Prophecy, History, The Unknown

  

Rev. 13--   16   And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:   17   And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Daniel and Revelation- Revelation Chapter 13-  (by Uriah Smith 1897-1907) Excerpt-     

My note--  (History--  is this applicable for today?  It is history so it WAS applicable to the time is was written. It does NOT negate the prophecy.  The prophecy is real, it will come to pass and we can see things working. This isn't the first time in Biblical history that things changed… remember Jonah?

Jon 1:1  Now the word of the LORD came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,

Jon 1:2  Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry against it; for their wickedness is come up before me.

Jon 1:3  But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish: so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

Jon 1:4  But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.

The story goes, Jonah didn't want to go, but he ends up going.

Jon 3:4  And Jonah began to enter into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

Jon 3:5  So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.

Here Jonah is preaching that in 40 days the city will be overthrown.  Was it?

Jon 3:10  And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

No.  Yet Jonah preached it would happen.

Our God is an exacting God and His word of truth will come to pass.  Do we know exactly HOW it will all come to pass? No. We can see the signs, the Holy Spirit will guide us in all understanding. Now please, read the history with the understanding that full comprehension will come as it is needed. We can do an update on all this after we get through with the book or as the Spirit leads. By the will and grace of our God!*******

(Excerpt)

13.  The Closing Work. - We have now seen what would properly constitute an image to the beast, such as the two-horned beast is to erect, and also the probability that such an image will soon be perfected in this country; and we have also learned what constitutes the mark of the beast, which is to be enforced upon all the people. An ecclesiastical organization composed of a greater or less number of the different sects of our land, with some degree of coalition also between these bodies and Roman Catholicism, together with the promulgation and enforcement of a general Sunday-sabbath law, would fulfil what the prophecy sets forth in reference to the image and the mark of the beast; and these movements, or their exact equivalent, the prophecy calls for. The line of argument leading to these conclusions is so direct and well-defined that there is no avoiding them. They are a clear and logical sequence from the premises given us.

When the application of Rev. 13:11-17 to the United States was first made, as early as the year 1850, these positions respecting a union of the churches and a grand Sunday movement were taken. But at that time no sign appeared above or beneath, at home or abroad, - no token was seen, no indication existed, that such an issue would ever be made. But there was the prophecy, and that must stand. The United States government had given abundant evidence, by its location, the time of its rise, the manner of its rise, and its apparent character, that it was the power symbolized by the two-horned beast. There could be no mistake in the conclusion that it was the very nation intended by that symbol. This being so, it

p 609 -- must take the course and perform the acts foretold. But here were predictions which could be fulfilled by nothing less than the above-named movement respecting church and state, and the enforcement of the papal Sabbath as a mark of the beast.

To take the position at that time that this government was to pursue such a policy and engage in such a work, without any apparent probability in its favor, was no small act of faith. On the other hand, to deny or ignore it, while admitting the application of the symbol to this government, would not be in accordance with either Scripture or logic. The only course for the humble, confiding student of prophecy to pursue in such cases is to take the light as it is given, and believe the prophecy in all its parts. So the stand was boldly taken; and open proclamation has been made from that day to this, that such a work would be seen in the United States. With every review of the argument, new features of strength have been discovered in the application; and amid a storm of scornful incredulity we have watched the progress of events, and awaited the hour of fulfilment.

Meanwhile, Spiritualism has astonished the world with its terrible progress, and shown itself to be the wonder-working element which was to exist in connection with this power. This has mightily strengthened the force of the application. And now, within a few years past, what have we further seen? - No less than the commencement of that very movement respecting the formation of the image, and the enactment of Sunday laws, which we have so long expected, and which is to complete the prophecy and close the scene.

Reference has already been made to the movement to secure a union of the churches for the purpose of adding strength and influence to ecclesiastical movements in certain directions. And now a class of men is suddenly springing up all over the land whose souls are absorbed with the cognate idea of Sunday reform, and who have dedicated themselves, heads, hands, and pockets, to the carrying forward of this kindred movement. Organizations called Sabbath Committees have been formed in various places, and have labored zealously, by means of books, tracts, speeches, and sermons, to create a strong public sentiment

p 610 -- in behalf of Sunday. Making slow progress through moral suasion, they seek a shorter path to the accomplishment of their purposes through political power. And why not? Christianity has become popular, and her professed adherents are numerous. Why not avail themselves of the power of the ballot to secure their ends? Rev. J. S. Smart (Methodist), in a published sermon on the Political Duties of Christian Men and Ministers, expresses a leading sentiment on this question, when he says: -

"I claim that we have, and ought to have, just as much concern in the government of this country as any other men.... We are the mass of the people. Virtue in this country is not weak; her ranks are strong in numbers, and invincible from the righteousness of her cause, - invincible if united. Let not her ranks be broken by party names." 

In accordance with the logical development of these feelings, an association has been formed, now called "The National Reform Association," which has for its object the securing of legal enactments for religious institutions, by means of such an amendment to the national Constitution as shall "place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages of the government on an undeniable legal basis in the fnndamental law of the land." Here is the germ of religious revolution, the entering wedge of church and state.

This movement originated at Xenia, Ohio, in February, 1863, in a convention composed of eleven different religious denominations, who assembled for prayer and conference.

To be sure the leaders in this movement disclaim vehemently any such purpose as a union of church and state; but a sentence now and then escapes them which reveals more than they intended. Thus, at a convention of this association in Pittsburg, Pa., Dr. Stevenson, one of these leaders, said: -

"Through the immense largesses it receives from corrupt politicians, the Roman Catholic Church is, practically, the established church of the city of New York. These favors are granted under the guise of a seeming friendliness to religion. We propose to put the substance for the shadow, - to drive out the counterfeit by the more complete substitution of the true."

p 611 -- There are several guess-roads through which we may look for the intent of this language; but inasmuch as they all arrive at one conclusion, this conclusion is neither ambiguous nor doubtful; it is simply that the Protestant Church shall become really established, as the Roman Catholic now is practically. This is confirmed by the very next sentence, which reads:  

"What we propose is nothing of a sectarian character. It will give no branch of American Christians any advantage over any other."

Professor Blanchard undertakes to give a definition of what they mean by a "union of church and state," as follows: -

"But union of church and state is the selection by the nation of one church, the endowment of such a church, the appointment of its officers, and the oversight of its doctrines. For such a union, none of us plead. To such a union we are all of us opposed."

The reader is requested to mark this well. Here is given a definition of a union of church and state such as no one expects or fears; such, in fact, as is not possible in the existing state of the churches, and then a special plea is set up that they are opposed to a union of church and state! To such an impossible combination as they describe, they may safely write themselves opposed; but to a union of church and state in the popular sense of the phrase, - a union, not of one church, but of all the churches recognized as orthodox, or evangelical, - a union not giving the state power to elect church officers nor to take the oversight of church doctrines, but giving the churches the privilege of enforcing, by civil laws, institutions and usages of religion, according to the faith of the churches, or to the construction put upon those institutions and usages by the churches, - to such a union, we say, they are not opposed. They are essentially and practically, despite their professions, open advocates of a union of church and state.

We are not alone in this view of the subject. Mr. G. A. Townsend (New World and Old, p. 212) says: -

"Church and state has several times crept into American politics, as in the contentions over the Bible in the public schools, the anti-Catholic party of 1844, etc. Our people

p 612 -- have been wise enough heretofore to respect the clergy in all religious questions, and to entertain a wholesome jealousy of them in politics. The latest politico-religious movement [italics ours] is to insert the name of the Deity in the Coustitution." 

The Christian Union, January, 1871, said: -

"If the proposed amendment is anything more than a bit of sentimental cant, it is to have a legal effect. It is to alter the status of the nonchristian citizen before the law. It is to affect the legal oaths and instruments, the matrimonial contracts, the sumptuary laws, etc., etc., of the country. This would be an outrage on natural right."

The Janesville (Wis.) Gazette, at the close of an article on the proposed amendment, speaks thus of the effect of the movement, should it succeed: -

"But, independent of the question as to what extent we are a Christian nation, it may well be doubted whether, if the gentlemen who are agitating this question should succeed, they would not do society a very great injury. Such measures are but the initiatory steps which ultimately lead to restrictions of religious freedom, and to commit the government to measures which are as foreign to its powers and purposes as would be its action if it should undertake to determine a disputed question of theology."

The Weekly Alta Californian, of San Francisco, March 12, I870, said: -

"The parties who have been recently holding a convention for the somewhat novel purpose of procuring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States recognizing the Deity, do not fairly state the case when they assert that it is the right of a Christian people to govern themselves in a Christian manner. If we are not governing ourselves in a Christian manner, how shall the doings of our government be designated? The fact is, that the movement is one to bring about in this country that union of church and state which all other nations are trying to dissolve."

The Champlain Journal, speaking of incorporating the re1igious

p 613 -- principle into the Constitution, and its effect upon the Jews, said: -

"However slight, it is the entering wedge of church and state. If we may cut off ever so few persons from the right of citizenship on account of difference of religious belief, then with equal justice and propriety may a majority at any time dictate the adoption of still further articles of belief, until our Constitution is but a text-book of a sect, beneath whose tyrannical sway all liberty of religious opinion will be crushed." 

But it may be asked how the Sunday question is to be affected by the proposed Constitutional Amendment. Answer:    The object, or, to say the least, one object of this amendment, is to put the Sunday institution on a legal basis, and compel its observance by the arm of the law. At the national convention held in Philadelphia, Jan.18, 19, 1871, the following resolution was among the first offered by the business committee: -

"Resolved, That, in view of the controlling power of the Constitution in shaping state as well as national policy, it is of immediate importance to public morals and to social order, to secure such an amendment as will indicate that this is a Chrristian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation, specially those which secure a proper oath, and which protect society against blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, and polygamy."

By Sabbath-breaking is meant nothing else but Sunday-breaking. In a convention of the friends of Sunday, assembled Nov. 29, 1870, in New Concord, Ohio, one of the speakers is reported to have said:      "The question [of Sunday observance] is closely connected with the National Reform Movement; for until the government comes to know God and honor his law, we need not expect to restrain Sabbath-breaking corporations." Here, again, the idea of the legal enforcement of Sunday observance stands foremost; and the same principle would apply equally to individuals.

Once more:   the Philadelphia Press of Dec. 5, 1870, Stated that some Congressmen arrived in Washington by Sunday

p 614 -- trains, December 4, on which the Christian Statesman commented as follows (we give italics as we find them): -

"1.   Not one of those men who thus violated the Sabbath is fit to hold any official position in a Christian nation....

"2.   The sin of these Congressmen is a national sin, because the nation hath not said to them in the Constitution, the supreme rule for our public servants, ' We charge you to serve us in accordance with the higher law of God.' These Sabbath-breaking railroads, moreover, are corporations created by the state, and amenable to it. The state is responsible to God for the conduct of these creatures which it calls into being. It is bound, therefore, to restrain them from this as from other crimes, and any violation of the Sabbath by any corporation should work immediate forfeiture of its charter. And the Constitution of the United States, with which all state legislation is required to be in harmony, should be of such a character as to prevent any state from tolerating such infractions of fundamental moral law.

"3.   Give us in the national Constitution the simple acknowledgment of the law of God as the supreme law of nations, and all the results indicated in this note will ultimately be secured. Let no one say that the movement does not contemplate sufficiently practical ends."

What these National Reformers desire and design to secure in their campaign, is expressed by one of the secretaries of said association, J. M. Foster, in the Christian Statesman, October, 1S92. He says: -

"But one danger lies in this: The church does not speak as a church. The American Sabbath Union has done a good work. The denominations have spoken. But the Christian organized church has not officially gone to Washington and spoken. The work there has been largely turned over to associations. But the voice of God, authoritative, official, is through his church. Should there not be joint action of the denominations in this? They should, it would appear, appoint a joint committee to speak for God; and properly and courageously done, there can follow but the very same results. ... Much is lost by the church failing officially to speak at the

p 615 -- right time, and in the right place. No association is clothed with this authority. They are individual and social; but the church is divine. She can, and ought to, utter the voice of God in the halls of Congress, as an organized church." 

The italics are as we find them; but other declarations in the foregoing extract are equally deserving of emphasis. It may well be questioned whether any more arrogant and pompous words were uttered previous to the setting up of the papacy itself. What they complain that they lack, they of course intend to have. And look at the picture:   The church (that is the different denominations, confederating on dogmas held in common, and represented by a "joint committee," - a central authority) is divine, and woe unto all dissenters from the authority of a divine church! So said Rome in its palmiest days of dungeons, stakes, and blood; so she would say to-day had she the power; and so apostatized Protestantism will say when it gets the power! And this "joint committee" is to "speak for God,"   "utter the voice of God" (a second vicegerent of the Most High, now claimed as a monopoly by the pope), and authoritatively and officially lay upon Congress the commands of God, for it to perform! Such are the dark schemes for which these men are now working. Alas, that the realization of them should now stand as an attainable prospect before their eyes! Did ever Rome ask for more? And when these would-be spokesmen for God secure their object, will it not be, we still ask, Rome over again in a Protestant garb - a very image of the beast itself'?

Within recent years the influence of the National Reform party has been rapidly on the increase. It has now become international in its scope, and at frequent intervals, holds world conventions, at which plans are laid to set up the National Reform ideal of government in all other countries where it does not already exist. To this end much is hoped for from the influence of Christian missionaries, many of whom have seemingly been captivated with the idea of converting heathen governments to Christianity, and see greater results to come from that than from the slow process of converting heathen individuals. At a world convention held in Philadelphia, in November,

p 616 -- 1910, the.following pronouncement was made on this point: -

"This conference expresses its appreciation of the fact that so many missionaries are alive to the importance of the kingship of Christ over the nations, and we urge upon all missionaries in all lands, the inculcation of these principles, and that they testify in their respective nations for the royal prerogative of Jesus in national life."

Among those who participated in the program at this convention, were F. E. Clark, president of the World's Christian Endeavor Union, Bishop Neely of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Rev. Dr. McCauley, district secretary of the Federal Council of Churches, Attorney John A. Paterson, of Toronto, representing the Canadian government, the Rev. David J. Burrell, president of the Alliance of Reformed Churches, besides missionaries from India and China, and from Roman and Greek Catholic countries. This affords striking evidence of the extent to which National Reform ideas have permeated the religious world.

*******

The Mark- Today? Tomorrow? Soon.

Rev. 13--   16   And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:   17   And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Daniel and Revelation- Revelation Chapter 13-  (by Uriah Smith 1897-1907) Excerpt-

Why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath?

Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable.

The matter would better stand as the prophecy has it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth would better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of God, and in due time that very power arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence?

The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and that out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it, then, be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popory to be discarded ere the reformation will be

p 605 -- complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Protestant sects, says:  -

"All of them retain in their bosom, - in their ecclesiastical organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, - various relics of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands."

The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of God is worthy of notice. True to his purpose to exalt himself above God, he undertakes to change that commandment which, of all others, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the lawgiver is, and contains his signature of royalty. The fourth commandment does this; no other one does.

 Four others, it is true, contain the word God, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord God of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment, it is impossible to tell; for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the multitudinous objects of their adoration.

With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false god are annulled at one stroke; for the God who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created all things. The maker of the earth and sea, the sun and moon, and all the starry host, the upholder and governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who, from his position, has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object. The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power which designed to exalt itself above God would undertake to change.

God gave the Sabbath as a memorial of himself, a weekly reminder to the sons of men of his work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against heathenism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal against atheism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal of the law. This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on its own authority, another institution, designed to serve another purpose. 

p 606 -- This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points, and the Sunday sabbath must be the mark of the beast! Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion. We have not space, nor is this, perhaps, the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition:    If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution, and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church, - is it not inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative. But these hypotheses are all certainties. 1

It will be said again, Then all Sunday-keepers have the mark of the beast; then all the good of past ages who kept this day had the mark of the beast; then Luther, Whitefield, the Wesleys, and all who have done a good and noble work of reformation, had the mark of the beast; then all the blessings that have been poured upon the reformed churches have been poured upon those who had the mark of the beast; and all Christians of the present day who are keeping Sunday as the Sabbath, have the mark of the beast. We answer, Not so! And we are sorry to say that some professedly religious teachers, though many times corrected, persist in misrepresenting us on this point. We have never so held; we have never so taught. Our premises lead to no such conclusions. Give ear:    The mark and worship of the beast are enforced by the two-horned beast. The receiving of the mark of the beast is a specific act which the two-horned beast is to cause to be done. The third message of Revelation 14 is a warning mercifully sent out in advance to prepare the people for the coming

1 -- See "History of the Sabbath," and other works on the subject. To these we can only refer the reader, in passing.

p 607 -- danger. There can therefore be no worship of the beast, nor reception of his mark such as the prophecy contemplates, till it is enforced by the two-horned beast. We have seen that intention was essential to the change which the papacy has made in the law of God, to constitute it the mark of that power; so intention is necessary in the adoption of that change to make it, on the part of any individual, the reception of that mark. In other words, a person must adopt the change knowing it to be the work of the beast, and receive it on the authority of that power, in opposition to the requirement of God.

But how is it with those mentioned above, who have kept Sunday in the past, and the majority of those who are keeping it to-day? Do they keep it as an institution of the papacy? - No. Have they decided between this and the Sabbath of our Lord, understanding the claims of each? - No. On what ground have they kept it, and on what do they still keep it? - They suppose they are keeping a commandment of God. Have such the mark of the beast? - By no means. Their course is attributable to an error unwittingly received from the Church of Rome, not to an act of worship rendered to it.

But how is it to be in the future? The church which is to be prepared for the second coming of Christ must be entirely free from papal errors and corruptions. A reform must hence be made on the Sabbath question.

 The third angel proclaims the commandments of God, leading men to the true in the place of the counterfeit. The dragon is stirred, and so controls the wicked governments of the earth that all the authority of human power shall be exerted to enforce the claims of the man of sin. Then the issue is fairly before the people. They are required to keep, on the one hand, the true Sabbath; on the other, a counterfeit. For refusing to keep the true, the message threatens the unmingled wrath of God; for refusing the false, earthly governments threaten them with persecution and death. With this issue before the people, what does he do who yields to the human requirement? - He virtually says to God, I know your claims, but I will not heed them. I know that the power I am required to worship is antichristian, but I yield to it to save my life. I renounce your allegiance, and

p 608 -- bow to the usurper. The beast is henceforth the object of my adoration; under his banner, in opposition to your authority, I henceforth array myself; to him, in defiance of your claims, I henceforth yield the obedience of my heart and life. 

Such is the spirit which will actuate the hearts of the beast-worshipers, - a spirit which insults the God of the universe to his face, and is prevented only by lack of power from overthrowing his government and annihilating his throne. Is it any wonder that Jehovah denounces against so Heaven-daring a course the most terrible threatening that his Word contains?

*******

Truth.

Are we receiving the mark now? Will we know definitively when it is given? We know that there is NO cheating ourselves into God's good graces.  We know there is no way we can live in sin willfully, wantonly, unrepentantly and jump into forgiveness when we think time is running out on us. What happens is all too often we do not KNOW when time will run out for any of us and by the time we decide to give up our cherished sins, it's too late.  So to look for a point in time when you know beyond a doubt you have to accept Christ fully as your Savior and follow His revealed truth is to look to Christ falsely. NOW is the day!

2Co 6:2  (For he saith, I have heard thee in a time accepted, and in the day of salvation have I succoured thee: behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.)

We cannot put off salvation, ever!

Please, Father, please bless us and keep us in YOU!  Help us to yield to You in ALL things to be totally YOURS, by YOUR power, YOUR love!

In the name of our Savior, Jesus Christ our Lord! 

Unauthorized Changes

Rev. 13--   16   And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:   17   And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Daniel and Revelation- Revelation Chapter 13-  (by Uriah Smith 1897-1907) Excerpt-

We now inquire what that change is. By the law of God, we mean the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, - the law of which Webster says, defining the term according to the sense in which it is almost universally used in Christendom,      "The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai."

If now the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms - we mean those portions specially devoted to instruction - that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two to make up the lack caused by leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books.

 Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them, if any, constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind, that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the

p 601 -- second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and hence should not be numbered as a separate commandment; and on the tenth they claim that there is so plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments - so they make the coveting of a neighbor's wife the ninth command, and the coveting of his goods the tenth.

In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood; so, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as professedly intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain. In a work entitled, Treatise of Thirty Controversies, we find these words: -

"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy; you [Protestants], without any precept of Scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose, against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of Scripture, where it is said, the first day of the week. Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn, for where was it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? or where is it ordained they should be always observed? or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate, or abolish, the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of these is expressed in the written word of God." 

In the Catechism of the Christian Religion, by Stephen Keenan (Boston, Patrick Donahue, 1857), p. 206, on the

p 602 -- subject of the third (fourth) commandment, we find these questions and answers: -

"Ques.- What does God ordain by this commandment?

"Ans.- He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation.

"Q.- What is this day of rest?

"A.- The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1; etc.

"Q.- Is it, then, Saturday we should sanctify, in order to obey the ordinance of God?

"A.- During the old law, Saturday was the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord."

In the Catholic Christian Instructed (J. P. Kenedy, New York, 1884), p. 202, we read:

"Ques.- What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday?

"Ans.- We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition.

"Q.- Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?

"A.- The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."

In the Doctrinal Catechism (Kenedy, New York), p. 174, we find further testimony to the same point: -

" Ques.- Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept?

"Ans.- Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her - she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

p 603 -- In Abridgment of Christian Doctrine (Kenedy, New York), p. 58, we find this testimony: - 

"Ques.- How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?

"Ans.- By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of! and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

"Q.- How prove you that?

"A.- Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin."

And finally, W. Lockhart, late B. A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Catholic) Mirror, offered the following "challenge" to all the Protestants of Ireland, - a challenge as well calculated for this locality as that. He says:  -

     "I do therefore solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, these questions concerning the obligations of the Christian Sabbath:   (1)   That Christians may work on Saturday, the old seventh day;   (2)   that they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday;   (3)   that they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also."

This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no Scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it as a token, or mark, of the authority of that church; the "very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday" being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a book entitled, The Change of the Sabbath, in which are also extracts from Catholic writers refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday-sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic Church. 

"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so, and it is natural that

p 604 -- they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such persons for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of errors. We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of God was to be made by the little horn of Daniel 7, the man of sin of 2 Thessalonians 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul, - a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto.

*******

To be continued.

This TRUTH must be known!

We can't forget that believing lies, refusing the truth, is something that will keep Christ from knowing millions of people who believe they are His.

By the grace of God may we be HIS! Believing ONLY His turth!

A law changed.

Rev. 13--   16   And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:   17   And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Daniel and Revelation- Revelation Chapter 13-  (by Uriah Smith 1897-1907)

    12.   The Mark of the Beast. - The two-horned beast enforces upon its subjects the mark of the first beast. We have now in the prophecy three agents introduced, which we must carefully distinguish from one another to avoid confusion.

      (1)   The papal beast. This power is designated as "the beast,"   "the first beast,"   "the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live," and "the beast whose deadly wound was healed." These expressions all refer to the same power; and wherever they occur in this prophecy, they have exclusive reference to the papacy.

       (2)     The two-horned beast. This power, after its introduction in verse 11 of chapter 13, is represented through the remainder of the prophecy by the pronoun he; and wherever this pronoun occurs, down to the 17th verse (with possibly the exception of the 16th verse, which perhaps may refer to the image), it refers invariably to the two-horned beast.

       (3)    The image of the beast. This is, every time, with the possible, but not probable, exception just stated, called the image; so that there is no danger of confounding this with any other agent.

The acts ascribed to the image are, speaking and enforcing the worship of itself under the penalty of death; and this is the only enactment which the prophecy mentions as enforced under the death penalty.

The mark of the beast is enforced by the two-horned beast, either directly or through the image. The penalty attached to a refusal to receive this mark is a forfeiture of all social privileges, a deprivation of the right to buy and sell. The mark is the mark of the papal beast. Against this worship of the beast and his image, and the reception of his mark, the third angel's message of Rev. 14:9-12 is a most solemn and thrilling warning.

This, then, is the issue, which, according to this prophecy, we are soon to be called upon to meet; namely, human organizations, controlled and inspired by the spirit of the dragon,

p 596 -- are to command men to do those acts which are in reality the worshiping of an apostate religious power and the receiving of his mark; and if they refuse to do this, they lose the rights of citizenship, and become outlaws in the land; and they must do that which constitutes the worship of the image of the beast, or forfeit their lives.

 On the other hand, God sends forth a message a little before the fearful crisis is upon us, as we shall see under chapter 14:9-12, declaring that all who do any of these things "shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation." He who refuses to comply with these demands of earthly powers exposes himself to the severest penalties which human beings can inflict; and he who does comply, exposes himself to the most terrible threatening's of divine wrath to be found in the word of God. The question whether they will obey God or man is to be decided by the people of the present age under the heaviest pressure, from either side, that has ever been brought to bear upon any generation. 

The worship of the beast and his image, and the reception of his mark, must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God, to call down so severe a denunciation of wrath against it. This is a work, as has already been shown, which takes place in the last days; and as God has given us in his word most abundant evidence to show when we are in the last days, that no one need be overtaken by the day of the Lord as by a thief, so, likewise, it must be that he has given us the means whereby we may determine what the receiving of the mark of the beast is, which he has so strongly condemned, that we may avoid the fearful penalty so sure to follow the commission of this act. God does not so trifle with human hopes and human destinies as to denounce a most fearful doom against a certain sin, and then place it out of our power to understand what that sin is, so that we have no means of guarding against it.

We therefore now call attention to the very important inquiry, What constitutes the mark of the beast? The figure of a mark is borrowed from an ancient custom. Bishop Newton (Dissertations on the Prophecies, Vol. III, p. 241) says: -

p 597 -- "It was customary among the ancients for servants to receive the mark of their master, and soldiers of their general, and those who were devoted to any particular deity, of the particular deity to whom they were devoted. These marks were usually impressed on their right hand or on their forehead, and consisted of some hieroglyphic character, or of the name expressed in vulgar letters, or of the name disguised in numerical letters, according to the fancy of the imposer."

Prideaux says that Ptolemy Philopater ordered all the Jews who applied to be enrolled as citizens of Alexandria to have the form of an ivy leaf (the badge of his god, Bacchus) impressed upon them with a hot iron, under pain of death. (Prideaux's Connection, Vol. II, p. 78.)

The word used for mark in this prophecy is Caragma (charagma), and is defined to mean, "a graving, sculpture; a mark cut in or stamped." It occurs nine times in the New Testament, and with the single exception of Acts 17:29, refers every time to the mark of the beast.

We are not, of course, to understand in this symbolic prophecy that a literal mark is intended; but the giving of the literal mark, as practiced in ancient times, is used as a figure to illustrate certain acts that will be performed in the fulfilment of this prophecy. And from the literal mark as formerly employed, we learn something of its meaning as used in the prophecy; for between the symbol and the thing symbolized there must be some resemblance.

The mark, as literally used, signified that the person receiving it was the servant of, acknowledged the authority of, or professed allegiance to, the person whose mark he bore. So the mark of the beast, or of the papacy, must be some act or profession by which the authority of that power is acknowledged. What is it? 

It would naturally be looked for in some of the special characteristics of the papal power.

Daniel, describing that power under the symbol of a little horn, speaks of it as waging a special warfare against God, wearing out the saints of the Most High, and thinking to change times and laws.

The prophet expressly specifies on this point: "He shall think to change times and laws." These laws must certainly be the

p 598 -- laws of the Most High.

To apply it to human laws, and make the prophecy read, "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change human laws," would be doing evident violence to the language of the prophet. But apply it to the laws of God, and let it read, "And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and laws of the Most High," and all is consistent and forcible.

The Hebrew has the word (dath), law, and the Septuagint reads, nomoV (nomos), in the singular, "the law," which more directly suggests the law of God.

 The papacy has been able to do more than merely "think " to change human laws. It has changed them at pleasure.

It has annulled the decrees of kings and emperors, and absolved subjects from allegiance to their rightful sovereigns. It has thrust its long arm into the affairs of nations, and brought rulers to its feet in the most abject humility. But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do what it was not able to do, but could only think to do; he sees it attempt art act which no man, nor any combination of men, can ever accomplish; and that is, to change the law of the Most High. Bear this in mind while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.

The apostle Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thessalonians 2; and he describes it, in the person of the pope, as "the man of sin," and as "sitting as God in the temple of God" (that is, the church), and as exalting himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped."

According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God.

And now we ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he can exalt himself above God.

Search through the whole range of human devices, go to the extent of human effort; by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but so long as God had requirements which

p 599 -- the people felt bound to regard in preference to his own, so long he would not be above God.

 He might enact a law, and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God; then he would only make himself equal with God. But he is to do more than this; he is to attempt to raise himself above him.

Then he must promulgate a law which conflicts with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own law in preference to God's law. There is no other possible way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of God; and if he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in the place of the original enactment, then he, the law-changer, is above God, the law-maker.

 And this is the very work that Daniel said he should think to do.

Such a work as this, then, the papacy must accomplish according to the prophecy; and the prophecy cannot fail. And when this is done, what do the people of the world have? - They have two laws demanding obedience, - one, the law of God as originally enacted by him, an embodiment of his will, and expressing his claims upon his creatures; the other, a revised edition of that law, emanating from the pope of Rome and expressing his will.

And how is it to be determined which of these powers the people honor and worship? - It is determined by the law which they keep.

If they keep the law of God as given by him, they worship and obey God.

 If they keep the law as changed by the papacy, they worship that power.

But further: the prophecy does not say, that the little horn, the papacy, should set aside the law of God, and give one entirely different. This would not be to change the law, but simply to give a new one. He was only to attempt a change, so that the law that comes from God, and the law that comes from the papacy, are precisely alike, excepting the change which the papacy has made in the former.

They have many points in common. But none of the precepts which they contain in common can distinguish a person as the worshiper of either power in preference to the other. If God's law says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the law as given by the papacy says the same, no one can tell by a person's observance of that

p 600 -- precept whether he designs to obey God rather than the pope, or the pope rather than God.

But when a precept that has been changed is the subject of action, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshiper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change.

 In no other way can the two classes of worshipers be distinguished. From this conclusion, no candid mind can dissent; but in this conclusion we have a general answer to the question, "What constitutes the mark of the beast?" and that answer is simply this:    The mark of the beast is the change which the beast has attempted to make in the law of God. 

*******

More on this very important truth- tomorrow- by the will of God!

All through the mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior, JESUS CHRIST! Now and forever! AMEN!

Political - Religious Image of the Beast

Rev 13:14  And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

Rev 13:15  And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Rev 13:16  And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Rev 13:17  And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Rev 13:18  Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

(Daniel and Revelation by Uriah Smith - 1897) Excerpts-- 

 11.   An Image to the Beast. - Closely associated with this working of miracles is the erection of an image to the beast. The prophet thus connects the two in verse 14: "And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast which had the wound by a sword, and did live."

The deception accomplished by the working of the miracles prepares the way for compliance with this demand for the formation of an image to the beast.

To understand what would be an image of the papacy, we must first gain some definite idea of what constitutes the papacy itself.

 The full development of the beast, or the establishment of papal supremacy, dates from the famous letter of Justinian, which was made effective in A. D. 538, constituting the pope the head of the church and the corrector of heretics. The papacy was a church clothed with civil power, - an ecclesiastical body having authority to punish all dissenters with confiscation of goods, imprisonment, torture, and death.

What would be an image of the papacy? - Another ecclesiastical establishment clothed with similar power. How could such an image be formed in the United States? Let the Protestant churches be clothed with power to define and punish heresy, to enforce their dogmas under the pains and penalties of the civil law, and should we not have an exact representation of the papacy during the days of its supremacy?

It may be objected that whereas the papal church was comparatively a unit, and hence could act in harmony in all its departments in enforcing its dogmas, the Protestant church is so divided as to be unable to agree in regard to what doctrines shall be made imperative on the people. The answer is, There are certain points which they hold in common, and which are

p 588 -- sufficient to form a basis of co-operation. Chief among these may be mentioned the doctrine of the conscious state of the dead and the immortality of the soul, which is both the foundation and superstructure of Spiritualism; and also the doctrine that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath. 

Let, now, an ecclesiastical organization be formed by these churches; let the government legalize such organization, and give it power (a power which it will not have till the government does grant it) to enforce upon the people the dogmas which the different denominations can all adopt as the basis of union, and what do we have? - Just what the prophecy represents, - an image to the papal beast, endowed with life by the two-horned beast, to speak and act with power.

And behold, just such an organization as this, a colossal union of the leading churches of this country, constituting the greatest and most powerful federation ever formed in the history of this nation, has within the last few years come into existence. The mere formation of such a confederacy, apart from any question of what is to come from it, is one of the greatest events of modern times; and indeed is hailed by its advocates as the greatest religious movement since the Reformation. And this great federation, it is to be noted, has been formed for the express purpose of controlling the politics and the legislation of the country, in the interests, as they view it, of Christianity. By such means they expect to bring the nation to Christ, and by the extension of the plan to other nations, usher in the kingdom of Christ on earth. That is what they say.

WEBMASTER'S NOTE: The printing of this book is 1897(1907), and it speaks of just the beginning of what we see today in the organization of the World Counsel of Churches and it's sub-organizations such as the National Counsel of Churches, and ministerial alliances, etc.

Let us note briefly the leading facts pertaining to the formation and present working of this mighty federation.

In the year 1900, a meeting of Protestant ministers was held in New York City, at which was organized the "National Federation of Churches." This was followed by the formation of state and local federations throughout the country.

Two years later, at a meeting of the organization in Washington, D. C., a committee of correspondence was chosen, which sent to all the leading Protestant churches in the United States, an address on "The Co-operative Relationship of the Churches

p 589 -- of Jesus Christ, in Christian Work." A call was made for "the concentration of effort for the removal of social evils, the cleansing of the centers of vice and corruption, and the promotion of temperance, Sabbath observance, and general morality."

By November, 1905, the plan of general federation was sufficiently advanced for the holding of the first general convention in Carnegie Hall, New York City, at which were present several hundred delegates representing all the leading Protestant churches in the United States. Denominations with a membership of 500,000 or more were allowed fifty delegates at the conference, while those with less than 100,000 membership were allowed five delegates each. In a speech of welcome on behalf of the churches of Greater New York, Dr. R. S. MacArthur said that the conference meant more to America and to the world than any other that had ever been held.

At another meeting, when the report on federation was under consideration, one speaker (Dr. Dickey) said: "I trust that one of the practical result of this conference will be the organization of a force that law-breakers and law-makers will respect and heed, when great questions of morals are involved. Our gospel is the fulfilment of the law. It is our province, in the name of our Supreme King, and seeking the good of mankind, to ask rulers to respect the church."

And at the final meeting of the conference, Bishop Hendrix, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, spoke of the nation as being the last product of the church, and of Christ as being the world's first citizen. "Christ," said the bishop, "is not a Saviour from the world, implying separation therefrom, but the Saviour of the world; and the kingdom of God is to come by the quiet processes of civic righteousness." 

The close of this convention saw the federation fully formed, and ready to begin its activities in the affairs of church and state. It embraced, according to official statements, thirty denominations, and eighteen million church communicants, representing a general following of fifty millions of people. The scope of its intended operations may be seen from the following official statement, which we quote from the Plan of Federation: -

p 590 --

(picture omitted)

p 591 -- "4.    To secure a large combined influence for the churches of Christ, in all matters affecting the moral and social condition of the people, so as to promote the application of the law of Chiist in every relation of human life."

The power of this church federation therefore will be felt "in all matters affecting the moral and social condition of the people," and "in every relation of human life;" which is to say that it will be felt in everything, and everywhere, throughout the nation.

In December, 1908, the first session of the federation, which took the name, "Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America," was held in Philadelphia. It gave attention to such ics as Week-day Instruction in Religion, Co-operation in Foreign Missions, State Federations, Local Federations, The Church and the Immigrant, The Church and Modern Industry, Temperance, Sunday Observance, Family Life, and International Relations. When the ic of Sunday Observance was reached, an unpremeditated incident occurred which drew aside the veil of outward Christian fellowship, and disclosed a different spirit dwelling in the inner sanctuary of the movement, and proved that the theory of federal unity was too weak to bear the strain of practice. A committee appointed to bring resolutions on Sunday observance before the council, presented the following: -

"1.     It is the sense of the council that a new and stronger emphasis should be given in the pulpit, the Sunday-school, and the home to the Scriptural observance of the first day of the week as the sacred day, the home day, the rest day for every man, woman, and child.

"2.     That all encroachments upon the claims and sanctities of the Lord's day should be stoutly resisted through the press, the Lord's day associations and alliances, and by such legislation as may be secured to protect and preserve this bulwark of our American Christianity.

"3.   That we rejoice in the prospect of unity of action among the various organizations striving in America for the preservation of the Lord's day as a day for rest and worship."

Evidently the Seventh-day Baptists, who had joined the

p 592 -- federation, could not well be expected to subscribe to such a declaration as this. An effort was accordingly made to preserve the fundamental idea of Christian unity and harmony in the council, by the following resolution which was offered for adoption.      

 "Resolved,    That in these resolutions there is no intention to interfere with those brethren represented with ourselves in this council, who conscientiously observe the seventh day of the week instead of the first day as the day of rest and worship." 

No sooner was the reading of this resolution finished than a Methodist bishop (Bishop Neely) was on his feet. "The people referred to by this resolution," he said, "do not believe in the Lord's day, but in some other day. These resolutions emphasize the Lord's day. We must stand for the Lord's day and not weaken what we say."

Rev. Wayland Hoyt made an earnest plea in support of the resolution, reminding the delegates that the Seventh-day Baptists were members of the council in full standing, and that the spirit of brotherhood required that their convictions should be respected. One of the Seventh-day Baptist delegates, Rev. A. E. Main, dean of Alfred Theological Seminary, N. Y., obtained the floor and said:  -

"We know that we represent the smallest body in this council, and on that account we recognize with gratitude your recognition of us, and your invitation to unite with you, as being evangelical and Christian. We have joined heartily with you in the work of this federation; and shall it be that in this city of brotherly love, where a Seventh-day Baptist presided at a session of the Continental Congress, - shall it be that this council composed of professed brethren shall favor legislation adverse to us, and refuse to say that we shall be free when we stand shoulder to shoulder with you in this movement?"

But these pleas for religious freedom in the federation were without result. The sentiment of the council was strongly in opposition to the resolution. And in the speeches made against it, pointed reference was made to observers of the seventh-day Sabbath as being a class of people to whose attitude the council

p 593 -- should not give even the semblance of endorsement. The resolution was lost by a decisive vote.

This incident, coming unexpectedly into the proceedings of the conference, clearly revealed the fact that this great federation of churches stands ready to coerce the religious minority in matters of religious teaching and practice. And this is so not because of any purpose or desire on the part of its members to be intolerant toward others, but because intolerance is inherent in the very nature of the movement they have inaugurated. To obtain power was the primary idea of federation; and the power thus obtained, - the power of numbers, - is not exercised to persuade, but to coerce. There is another power quite independent of numbers, - the power of godliness, - which convinces people of the truth, and draws people together into unity on the platform of the truth. But it is not such power that the churches are seeking through federation. What they have secured is the power of a great religious combine, a church trust; and it is the nature of a trust to put down everything that stands in its pathway.

In this federation, the churches do not pretend to be bound together in "the unity of the Sprit," but only to be federated together, and the spirit of such union is quite another spirit than that divinely designated, the "Spirit of truth." The Federal Council laid no emphasis upon the value of truth; it could not do so when the very ground upon which it stood was that of the setting aside of the differences of religious belief among its members, for the sake of obtaining the worldly power of their combined numbers.

The avowed purpose of the federation, officially stated, was to express "the fellowship and Catholic unity of the Christian church." Yet the intolerant spirit within it could not be concealed, but ruled the council in opposition to its professed spirit of fellowship and unity. And when such is the attitude of this great religious trust toward those who stand with it and work for its advancement, it can easily be understood how tolerant it will be toward the religious minority outside of it.

And this great religious trust purposes to exercise a complete religious monopoly throughout the entire country.

p 594 -- "The time has come," said a speaker who voiced the sentiment of the conference, "when the churches may and must know every individual in the entire community as accurately as they know their own membership.... It thus becomes possible, as in two states already, to announce the watch word, 'Some church responsible for each square mile.' ... The policy of the federation should be to emphasize the 'responsibility districts' which it establishes. When these cover the state, and the churches so appreciate their opportunity and responsibility, that each church will know the position of every voter on moral issues, and tirelessly work to place every one upon the right side, moral reforms will come swiftly and permanently." 

In answer to the question, then, whether anything like an "image" to the papal beast can be set up in this country, we have before us a gigantic ecclesiastical organization of Protestants, with power to bend the government to its will; intolerant of its own members when the question of Sunday sacredness is concerned; by resolution declaring its purpose to exalt the first-day sabbath both by teaching and legislation, and by vote refusing to respect the "convictions, rights, and privileges of those ... who religiously and conscientiously observe the seventh day instead of the first day of the week;" expressly claiming to be a federation of all Christian churches, and therefore recognizing no church outside of it as Christian; and purposing to monopolize religious work in every square mile of American territory. Is not such an organization prepared to deal with anybody of people outside its ranks in very much the same way as the papacy dealt with dissenters and heretics in the days of its power?

At the first annual meeting of the executive committee of the federation, held in December, 1909, at Louisville, Ky., the intolerant spirit of the organization again appeared in a speech by the president, Bishop Hendrix of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in which he spoke of the smaller denominations as "fragments," and said that if they ever had any real mission they had served their purpose and should now be merged into the larger bodies. "In a few years," he said, "all religious

p 595 -- work done by Protestants in the United States, ought to be carried on by not more than eight or ten of the larger denominations."

*******

Today more than ever before it would seem as if there is NO way the government would EVER enforce any religious laws upon us, such as the Papacy (the Beast) has done. The Papacy- a religious/political organization.  None would dare say the United States government is a religious/political organization.  In the last several years the government seems to be going to great lengths to enforce more and more separation between church and state.  So how do we equate this truth with the prophecy we read?

Personally, I have witnessed many people growing more and more disgruntled with the separation of church and state. Right now we are going through the Christmas season which has many traditions and I see a lot of facebook posts about putting Christ BACK into Christmas. People refusing to say happy holidays, insisting upon saying Merry  Christmas.  So what the government is doing and what the PEOPLE are desiring seem to be at odds in many ways.

I tell my Bible Study group that I personally believe that all the United States needs is some major, extremely major, catastrophe- natural or not- and people will want their government to bring God back into it in a HUGE way.  We witnessed it during the tragedy of 9/11/01- many were wanting God involved back then, and if we saw that then, the reality is we could see it again on a much grander scale and that will fulfil the prophetic truths.  Only time will unfold it all. We do know that the very end events are going to be rapid ones and those alive as prophecy is unfolding will have to have their eyes opened to truth to comprehend what is taking place. There will be NO looking back to see where it unfolded.

May God help us to see, to comprehend all that we need to comprehend as prophecy unfolds.