The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 77

May 29, 1900

“The Sermon. Rome in the Book of Daniel” ¹ Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 22, pp. 338, 339.

A. T. JONES

I HAVE been asked to take up to-day the subject that we had the last time I spoke here—a continuation of the review of the Berean lessons in the book of Daniel, which most of you have been studying. You will remember that that review closed with the sixth chapter. That would require that the review to-day should begin with the seventh chapter. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.1

The great subject, you will all remember, in the first six chapters, is Babylon, and the service of God in Babylon, in spite of all Babylon’s sinfulness. The great subject from the beginning of the seventh chapter to the end of the book is Rome. The two subjects in the book of Daniel are Babylon and Rome. And, in the book of Revelation, these are united in one: Rome under a new form, which is Babylon as well as Rome; for, in Revelation 17, we read of the vision of a woman,—a harlot,—sitting “upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, ... having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: and upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.2

And that power,—that church controlling the State,—using the power of the State, is described further with the blood of saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration,“—great astonishment. That scene in the book of Revelation is the two thoughts in the book of Daniel united in the form that existed in the times of the book of Revelation. You have studied Babylon in the book of Daniel, and we have reviewed it. You have studied the latter half of the book of Daniel, and you have found that in that more is said of Rome than of all other things besides; and so you have studied Rome, and now our review comes to that to-day. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.3

The seventh chapter first: You will remember that four great beasts are seen by the prophet, coming up out of the sea, rising from the commotions of the winds—the four winds striving upon the great sea. And when Daniel had described these as he saw them, the angel of God came to tell him what it all meant. And the angel, in his first words, indeed in his words describing the whole scene, explains these symbols briefly by saying: “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings [kingdoms, nations, powers], which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.” And there the angel stopped. He had told the meaning of all that Daniel had seen. And when Daniel asked for a further understanding of the particulars, and when the angel had described it more fully, he closes at the same point precisely: “The saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom forever, even forever and ever.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.4

When the angel had first ceased speaking, Daniel began to inquire for more knowledge and understanding of what he had seen. But where does he begin to ask for the further information? Concerning what does he particularly inquire?—He says: “Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast.” Why did he not ask concerning the other three? Why did he not want particulars of those? Look again at the vision, and see how much space is devoted to each of the three, and then how much is devoted to the fourth in comparison. Once verse to each of the first three, then comes the seventh verse with its description of the fourth beast; and it takes the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh verses to describe the fourth one. More verses, and longer ones, too, are needed to describe the fourth one, than all the others put together: fully twice as much space. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.5

That would suggest a reason as to why Daniel, when he asked for more particulars, should say: “I would know the truth of the fourth beast.” Since so much space is given to that one in the vision, it must be that that is more important than the others. Consequently he says, “I would know the truth of the fourth beast.” Since so much space is given to that one in the vision, it must be that that is more important than the others. Consequently he says, “I would know the truth” of that one. Then after Daniel has again described it, with more particulars, the angel occupies about as much space in explaining it as is occupied in the description of it in the vision. Thus, three times in the seventh chapter of Daniel there is given as much space to that fourth beast as to all the other three put together: in other words, three times as much space is given to the fourth beast as is given all three of the others put together. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.6

Next is the eighth chapter. There is the vision of the last three of these same four powers—the first one is dropped because it has passed away. Here is seen a ram, a he-goat, and a little horn which waxes exceeding great. And in this vision more space is given to the third one, which corresponds to the fourth in the previous vision, than to the others put together. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.7

Again I say: The third power in the eighth chapter is the same as the fourth one in the seventh chapter. Then, when the angel tells the meaning of what had been seen, again more space is given to the third one than to the others put together: I mean that with reference merely to the powers as seen in the vision. But there is a portion of time belonging to the time of the fourth one in the seventh chapter and the third in the eighth chapter; and the ninth chapter is occupied with the explanation of that time. Five long verses in the latter part of the ninth chapter are occupied with the angel’s explanation of this time. Thus it takes one third of the space of the ninth chapter, and more of the eighth chapter twice repeated, to explain the symbol concerning Rome, than is given to all the others put together in that vision. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.8

When we come to the eleventh chapter, we find the same peculiarity. The eleventh chapter is a prophecy in detail from Daniel’s day unto the end of the world: first is a sketch of the Medo-Persian kingdom up to the invasion of Grecia; then a sketch of the Grecian kingdom until the rise of the Roman Empire, the Roman Republic in its place in the fourteenth verse. Then the angel says: At that time shall many stand up against the king of the south, but the children of robbers “shall exalt themselves to establish the vision.” Thus, in the seventh and eighth chapters, the great subject is Rome. When the angel comes to sketch the history of the world himself in his own words, and he reaches the time when Rome enters upon scene, he pauses to say that that power comes upon the stage of action “to establish the vision.” This emphasizes, then, the truth that appears in the other two chapters: that Rome is the great subject in the last half of the book of Daniel, as Babylon is the great subject in the first half of the book. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 338.9

Now, glance again at the seventh chapter and that fourth beast. Open your Bibles, if you choose, and read, looking at it as I read:— ARSH May 29, 1900, page 339.1

“After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened.” Verses 7-10. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 339.2

Now note: First, he describes the beast, then notices the ten horns coming up; then another, “little,” one coming up among these, rooting up three, and having eyes like the eyes of man and a mouth speaking great things. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 339.3

Now, read the eleventh verse: “I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake.” What is he now describing? I am asking you to study particularly this eleventh verse. What is Daniel describing? “I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake.” Now look: “I beheld even till”—the little horn was broken?—No. What?—“I beheld even till the BEAST was slain.” What has the beast to do with the little horn? Mark: “I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake;” and I beheld in this very thing “till the beast was slain.” Are not then the beast and the little horn in that vision and in that place, only different forms of the same thing? [Voices, “Yes.”] For, beholding the horn, he beholds till the beast is slain. That shows beyond all question that the “little horn,” and what is represented in the little horn, is simply another phase of what the “beast” is to begin with. And that conclusively shows that the “beast” and the “little horn” are the same thing, in different forms. In other words, the little horn is only the continuation of the beast in a different shape: the same characteristics are there: the same spirit is there; the same thing that is the beast continues through all the time of the little horn until its destruction comes, and when the destruction of the little “horn” comes, what is destroyed?—It is the “beast.” Then it is essentially the beast all the way through, only in a different form. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 339.4

(To be concluded.)

“The Third Angel’s Message. The Place of Sunday Legislation in the Making of the Image of the Beast” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 22, p. 344.

THE Beast was made in the Roman Empire. It was made in the union of an apostate Church with the Roman State. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.1

In our studies of this subject, we have seen that the only place where the Image of the Beast could be made, is in the United States; and the Image of the Beast, when made, will be a union of an apostate Church with this American State. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.2

In last week’s study we saw that in that apostate Church in the Roman Empire, there had “arisen in the Church a false theocratical theory,” which aimed at “the formation of a sacerdotal State, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way,” and that the bishops who held this false theocratical theory were determined “to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.3

For the past thirty-seven years there has been, in the United States, an organization of Church leaders holding precisely this same “false theocratical theory;” and, precisely as those of old, determined “to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.4

This organization, from its beginning, has been known as the National Reform Association. They hold that— ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.5

“Every government, by equitable laws, is a government of God; a republic thus governed is of him, through the people, and is as truly and really a theocracy as the commonwealth of Israel. The refusal to acknowledge this fact is as much a piece of foolish impiety as that of the man who persists in refusing to acknowledge that God is the author of his existence.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.6

The qualifying phrase “equitable laws” in that statement signifies only laws that conform to the will of these National Reformers. They declare that “a true theocracy is yet to come, ... and humanity’s weal depends upon the enthronement of Christ in law and law-makers;” and that “Christ shall be this world’s king,—yea, verily, THIS WORLD’S KING in its realm of cause and effect,—king of its colleges and cloisters,—king of its customs and its constitutions.... The kingdom of Christ must enter the law through the gateway of politics.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.7

In a previous study we saw that, in the making of the Beast, when the bishops had succeeded in getting the power of the State fully under their control for the furtherance of their aims, they held that the kingdom of God had come. The Church leaders in this nation to-day, who hold this same “false theocratical theory,” hold, likewise, that, when they succeed in getting the power of the State under their control, to be used at their will, for the furtherance of their own aims, the kingdom of God will come. For, they hold that: “When we reach the summit.... the train will move out into the mild yet glorious light of millennial days, and the cry will be raised, ‘the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ.’” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.8

These leaders in the false theocratical movement of to-day, also, like those in the fourth century, are determined “to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.” Consequently from the inception of their movement, they have called for, and worked for, an amendment to the United States Constitution that would place all of what they call “Christian laws, institutions, and usages, upon an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land;” and then, having “inscribed this character on our Constitution,” by the national power “enforce upon all who come among us the laws of Christian morality.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.9

And while calling for a Constitutional amendment, by which to make their purposes effective, they have been ready at all times to secure the recognition and the power of the government, by whatever means, Constitutional or unconstitutional, it could be accomplished. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.10

Accordingly, when, in 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that “this is a Christian nation,” the National Reform combination instantly and gladly seized upon it, and made use of it in every possible way, for the furtherance of their aims. They declared, with glee, “‘This is a Christian nation.’ That means Christian government, Christian laws, Christian institutions, Christian practices, Christian citizenship.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.11

As in that original apostasy and false theocracy that made the Beast, the chief thing ever held in view was the exaltation of Sunday; so in this modern apostasy and false theocracy, the exaltation of Sunday has ever been the one chief aim. And as in the making of the Beast, Sunday legislation was the means by which the Church secured the power of the State by which to enforce upon all, even those that were not of the church, submission to the doctrine and discipline of the Church; so, in this making of the Image of the Beast, Sunday legislation is employed for precisely the same purpose, and I precisely the same way. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.12

Accordingly, when, by the Supreme Court declaration that “this is a Christian nation,” the national government was brought so entirely into accord with their will, they exclaimed at once: “This decision is vital to the Sunday question in all its aspects.... And this important decision rests upon the fundamental principle that religion is imbedded in the organic structure of the American government—a religion that recognizes, and is bound to maintain, Sunday as a day of rest and worship.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.13

As in our previous study, we saw that, in the original false theocracy, no sooner was there made sure to the Catholic Church the recognition and support of the State, than she pushed herself upon the State with her demands for the establishment and enforcement of Sunday by law, and all in opposition to the Sabbath of the Lord; so, in this modern false theocracy, no sooner was published the declaration of the Supreme Court that “this is a Christian nation,” than these pushed themselves upon the national government, and under threats of political perdition upon all who refused, this false theocracy secured here the recognition and establishment of Sunday, and all in opposition to the Sabbath of the Lord. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.14

FOR, July 10, 1892, in the regular proceedings of the United States Senate, the Fourth Commandment was read from the Bible, as giving “the reasons” for the legislation under consideration, with respect to the Chicago World’s Fair: “for the closing of the Exposition on the Sabbath day.” The proposed legislation was that day adopted. But, for fear that the Exposition would be really closed on the Sabbath, instead of on Sunday, two days afterward that which had been adopted was amended, so that the words, “Exposition on the Sabbath day,” were stricken out, and, in their place, were inserted the words, “the mechanical portion of the Exposition on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.15

And this was done expressly, in the words of the legislation, that in the application of the fourth commandment to the closing of the Exposition on the Sabbath, this amendment was to decide that they should close the Exposition, not “on the last day of the week, in comformity with that observance which is made by the Israelites and the Seventh-day Baptists;” but “should close it on the first day of the week generally known as the Christian Sabbath.” This legislation passed into law by the approval of the House of Representatives and the executive of the nation. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.16

Thus, as in the work and establishment of that false theocracy of the fourth century, Sunday was by legislation, and by law, substituted for the Sabbath of the Lord; so in the work and establishment of this false theocracy of the nineteenth century, there has been, by legislation and by law, the substitution of Sunday for the Sabbath of the Lord. That, in the fourth century, and in the Roman State, was the making of the Beast. This, in the nineteenth century, and in this American State, is, step by step, and point by point, precisely like that of the fourth century: the very repetition of it; and is, therefore nothing else than the making of the Image of the Beast. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.17

At the beginning of this article we stated that “the Image of the Beast, when made, will be a union of an apostate Church with the American State.” And now that all may see for themselves how certainly it is apostasy for Protestants to be engaged in this which we have related, we quote the following authoritative statements as to what Protestantism truly is in “the very essence:“— ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.18

The principles contained in the celebrated Protest of the 19th of April, 1529, constitute the very essence of Protestantism. Now this Protest opposes two abuses of man in matters of faith; the first is the intrusion of the civil magistrate; and the second, the arbitrary authority of the church. Instead of these abuses Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate, and the authority of the word of God above the visible church. In the first place, it rejects the civil power in divine things, and says with the apostles and prophets, “We must obey God rather than man.” In the presence of Charles the Fifth it uplifts the crown of Jesus Christ.”—D’Aubigné, “History of the Reformation,” Book XIII, chapter 6, par. 18. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.19

“Studies in Galatians. The Two Covenants. Galatians 4:21-31” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 22, p. 344.

“TELL me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount-Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that barest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.1

“These are the two covenants.” Then what are the two covenants?—These two women; because since the covenant from mount Sinai is represented by Hagar, the other covenant is represented by Sarah. The Revised Version of verse 24 reads: “For these women are two covenants.” ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.2

These two women were the mothers of the two sons of Abraham. One son was by a bondwoman: the other was by a freewoman. Hagar was the bondwoman: Sarah was the freewoman. The two sons of these two women represent the children of the two covenants. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.3

“These are the two covenants.” It is then settled that the subject of the Two Covenants began in the family of Abraham. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.4

“These are the two covenants.” Whoever, therefore, would study the Two Covenants, must study these. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.5

“These are the two covenants.” Any study therefore, of the Two Covenants, that is not a study of these, is not truly a study of the Two Covenants. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 344.6

“These are the two covenants.” With these the subject of the Two Covenants begins, and whoever would study the Two Covenants must begin where the subject begins. Therefore this is where we shall begin the study of the Two Covenants. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 345.1

And that we may all begin it together to the best advantage, we ask that all will read between now and this time next week Genesis 15, 16, 17, and 21:1-21—at least seven times. ARSH May 29, 1900, page 345.2