, I give offense to any. And though I may bring down denunciation upon myself, if I arouse one to require proof for what they believe, I shall not have written in vain. For every-body should be acquainted with the great religious veins of thought, and it is dangerous in such times as the present, to suppress inquiry and stifle discussion. It is dangerous, to create the impression on the public mind, that religious theories are afraid or unwilling to be subjected to the severest scrutiny. The practical, matter-of-fact element of the nineteenth century demands this scrutiny, nor will it much longer brook theoretical concealments and incongruities, as the fast-increasing infidelity of the age clearly indicates. Malone, N. Y., Sept., 1863. Letters.
By L. G. Bostwick
"Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another." BRO. WHITE: Having often been revived in my spiritual warfare by reading the letters in the Review, it would be a pleasure to me to speak to those of like precious faith. It is about two years since I started in this blessed cause; and I feel stirred within when I look back and see how many times I have wandered out of the straight and narrow path. I feel that I must gird on the armor much closer in order to be able to stand at last with God's people. We are truly living in the last days. Signs are fulfilling on every hand, and everything goes to show that soon, very soon, God will gather together all those that love him. My earnest desire is to be ready, to have on the wedding garment, and be adorned with a meek and quiet spirit, that when Jesus comes I may enter into the marriage supper of the Lamb. We are living in perilous times, and are forming characters for eternity. Yes, the last warning message of mercy is now being proclaimed to fallen man; and I feel like heeding the warning voice, lest I be sifted out by the way, and at last have no place in that everlasting kingdom. My continual inquiry is, Shall143 I be among the number that will be able to stand when our blessed Redeemer shall appear? I long to see the time when the people of God will all be united as one. I believe the Lord is at work for his people, and will help all those who will try to help themselves. Dear brethren and sisters, let us arise and heed the gathering call which is now going forth. If we do, the latter rain will be shed upon us which will enable us to stand in the day of trouble such as never was since there was a nation. I humbly ask an interest in your prayers, that I may be found running with patience the race that is set before me, and adorn the profession I make with a holy life and a godly conversation, and at last be found among the number that shall enter through the gates into the city. Lynnville, Crawford Co., Wis., Sept. 15, 1863. Shall I be There?
By C. M. Willis.
WHEN the great white throne appears,
When the Son of man draws near,
When the saints meet in the air,
Shall I be there? When we hear with glad surprise,
The last trumpet rend the skies;
While the dead in Christ arise;
Shall I be there? When lost friend with friend shall meet,
And with joy their Saviour greet,
Worshiping at his dear feet,
Shall I be there? When God's glory is revealed,
And his people all are sealed,
All their woes and sorrows healed,
Shall I be there? When the new Jerusalem
Shall come down to dwell with men,
And the ransomed enter in,
Shall I be there? Oh a great work must be done,
To prepare me for that home:
All before my Lord shall come
To take his own. But the blood of Christ alone
Can for my deep guilt atone,
Fit, O fit me, blessed One,
To enter there. C. M. Willis.
Charlotte, Mich.