The Lord's Day From Neither
Catholics Nor Pagans:
An Answer to Seventh-day Adventism on this Subject
By D. M. Canright
CHAPTER 11:
THE MARK OF THE BEAST—WHAT IS IT?
Seventy-day Adventists teach that the ten-horned beast of Rev. xiii. 1-10 is the Papacy and that the two-horned beast of verses 11-18 is the United States. No commentator or Christian scholar of this or any other age of the Church agrees with them in this. Plausible expositions of these symbols have been offered, many of them far better sustained than the one Adventists have invented. For myself, I am sure they are wrong on both these beasts, but I will not argue that point as it is not essential in the question before us. Grant their claim that the beast is the Papacy, then the question is, What is the supreme mark of the Papacy? This is easily settled.
1. Seventh-Day Adventists assert in the most positive manner that the Pope changed the Sabbath to Sunday. "The Pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to the first day." (Mrs. White, "Early Writings," p. 55)
2. Then they affirm that "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." ("The Marvel of Nations," by U. Smith, p. 183) "The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." (Advent Review, Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850) "Sunday the distinctive mark of papal power." This is the heading of Chapter XXII in their "History of the Sabbath," 1912. The whole chapter is devoted to it. They thunder this into the ears of people, and threaten them with God's wrath if they keep Sunday, till they frighten ignorant souls to give it up.
3. This change in the Sabbath, they say, was made by the Popes at the Council of Laodicea, A.D. 364. ("Replies to Elder Canright," p. 151) This was over 1,500 years ago.
4. All who keep Sunday, they assert, worship the beast and receive his mark. "Sunday-keeping is an institution of the first beast, and all who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 'the mark of the beast.' . . . Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshippers of the golden calf." (Advent Review Extra, pp. 10 and 11, August, 1850) This language is too plain to be mistaken. All who keep Sunday are idolaters and have the mark of the beast.
5. But, strange to tell, they now all deny that any one has ever had the mark of the beast. "We have never so held, "says Smith. ("Marvel of Nations," p. 184) All right, though this is a square denial of what they once taught, as above. It is a common thing for them to change their positions and then deny it. We proceed:
6. The United States will soon pass a strict Sunday law and unite Church and State; then all who still keep Sunday will have the mark. ("Marvel of Nations," p. 185)
ANSWER
Does the Bible say that the mark of the beast is keeping Sunday? No, indeed. That is only another one of then" assumptions. To establish this, they have to make a long, roundabout set of arguments, built upon inferences none of which are sound. Their theory is false, because:
1. The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross (Col. 2:16). Hence, it was not changed by the Pope.
2. Sunday is the Lord's day of Rev. 1:10. (See Chapter 10 of this book)
3. The Pope never changed the Sabbath. This point I have proved conclusively. This fact alone upsets their whole argument on the mark of the beast.
THE ABSURDITIES OF THEIR POSITION
1. Sunday-keeping has been the mark of the beast for 1,500 years. During all this long time millions have kept Sunday on the sole authority of the Roman Church, and yet no one had the mark!
2. The keeping of Sunday has been time and again and in many countries enforced by law and severe penalties, just as they say it will be in the future here, and yet none of those who have kept it as thus enforced have had the mark of the beast!
3. Church and State have been united in various countries, and have enforced this institution of the Papacy, as they call it, and yet it was not enforcing the mark of the beast!
4. For over 1,500 years, taking their own dates, all the pious of the earth, the martyrs, the reformers, the Luthers, Wesleys and Judsons, have observed Sunday and enjoyed the blessing of God, but now, all at once, the whole world, Christians and all, are to be damned and drink the wrath of God for doing just what all holy men have done for ages! Of Sunday-keeping in the future, Mrs. White says: "That must be a terrible sin which calls down the wrath of God unmingled with mercy." ("Great Controversy," p. 282) This terrible sin is just what all the Church of Christ has practiced for ages, and yet have had God's blessing! How absurd.
5. It is attempted to dodge this point by saying that those of other ages did not have the light on the Sabbath. This is not true. Luther, Bunyan, Baxter, Milton, all had the "light" on the Sabbath question, and rejected it and wrote against it. Then I can do it, too, and not have the mark of the beast, if they did not.
6. If it is worshipping the beast to rest from physical labor on Sunday after one knows that Sunday is the Pope's Sabbath, then many Seventh-Day Adventists are worshippers of the beast. Why? Because they often rest on Sunday. Book agents, colporteurs, teachers, drummers, persons visiting relatives, ministers in new places, etc., all frequently rest on Sunday, and even go to church and hold meetings all day! Are they worshippers of the beast? Why not? Do you say they only do it for convenience or from policy? Just so they can rest on Sunday for the same reason when the law shall require it, and not worship the beast any more than Adventists do now.
7. Deny it as they may, the Seventh-Day Adventist teachings do make all Sunday-keepers, both now and in past ages, worshippers of the beast, having the mark of the beast. Here is proof in their own words:
Proof in their own words
1. The Pope changed the Sabbath. Sunday is only the Pope's day. (See above.)
2. "The mark of the beast is the change the beast made in the law of God" in the Sabbath. ("Marvel of Nations," p. 175) Then the mark of the beast existed as soon as the change was made, which they locate 1,500 years ago. Is not this conclusion inevitable? If the mark of the beast is the change of the Sabbath which was made by the Papacy in the fourth century, then that mark has existed ever since. There is no escape from this conclusion.
3. All who have kept the law since that date, as changed by the beast, have been keeping the law of the beast, not the law of God; have been worshippers of the beast, not worshippers of God. Here is their own argument for it: Referring to the prophecy that the Papacy should "change times and laws " (Dan. 7:25), which they claim the Pope fulfilled A.D. 364 by changing the Sabbath to Sunday, Elder Smith says: "When this is done [which is 1,500 years ago], what do the people of the world have? They have two laws demanding obedience" - the law of God and the law of the Pope. "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. . . . For instance, if God says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, on which we must rest, but the Pope says that the first day is the Sabbath, and that we should keep this day, and not the seventh, then whoever observes that precept as originally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshipper of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby marked as a follower of the power that made the change. . . . From this conclusion no candid mind can dissent." ("Marvel of Nations," pp. 174 and 175)
Then, for the past fifteen hundred years, all who have kept Sunday have been "marked" as followers of the beast and have worshipped him! From their own argument, does not this inevitably follow? Of course it does. When they try to deny and evade this conclusion, they simply contradict and stultify themselves. Either their argument is a fallacy, or else this conclusion must follow. Look at this hideous Moloch which they have set up to frighten the ignorant. The Pope in the fourth century changed the law of God by changing the Sabbath to Sunday. This change is the mark of the beast; whoever after that keeps that law as thus changed is keeping not the law of God, but the Pope's law; is worshipping, not God, but the Pope. But all Christians for fifteen hundred years have kept Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast, and, as Smith says, were "thereby marked as followers of the power that made the change." From this conclusion there is no escape. And so all Sunday-keepers have had the mark of the beast, and have it now.
But they say that they do not teach that any one as yet has had the mark of the beast. This shows the absurdity of their argument. Sunday keeping is the mark of the beast, yet Sunday-keepers have not got the mark of the beast! For instance: I have a hundred counterfeit bills; I pay them out to fifty men in Otsego, and they take and keep them, yet not a man of them has a counterfeit bill! Isn't that clear - as mud? But they don't know that they are counterfeit bills, and so are not guilty for having them. But have they not got counterfeit bills for all that? Certainly. So, if Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, then they have it whether they know it or not. God may not hold them guilty for it, but they have it just the same. Now, as soon as these fifty men are informed that their bills are counterfeit, are they not guilty if they use them after that? Yes. So, as soon as a man is informed that Sunday is the mark of the beast, if he keeps it after that has he not the mark of the beast as truly as ever he can have it? And if he still keeps Sunday voluntarily is he not just as guilty before God as though the law compelled him to keep it? Yes, and more so; because now he has no excuse, while then he could plead that he was compelled to do it. So, then, it needs no Sunday law to give men the mark of the beast. All Sunday-keepers have it already, and as soon as they are informed that Sunday is the mark of the beast, then they are guilty as worshippers of the beast. But Seventh-Day Adventists have already informed thousands upon this point. Then if they have not the mark of the beast, why not? Remember that Luther, Milton, Baxter, Bunyan and William Miller, father and founder of Adventism, were all informed on the Sabbath question, and still wrote against it and kept Sunday. Reader, this Advent mark of the beast is an absurdity and only a scarecrow. Don't be frightened.
Even if the Pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday, that would not make Sunday his mark. The mark of any person was that which he used to mark things as belonging to him. In Bible times a master would put his mark on the right hand or forehead of his slaves. Heathen gods had their worshippers marked so. This custom is referred to and used here as an illustration. So the worshippers of the beast would be required to do something which would mark or distinguish them as his followers. But keeping Sunday does not distinguish a Catholic from members of other Churches, for all Churches keep Sunday - the Greek, Armenian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, etc. The Pope has never used Sunday to distinguish his followers from others, nor as proof of his authority as head of the Church. He does point to the keys of St. Peter and his regular apostolic succession from him as proof of his authority. Says Dowling: "The Popes assert 'their divine right of supremacy in consequence of their claiming to be the successors of the Apostle Peter.'" ("History of Romanism," p. 44) On this, not on Sunday-keeping, they base their claim of power. Some obscure writer is quoted, claiming authority for the Church to "command feasts and holy days," because that Church has made Sunday holy. This falls infinitely short of making Sunday the proof of all their authority, the one "mark" of that Church.
4. It is absurd to say that observing Sunday as the Sabbath is such a fearful crime as Adventists affirm. Hear Elder Smith: "Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." "The reception of his mark must be something that involves the greatest offense that can be committed against God." ("Marvel of Nations," pp. 170, 183) So keeping Sunday is more wicked than lying, stealing, or even murder or idolatry! Such a statement is monstrous. In the mind of any candid, thinking man, it must break down under the weight of its own absurdity.
WHAT, THEN, IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST?
What do Catholics themselves claim as the mark of the Papal Church? Do they say what it is? Yes, most emphatically. In every doctrinal book they publish, no matter how small, even a few paged catechism for little tots, up to a great cyclopedia of many volumes, this mark is always given in bold head-lines, thus:
MARKS OF THE CHURCH
Here is a sample from "A Shorter Catechism of the Catholic Religion ":
- "By what marks may the true Church of Christ be known?
- "The true Church of Christ may be known by these four marks. She is (1) One; (2) Holy; (3) Catholic; (4) Apostolic.
- "Which Church has all these four marks?
- "It is plain that no Church has all these four marks except the Roman Catholic Church, that is, the Church which acknowledges the Pope of Rome as the head " (pages 37-38).
Here are the marks of that Church given exactly the same in every catechism and doctrinal work. Is Sunday-keeping one of them? No. It is never named in that list of marks. The crowning one of these is to acknowledge the authority of the Pope of Rome. So to acknowledge his supreme authority is to acknowledge that Church as the true Church. Here you have the mark of the beast, if the Papacy is that beast! Seventh-Day Adventists say that the " Beast" of Rev. xiii. 1-10 is the Papacy. Suppose we grant it. Then they say that Sunday-keeping is the " mark " of this beast, the Papacy. This we emphatically deny. The supreme mark, the one distinguishing characteristic of the Papacy, is the supremacy of the Pope. This one feature distinguishes it from all other churches. Thus Johnson's "New Universal Cyclopedia" says: "Roman Catholic Church, that body of Christians which acknowledges the authority of the Pope of Rome." Again in the same article it says : " The best summary of the leading articles of the Roman faith is contained in the creed of Pope Pius IV, which is binding upon all priests and public teachers, and which must be confessed by all converts." There are eleven articles. The tenth says: " I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ."
Every Catholic must take this oath. No one can become a member without it. Whoever confesses his adherence to this dogma thereby is marked as a papist, distinct from all other Churches. When he swears acceptance of this article, he thereby promises obedience to all the requirements of the Roman Church. Then is not this the mark of that Church? Surely.
Here are a few more quotations from Catholics on the same subject: "The Church which Jesus Christ established may be defined briefly as a society composed of all who practice religion according to the guidance of His vicar (the Pope) on earth." (Manual of Theology for the Laity, p.185, by Rev. P. Geiermann)
"The whole Catholic world of more than two hundred and fifty millions of souls acknowledges and obeys the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter and the vicar of Christ on earth." (Same book, p. 233)
Notice that all the time it is the supremacy of the Pope that is insisted upon as the one important mark of the true Church. It was a protest against this claim of the supremacy of the Pope that brought on the great Reformation under Luther and others. Thus Conway, a Catholic, in the "Question Box," says: "The Reformers of the sixteenth century, indeed, claimed a special mission to overthrow the existing government of the Church by denying the universal jurisdiction of the Pope" (page 187).
Yes, it was a protest against the supremacy of the Pope's authority which brought on the great Reformation. Hence, the name "Protestants." Rome still urges the acknowledgment of this papal mark. As late as September 29, 1913, Cardinal Gibbons, in the Baltimore American says: "The reunion of the scattered branches of Christendom is a consummation to be devoutly wished. The first essential requirement is the recognition of the sovereign pontiff, who, as the successor of St. Peter, is the divinely appointed head of Christendom."
Notice that " the first essential thing " is to recognize the supremacy of the Pope. That is the one supreme question, the one test above all others. Accept that and all else will be easily settled! Of course, for that carries with it obedience to the whole papal system. Here you have the mark plainly enough.
"There must be a distinguishing characteristic which through all the differences of color, nationality, or education, will inevitably mark each adherent of that system and leave no question as to one's relation to it. "A Catholic may be a loyal Englishman, an American, a Chinaman, a Japanese, a negro, or an Indian, no matter where he lives, or to what nation he belongs, the one person towards whom his fealty never wavers is "the Holy Father," the Pope of Rome.
Even Elder Smith, Adventist, says of this mark: "It will evidently be some act or acts by which men will be required to acknowledge the authority of that power (Papacy) and yield obedience to its mandates." (Thoughts on Revelations, p. 591) That is correct.
Every Catholic is required to do just exactly that, acknowledge the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope of Rome and yield implicit obedience to his authority and mandates. Does keeping Sunday do that?
Here is a question. Mark it well. Does Rome ever require a person to promise to keep Sunday as a test of admittance as a member? Never! My neighbor is a Catholic in good standing, yet he works every Sunday. Could he deny the supremacy of the Pope and remain a member? No. Which, then, is the mark of loyalty to Rome? Is it Sunday-keeping? Even an Adventist must see the absurdity of that.
During the long night of papal supremacy hundreds of thousands were persecuted, their goods confiscated, themselves driven out to die as martyrs, because they would not acknowledge the supreme authority of the Pope. This is what all Protestants have been warring against for three hundred years and are doing it still. "The Supremacy of the Pope of Rome" has been the one disputed question in the history of the Church from the sixth century on till now. The great Eastern, or Greek, Church would never submit to it, and finally severed all connection with Rome on this very account. That issue is just as prominent to-day as ever. Protestant Churches protest against it now the same as then. Read our church papers; also the Menace, Protestant Magazine, etc.
If a man confesses his faith in the Roman pontiff as head of the Church and infallible, is he not counted by all as a Roman Catholic? Certainly. Now contrast this with Sunday-keeping. In my city there are Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Episcopalians, Disciples, Lutherans, United Brethren, and other Churches-all keeping Sunday. Does this mark them as Roman Catholics? Does any one think of them as papists on this account? Do they themselves ever think of it as marking them Catholics? Do the Catholics themselves count these as Catholics because they keep Sunday? Absolutely no. Every intelligent person knows that keeping Sunday does not mark any one as a papist. But to acknowledge the Pope as the infallible head of the Church does do this. Is not this absolutely true? Then what is the one universal mark of a Roman Catholic? Is it Sunday-keeping? We all know better. It is loyalty to the Pope of Rome. No candid man will deny that. Every Catholic authority will agree with it. Here, then, is the "mark" of the Papacy.
What is the one characteristic mark of a Mohammedan? It is loyalty to Mohammed as God's prophet. What of a Christian Scientist? Loyalty to Mrs. Eddy as head of that Church. What of a Christian? Loyalty to Christ as the head of the Church. What, then, is the chief mark of a papist? Loyalty to the Pope, "the Holy Father," as the supreme infallible head of the Papacy. Every Catholic will say that. Here is the mark of the beast, if the Papacy is the beast as Adventists claim.
Next: Chapter 12—THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT CHANGED BY CATHOLICS - ADVENTISTS DECAPITATE THE DECALOGUE.
How Adventists try to prove it - Protestant and Catholic Catechisms compared - Lutheran Catechism - Adventists decapitate the Decalogue - Introductory words important part of that law and designate the Author of it.