The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 77

June 12, 1900

“The Sermon. Rome in the Book of Daniel” ¹ Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 24, pp. 354, 355.

A. T. JONES

(Concluded).

I READ again the sentence just quoted, and the next one with it:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.1

If there be one lesson which history clearly teaches, it is this, that free nations can not govern subject provinces. If they are unable or unwilling to admit their dependencies to share their own constitution, the constitution itself will fall in pieces from mere incompetence for its duties. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.2

That is the one lesson that history teaches. Free nations can not govern subject provinces, and themselves remain free. And wherever they are unable or unwilling to admit their dependencies to share their own constitution, the constitution itself will fall to pieces. Rome thought to preserve the constitution, by not extending it to the subject provinces. But in that very thing, Rome destroyed her constitution. The real damage done was not to the provinces, but to the home government that would not extend to her subject provinces the privileges which Rome had, which Rome enjoyed. Therefore this writer further says:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.3

For these reasons, the fall of the Roman Republic is exceptionally instructive to us. A constitutional government, the most enduring and the most powerful that ever existed, was put on its trial, and found wanting. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.4

Again I read:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.5

With such vividness, with such transparent clearness, the age stands before us of Cato and Pompey, of Cicero and Julius Cesar: the more distinctly because it was an age in so many ways the counterpart of our own, the blossoming period of the old civilization, when the intellect was trained to the highest point which it could reach; and on the great subjects of human interest, on morals, and politics, on poetry and art, even on religion itself and the speculative problems of life, men thought as we think, doubted where we doubt, argued as we argue, aspired and struggled after the same objects. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.6

It was an age of material progress and material civilization; an age of civil liberty and intellectual culture; an age of pamphlets and epigrams, of salons and of dinner parties, of senatorial majorities and electoral corruption. The highest offices of state were open in theory to the meanest citizen; they were confined, in fact, to those who had the longest purses, or the most ready use of the tongue on popular platforms. Distinctions of birth had been exchanged for distinctions of wealth. The struggles between plebeians for equality of privilege were over, and a new division had been formed between the party of property and a party who desired a change in the structure of society. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.7

The rich were extravagant, for life had ceased to have practical interest, except for its material pleasures; the occupation of the higher classes was to obtain money without labor, and to spend it in idle enjoyment. Patriotism survived on the lips, but patriotism meant the ascendancy of the party which would maintain the existing order of things, or would overthrow it for a more equal distribution of the good things which alone were valued. Religion, once the foundation of the laws and rule of personal conduct, had subsided into opinion. The educated, in their hearts, disbelieved it. Temples were still built with increasing splendor; the established forms were scrupulously observed. Public men spoke conventionally of Providence, that they might throw on their opponents the odium of impiety; but of genuine belief that life had any serious meaning, there was none remaining beyond the circle of the silent, patient, ignorant multitude. The whole spiritual atmosphere was saturated with cant,—cant moral, cant political, cant religious,—an affectation of high principle which had ceased to touch the conduct, and flowed on in an increasing volume of insincere and unreal speech.... ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.8

Tendencies now in operation [twenty-one years ago, bear in mind] may a few generations hence land modern society in similar conclusions, unless other convictions revive meanwhile and get the mastery of them; of which possibility no more need be said than this, that unless there be such a revival in some shape or other, the forces, whatever they be, which control the forms in which human things adjust themselves, will make an end again, as they made an end before, of what are called free institutions. Popular forms of government are possible only when individual men can govern their own lives on moral principles, and when duty is of more importance than pleasure, and justice than material expediency.—“Cesar: A Sketch,” by J. A. Froude, chap. 1. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.9

Here is a history that was written a good deal more than twenty-three years ago, written by one of the first historians of the world, Professor Mommsen, of Germany. At the place where I shall read, he writes of Rome after the time at which the prophecy mentions Rome as entering upon the scene, “to establish the vision.” This tells of the time when the republic had made her conquests, and when, as the book from which I have already quoted says, wealth flowed into the city “in rolling streams of gold,” so that riches was untold, boundless—individual wealth as well as governmental wealth. This writer discusses “The Government and the Governed,” and he says that those who were in power in the state— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.10

not only usurped in substance the government, but also remodeled the constitution according to their own views. It was part of their policy, with a view to keep up the number of these as little as possible, and to keep it far below what was required by the extension of territory and the increase of business. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.11

That is to say, The state had expanded; but they did not allow the government to expand with it, and the governmental machinery broke down. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.12

Yet these who set aside the constitution did not definitely alter the constitution. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.13

They changed not the letter, but merely the practice, of the existing constitution. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.14

The constitution stood as it had, in the letter; but it was applied in a different way. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.15

The earlier law of Rome knew nothing of tributary subjects. The conquered communities were either sold into slavery, or merged in the Roman commonwealth, or admitted to an alliance which secured to them at least communal independence and freedom from taxation. But the Carthaginian possessions in Sicily, Sardinia, and Spain, as well as the kingdom of Hiero, had paid tithe and tribute to their former masters: if Rome was desirous of retaining these possessions at all, it was in the judgment of the shortsighted, the most judicious, and undoubtedly the most convenient, course to manage the new territories entirely in accordance with the rules heretofore observed. Accordingly the Romans simply retained the Carthagino-Hieronic provincial constitution [did not extend the Roman constitution to those provinces, but continued the provincial laws, under a Roman governorship], and organized in accordance with it those provinces also, such as Hither Spain, which they wrested from the barbarians. It was the shirt of Nessus which they inherited from the enemy. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.16

The expression “the shirt of Nessus” is a mythological reference. In the myth a shirt of Hercules was secretly tinged with the blood of the dying Nessus, which, when Hercules again put it on, caused his ruin. And the thought of the historian is that when Rome would not extend her constitution, the privileges of her own government, to her provinces; but held them as subjects ruled by foreign laws, and taxed them besides, in that she took upon herself what corresponds in the myth to “the shirt of Nessus.” And as, in the myth that shirt ruined the one who wore it, so this colonial system ruined Rome. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.17

Beyond doubt at first the Roman government intended, in imposing taxes on their subjects, not strictly to enrich themselves, but only to cover the cost of administration and defense; but they deviated from this course, when they made Macedonia and Illyria tributary without undertaking the government or the guardianship of the frontier there. The fact, however, that they still maintained moderation in the imposition of burdens was of little consequence as compared with the conversion of their sovereignty into a profitable privilege at all; the FALL WAS THE SAME, whether a single apple was taken of the TREE WAS PLUNDERED. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.18

The fall of what?—He is writing of the fall of the Roman Republic, the fall of the Roman state, not the fall of the provinces. “The fall” of the republic “was the same, whether a single apple was taken or the tree was plundered.” He says that the Roman Republic fell when it levied taxes upon subject provinces, even though the money was spent in and on the provinces themselves; and that the fall of the republic was the same, whether it levied a tax of a cent or of millions. What followed? ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.19

Punishment followed in the steps of wrong. [I am not putting in anything. I am simply reading.] The new provincial system necessitated the appointment of governors, whose position was absolutely incompatible not only with the welfare of the provinces, but with the Roman constitution. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.20

Then what? ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.21

As the Roman community in the provinces took the place of the former rulers of the land, so the governor appeared there in the position of A KING. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.22

What then? ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.23

But it was not practicable for any length of time to be at once REPUBLICAN AND KING. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.24

That was written forty-five ago, concerning Rome two thousand years ago. I leave it to you to decide whether it concerns only Rome. I will read those sentences again”— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.25

The new provincial system necessitated the appointment of governors, whose position was absolutely incompatible not only with the welfare of the provinces, but with the Roman constitution.... As the Roman community in the provinces took the place of the former rulers of the land, so the governor appeared there in the position of a king.... But it was not practicable for any length of time to be at once republican and king.... Playing the part of governors demoralized the Roman ruling class with fearful rapidity. Haughtiness and arrogance toward the provincials were so natural in the circumstances as scarcely to form matter of reproach against the individual magistrate. But already it was a rare thing—and the rarer because the government adhered rigidly to the old principle of not paying public officials—that a governor returned with quite clean hands from his province; it was already remarked upon as something singular that Paulius, the conqueror of Pydna, and not take money. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.26

What follow?—Haughtiness and arrogance were held by the governor toward these people who were counted “not capable of self-government.” These peoples had been formerly ruled by kings. The governor went there to govern them, and stood in the place of king, and governed them as king. And when he came back home to Italy, he carried home with him that same air and spirit of haughtiness and arrogance, and held toward the people of the home government the same attitude that he had held toward the people of the subject province. Those who had governed abroad as kings remained such in air and spirit when they came home. Thus the refusal to extend the constitution abroad ruined the government at home. That is wherein “punishment followed in the steps of wrong;” and wherein the “demoralization of the Roman ruling class” followed “with fearful rapidity.” I read right on:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.27

The governors ruled virtually as sovereign; and the most important of the institutions serving for the latter purpose, the census of the empire, was extended to Sicily alone, not to any of the provinces subsequently acquired. This emancipation of the supreme administrative officials from the central authority was more than hazardous. The Roman governor, placed at the head of the armies of the state, and in possession of considerable financial resources; subject to but a lax judicial control, and practically independent of the supreme administration; and impelled by a sort of necessity to separate the interests of himself and of the people whom he governed from those of the Roman community, and to treat them as conflicting, far more resembled a Persian satrap than one of the commissioners of the Roman senate at the time of the Samnite wars. The man, moreover, who had just conducted a legalized military tyranny abroad, could with difficulty find his way back to the common civic level, which distinguished between those who commanded and those who obeyed, but not between masters and slaves. Even the government felt that their two fundamental principles—equality within the aristocracy, and the subordination of the power of the magistrates to the senatorial college—began in this instance to give way in their hands. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 354.28

The aversion of the government to the acquisition of new provinces and to the whole provincial system; the institution of the provincial questorships, which were intended to take at least the financial power out of the hands of the governors; and the abolition of the arrangement—in itself so judicious—for lengthening the tenure of such offices, very clearly evince the anxiety felt by the more farseeing of the Roman statesment as to the fruits of the seed thus sown. But diagnosis is not cure. The internal government of the nobility continued to follow the direction once given to it, and the decay of the administration and of the financial system—the precursor of future revolutions and usurpations—steadily pursued its course, if not unnoticed, yet unchecked. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 371.1

They themselves recognized what was going on; but the tide was too strong: they could not stem it. They had taken the step, and they could not turn back. They believed that destiny was upon them; and so they went on, one step after another in that direction, until—you know—the world knows—the prophecy has recorded it—there came the greatest civil despotism, then the greatest despotism of any kind,—a religious despotism,—and then the greatest ruin that ever was wrought in governmental affairs, in this world—the ruin of the Roman Empire. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 371.2

Now, I ask again, Why was so much said of Rome in the book of Daniel?—“To be a light in that time of the end;” for prophecy is as “a light that shineth in a dark place,” “whereunto ye do well that ye take heed.” If it had been written only for the time of Rome, and had applied only to that time, it would have been a light for the people then. But it was not written especially for that time: it was not sealed up until that time; it was sealed up to this time, “the time of the end.” Then, as certainly as prophecy is a light that shines in the darkness of this world, so certainly that prophecy concerning Rome, written so fully, and then closed up and sealed “to the time of the end,” is a light whereunto we, in this time, do well that we take heed. And upon what can it possibly be a light, except the things which in this time are like those of that time? That then was an essential element in the making of the beast; this now that is so like it is an essential element in the making of the image of the beast. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 371.3

All this relates to the time in which we live, and to the place where we live. Darkness covers the earth, and gross darkness the people; but thank the Lord for the light of prophecy. Oh, let us study it as never before, and walk in the light of it, that we may be “children of light, and children of the day.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 371.4

“The Third Angel’s Message. The Place of Sunday Legislation in the Making of the Beast” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 24, pp. 376, 377.

IN the union of Church and State in the Roman Empire, in the making of the papacy, the kingdom of God was held to have come. But that kingdom was a kingdom of this world, dependent solely upon worldly means for its existence. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.1

The only power known to the kingdoms of this world is force. In established governments this force is exerted through law, enforced by pains and penalties. And we have seen that in this new kingdom of God it was by means of the Sunday laws and the power of the State that those who dwelt on the earth were rendered “fit subjects” of this kingdom of God. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.2

At every step in the course of the apostasy, at every step taken in adopting the forms of sun-worship, as well as against the adoption and the observance of Sunday itself, there had been constant protest by all real Christians. Those who remained faithful to Christ and to the truth of the pure word of God, observed the Sabbath of the Lord according to the commandments, and according to the word of God which sets forth the Sabbath as the sign by which the Lord, the Creator of the heavens and the earth, is distinguished from all other gods. These accordingly protested against every phase and form of sun-worship. Others compromised, especially in the East, by observing both Sabbath and Sunday. But in the West, under Roman influences and under the leadership of the Church and the bishopric of Rome, Sunday alone was adopted and observed. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.3

Against this Church-and-State intrigue throughout, there had been also, as against every other step in the course of the apostasy, earnest protest by all real Christians. But when it came to the point where the Church would enforce by the power of the State the observance of Sunday, this protest became stronger than ever. And additional strength was given to the protest at this point by the fact that it was urged in the words of the very arguments which the Catholic Church had used when she was antagonized, rather than courted, by the imperial authority. This, with the strength of the argument upon the merit of the question as to the day which should be observed, greatly weakened the force of the Sunday law. But when, in addition to these considerations, the exemption was so broad as to allow all who dwelt “in the country, freely and at full liberty” to pursue their regular avocations on Sunday, and when those who observed the Sabbath disregarded the Sunday law, its effect was largely nullified. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.4

Since any disrespect to Sunday, or any weakening of its standing would, in the nature of things, hinder people from attaining to the place of “fit subjects” of this “kingdom of God,” it became necessary for the Church to secure legislation extinguishing all exemption, and prohibiting the observance of the Sabbath, so as to quench that powerful protest of the Sabbath-keepers. And now, coupled with the necessity of the situation, the “truly divine command” of Constantine and the Council of Nice, that “nothing” should be held “in common with the Jews,” was made the basis and the authority for legislation utterly to crush out the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, and to establish the observance of Sunday only, in its stead. Accordingly, the Council of Laodicea enacted the following canon:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.5

CANON 29—Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday [“Sabbath,” in both Greek and Latin], but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honor, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out [“accursed,” Greek and Latin] from Christ.—Hefele, “History of the Church Councils,” Laodicea. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.6

The report of the proceedings of the Council of Laodicea is not dated. A variety of dates has been suggested, of which A.D. 361 seems to have been the most favored. Hefele allows that it may have been as late as 380. But whatever the date, before A.D. 380, in the political condition of the empire this could not be made effective by imperial law. in 375 the emperor Valentinian died, and was succeeded by his two sons, one aged sixteen, the other four years. In 378 Theodosius, a Spanish soldier, became emperor of the East. In 380 he was baptized into the Catholic Church; and immediately an edict was issued in the name of the three emperors, commanding all subjects of the empire, of whatever party or name, to adopt the faith of the Catholic Church, and assume the name of “Catholic Christians.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.7

As now “the State itself recognized the Church as such, and endeavored to uphold her in the prosecution of her principles and the attainment of her ends” (Neander); and as Theodosius had already ordered that all his subjects “should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which faithful tradition” had preserved, and which was then “professed by the pontiff Damasus,” of Rome, and had now ordered that they should all “assume the title of Catholic Christians,” it was easy to bring the imperial power to the support of the decrees of the Church, and make the Laodicean canon effective. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.8

Now was given the opportunity for which the Church had waited so long, and she made use of it. At the earliest possible moment she secured the desired law; for, “by a law of the year 386, those older changes effected by the emperor Constantine were more rigorously enforced; and, in general, civil transactions of every kind on Sunday were strictly forbidden. Whoever transgressed was to be considered, in fact, as guilty of sacrilege.”—Neander. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.9

As the direct result of this law, there soon appeared an evil which, under the circumstances and in the logic of the case, called for further legislation in the same direction. The law forbade all work. But as the people had not such religion as would cause them to devote the day to pious and moral exercises, the effect of the law was only to enforce idleness. Enforced idleness only multiplied opportunity for dissipation. The natural consequence was that the circuses, the theaters, and other places of dissipation throughout the empire were crowded every Sunday. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.10

The object of the Sunday law, from the first one that was issued, was that the day might be used for the purposes of devotion, and that the people might go to church. But they had not sufficient religion to lead them to church when there was opportunity for amusement. Therefore, “owing to the prevailing passion at that time, especially in the large cities, to run after the various public shows, it so happened that when these spectacles fell on the same days which had been consecrated by the Church to some religious festival, they proved a great hindrance to the devotion of Christians, though chiefly, it must be allowed, to those whose Christianity was the least an affair or the law and of the heart. Church leaders... were, in truth, often forced to complain that in such competition the theater was vastly more frequented than the church.”—Neander. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.11

And the Church was now in a conditioin in which she could not bear competition. She must have a monopoly. Therefore the next step to be taken, the logical one, too, was to have the circuses and theaters closed on Sundays and other special Church days, so that the churches and the theaters should not be open at the same time. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.12

There was another feature of the case which gave the bishops the opportunity to make their new demands appear plausible, by urging in another form the selfish and sophistical plea upon which they had asked for the first edict respecting Church days. In the circuses and the theaters, large numbers of men were employed, among whom many were church-members. But, rather than give up their places, the church-members would work on Sunday. The bishops complained that these were “compelled to work,” and were “prohibited to worship;” they pronounced it “persecution,” and demanded more Sunday laws for “protection.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.13

As a consequence, therefore, and in the logic of the situation, at a council held at Carthage, in June, A.D. 401, the following canon was enacted:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.14

CANON 5.—On Sundays and feast-days no plays may be performed. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.15

That this canon might be made effective, the bishops in the same council passed a resolution, and sent up a petition to the emperor Honorius, praying “that the public shows might be transferred from the Christian Sunday and from feast-days, to some other days of the week.”—Neander. The reason given in support of the petition was not only, as already stated, that those who worked in government offices and employments at such times, were persecuted, but that “the people congregate more to the circus than to the church.”—Id. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.16

In the logic of this theory, there was one more step to be taken. To see how logically it came about, let us glance at the steps taken from the first one up to this point: First, the Church had all work on Sunday forbidden, in order that the people might worship. But the people would not worship; they went to the circus and the theater instead of to church. Then the Church had laws enacted closing the circuses and the theaters, in order that the people might attend church. But even then the people would not be devoted, nor attend church; for they had no real religion. The next step to be taken, therefore, in the logic of the situation, was to compel them to be devoted—to compel them to attend to things divine. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.17

This was the next step logically to be taken, and it was taken. The theocratical bishops were equal to the occasion. They were ready with a theory that exactly met the demands of the case, and one of the greatest of the Catholic Church Fathers and Catholic saints was the father of the theory, thus:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.18

It is, indeed, better that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected.... Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development.—Augustine. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.19

Of this theory, the author who, of all the Church historians, has best exposed the evil workings of this false theocracy, justly observes that “it was by Augustine, then, that a theory was proposed and founded, which... contained the germ of that whole system of spiritual despotism of intolerance and persecution which ended in the tribunals of the Inquisition.”—Neander. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.20

The history of the Inquisition is only the history of this theory of Augustine’s. But this theory is only the logical sequence of the theory upon which the whole series of Sunday laws was founded. In closing his history of this particular subject, Neander says, “IN THIS WAY THE CHURCH RECEIVED HELP FROM THE STATE FOR THE FURTHERANCE OF HER ENDS.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.21

This statement is correct. Constantine did many things to favor the bishops. He gave them money and political preference. He made their decisions in disputed cases final, as the decision of Jesus Christ. But in nothing that he did for them did he give them power over those who did not belong to the Church, to compel them to act as if they did, except in the one thing of the Sunday law. In the Sunday law, power was given to the Church, and who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the Church, to obey the commands of the Church. In the Sunday law there was given to the Church control of the civil power, so that by it she could compel those who did not belong to the Church to act as if they did: so that thus they might be more “fit subjects” of that false kingdom of God. The history of Constantine’s time may be searched through and through, and it will be found that in nothing did he give to the Church any such power, except in this one thing—the Sunday law. Neander’s statement is literally correct, that it was “in this way the Church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 376.22

That this may be set before the reader in as clear a light as possible, we shall here summarize the facts stated by Neander, in their direct bearing. He says of the carrying into effect of the theocratical theory of the apostate bishops, that they made themselves dependent upon Constantine, by their disputes, and “by their determination to use the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims. Then he mentions the first and second Sunday laws of Constantine; the Sunday law of A.D. 386; the Cathaginian Council, resolution, and petition of 401; and the law of A.D. 425, in respose to this petition; and then, without a break, and with direct reference to these Sunday laws, he says; “In this way the Church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.1

She started out with the determination to do it: she did it; and “IN THIS WAY” she did it. And when she had secured control of the power of the State, she used it for the furtherance of her own aims, and that in her own despotic way, as announced in the inquisitorial theory of Augustine. The first step logically led to the last. And the theocratical leaders in the movement had the cruel courage to follow the first step unto the last, as framed in the words of Augustine, and illustrated in the horrors of the Inquisition during the fearful record of the dreary ages in which the bishopric of Rome was supreme over kings and nations. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.2

Thus was made the Beast. Thus was Sunday legislation the chief means, the very key, in the making of the Beast. And before the eyes of all people to-day Sunday legislation is being employed in the same way precisely, which is nothing else, and can not possibly be anything else, then the making of the Image of the Beast. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.3

In a word, the Beast signifies attainment to righteousness, to salvation, and to the kingdom of God, by force,—by law and works of the flesh; and Sunday is the sign of it. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.4

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 24, p. 377.

PRESIDENT PATTON, of Princeton University, has lately defined the United States as being, in brief, “simply a larger Britain.” That is strongly confirmed by the following parallel presented by the Yale Review:— ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.1

Townsend Revenue Act, 1767, one of the causes of the American Revolution. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.2

All the moneys that shall arise by the said duties... shall be applied... in making a more certain and adequate provision for the charge of the administration of justice and in the support of civil government, in such of the said colonies and plantations where it shall be found necessary; ... the residue of such duties shall be paid into the receipt of his majesty’s exchequer, and shall be entered separate and apart from all other moneys paid or payable to his majesty; ... and shall be there reserved, to be from time to time disposed of by Parliament toward defraying the necessary expenses of defending, protecting, and securing the British colonies in America. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.3

Porto Rican Bill, enacted by the American Congress, 1900. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.4

The duties and taxes collected in Porto Rico in pursuance of this Act, ... and the gross amount of all collections of duties and taxes in the United States upon articles of merchandise coming from Porto Rico, shall not be covered into the general fund of the treasury, but shall be held as a separate fund, and shall be placed at the disposal of the president, to be used for the government and benefit of Porto Rico until the government of Porto Rico herein provided shall have been organized. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.5

And since the United States has thus become “a larger Britain,” how stands the nation with respect to the principles upon which the nation was founded, and for which it stood in the world?—Plainly these principles are abandoned. And when these principles are so abandoned, then, in the estimation of those who have abandoned those principles, what could have been the character, and what could have been the use, of the American Revolution? Yet the worst feature of this case is, not that the United States is a Britain either larger or smaller, but that it is so completely another Rome. If in this career of apostasy, the United States would stop with being as is Britain, the evil would not be so great; but when she becomes not only what Britain was, but goes on and becomes what Rome was, then the evil can be only such as came to Rome—irretrievable ruin. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 377.6

“Studies in Galatians. The Two Covenants. Galatians 4:21-25” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 24, p. 328.

“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 bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman 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.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.1

Hagar represents the covenant from Sinai. Hagar was a bond-woman, and an Egyptian. Her son, therefore, was a bondson. He was a bondson, by whatsoever means he might have been born: because his mother was a bondwoman. As we have seen, the means by which Hagar’s son was born was altogether out of distrust of God and of unbelief in his promise—was only a scheme of the flesh; and, therefore, “he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh.” But, “The minding of the flesh, the carnal mind, is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh can not please God.” Romans 8:7, 8, margin. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.2

Accordingly, the covenant for which Hagar stands—the covenant from Mount Sinai—is a covenant in which people, knowing only the natural man and the birth of the flesh, seek, by their own inventions and their own efforts, to attain to the righteousness of God, and to the inheritance which attaches to that righteousness. This, because, as we have also seen, Sarai and Abram had the fullness of the promise of God, and of his righteousness, in God’s covenant confirmed in Christ, before ever the scheme concerning Hagar was invented. And this scheme was invented, and could be invented, only by forsaking that promise and covenant. And to forsake that promise and covenant was to trust only in the flesh. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.3

Did, then, the people at Sinai have any promise of God, or any covenant, in which they could trust, before they entered into the covenant of Sinai?—They had. They had the Abrahamic covenant, exactly as had Abram and Sarai before they entered into the scheme which brought in Hagar. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.4

Not simply did they have this covenant with Abraham, as a far-distant thing, bedimmed by the lapse of time between Abraham and them: but they had it repeated to them, directly by the Lord, and made with them, as with Abraham; and all this before they ever left Egypt at all. Read, “And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the Lord: and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Issac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, TO GIVE THEM THE LAND OF CANAAN, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers. And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have REMEMBERED MY COVENANT. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.5

“Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: and I WILL TAKE YOU TO ME FOR A PEOPLE, and I WILL BE TO YOU A GOD, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I DID SWEAR [“lift up my hand,” margin] to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU FOR AN HERITAGE; I am the Lord.” Exodus 6:2-8. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.6

Here was given to the children of Israel, in Egypt, all that was ever given to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. The same covenant precisely that was “made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac,” and which was “confirmed” unto Jacob, was made with Israel, WHILE THEY WERE YET IN EGYPT, when God came down to deliver them from Egypt. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.7

How, then, could it come about that Israel must enter into a covenant at Sinai?—Just as the scheme concerning Hagar had come about. How could another covenant be brought in at all?—Just as Hagar was brought in—altogether because of distrust of God’s covenant; altogether because of unbelief of the promise of God confirmed by his oath. For if they had trusted the promises of God which he had made to them in Egypt, they would have had all that Abraham or any other person ever could have, they would have had the righteousness of God, his everlasting salvation, and the inheritance promised to Abraham: and this ALL IN CHRIST; for this is how Abraham had it. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.8

True, they had sung the song of triumphant faith at the Red Sea, after crossing; and if they had continued in this faith, they would have continued in God’s everlasting covenant which he gave them in Egypt: and there never would have been any covenant at Sinai. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.9

But they did not continue in that faith; for, immediately afterward, when in their journey they came to Marah, they murmured against the Lord. And when the Lord had delivered them from their fears of that place, and they came into the Wilderness of Sin, “the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured” again. “And the children of Israel said unto them [Moses and Aaron]. Would to God we had died by the hand of the Lord in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the fleshpots, and when we did eat bread to the full: for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” Exodus 17:3. And when the Lord had delivered them from their fears that time, and they had left the Wilderness of Sin, and had come to Rephidim, again they murmured, and said: “Wherefore is this that thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, What shall I do unto this people? they be almost ready to stone me.” Exodus 17:3, 4. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.10

All this shows confirmed distrust of God, and unbelief of him, on the part of Israel. And this distrust and unbelief hid from them the blessings and the power given to them in the covenant with Abraham, which God had given to them when they were in Egypt. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.11

They could not trust God for the inheritance to which they were coming, not for the righteousness which alone would entitle them to that inheritance. This they thought that they themselves could earn. And, that they might see how far short of earning it they would come, the Lord gave to them the widest possible opportunity to try. Accordingly, he said: “Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice INDEED, and keep my covenant, THEN ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. [“So shall ye be my people, and I will be your God.” Jeremiah 11:4.] These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.12

“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, all that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.” Exodus 19:4-6. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.13

They had not yet heard his voice; but, when they did hear it, the ten commandments were spoken. And so they had agreed to obey the ten commandments indeed. And, even after they had heard his voice in such majesty that they feared and “removed and stood afar off,” they declared, “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” 24:7. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 328.14

But they corresponded to the child of Hagar the bondwoman, who “was born after the flesh.” They knew only the birth of the flesh; and so had only the mind of the flesh, which “is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be;” and they could no more obey that law “indeed” than Ishmael, the child of the flesh in the family of Abraham, could fulfill the promise to Abraham. In that condition they could no more keep God’s covenant than the scheme of Sarai in bringing in Hagar was the keeping of that covenant. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 378.1

How, then, could such a covenant ever be brought in? Why did they enter into such a covenant?—“They had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability, IN THEMSELVES, to render obedience to God’s law, and their need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught....The people did not realize THE SINFULNESS OF THEIR OWN HEARTS, and that without Christ it was impossible for them to keep God’s law; AND THEY READILY ENTERED INTO COVENANT WITH GOD. Feeling that they were able to establish THEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, they declared, ‘All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. ’”—Patriarchs and Prophets, 371, 372. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 378.2

They were already in the bondage of sin and self-righteousness; and in that bondage, with minds “not subject to the law of God,” and which indeed could not be, they promised to obey the law of God “indeed.” But in the condition in which they were, it was inevitable that they would break their promise: they simply could not keep their promise. It was not in them to do it. Thus, in that covenant, they were breakers of the law, and BREAKERS OF THEIR PROMISE not to break the law. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 378.3

And this is all that they could be, in that covenant, or by virtue of anything in that covenant. Accordingly that covenant, AS HAGAR, gendered, and could gender, only to bondage. And this, all simply because of their distrust of God and their unbelief of his promise as revealed in the covenant with Abraham, which covenant was given to them directly, before they ever started from Egypt at all. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 378.4

“These are the two covenants; the one from 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... Now WE, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 378.5

“Editorial Note” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 24, p. 379.

IN the Outlook of May 26 the editor, Dr. Lyman Abbott, in an attempt to state, “as an illustration,” how the second and third chapters of Genesis “are characterized, not by the spirit of a scientific investigator into problems of anthropology, but by a naïve, childlike, yet divine imagination,” cites, among other things, that “in the garden are two trees of which they may not eat!” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 379.1

Now Genesis itself says, “Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: BUT of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of IT.” ARSH June 12, 1900, page 379.2

It would seem that any one criticising the Scriptures as being not scientific, ought himself to be sufficiently scientific to read straight, and report correctly, what is said in the very scripture that he is criticising. ARSH June 12, 1900, page 379.3