In the studies of several weeks ago, we have abundantly seen what is the Beast. And in the nature of things, whatsoever is like it, is the Image of the Beast.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.2

In these studies we have likewise seen that, in this nation and before the eyes of all people to-day, there is abundance of effort revealing a perfect likeness to the efforts which were the making of the Beast; and which, therefore, in the nature of things, can result here only in the making of the Image of the Beast.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.3

Now, while it is true that the Third Angel’s Message is a warning against the worship of the Beast and his Image, and this upon the basis of the keeping of the commandments of God, it is equally true that the law of God forbids the making of images, just as really as it forbids the worship of them. Indeed that law forbids, first of all, the making of images; and, plainly, if no images were ever made, no images would ever be worshiped.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.4

Therefore, when the awful warning of the Third Angel’s Message is spoken against the worship of the Beast and his Image, and this upon the basis of the law of God, it is certain that this Message warns just as much against the making of the Image of the Beast as it does against the worship of that Image.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.5

Accordingly, it is just as certainly the giving of the Message, it is just as certainly the work of the people who must give that Message, to warn all people against the making of the Image of the Beast, as ever it can be, when that Image stands fully made, alive and active in its dreadful work, to warn them against the worship of the image.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.6

Simple Christian regard for mankind requires that the people shall be warned against the making of the Image; because thousands of persons will take part in the making of the Image of the Beast who would have no part at all in it if they knew what they were doing.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.7

Consequently, if they to whom is committed the giving of this Message to the world, really care for the spiritual welfare, and, in this time, even the temporal welfare, of their fellow men, surely they will be as earnest and active, while the Image is being made, to make known to all people, by every possible means, what is the making of the Image of the Beast, as they will have to be earnest and active in making known what is the Image of the Beast, and in warning against its worship, after it is made.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.8

This is yet further emphasized in the truth that whoever, professing to have that Message of warning, does not warn against the making of the Image, will not be likely to warn anybody against the worship of the Image when it shall have been made. How can he? If he is unable to discern the movements that enter into the making of the Image, will he be likely to discern the Image that is made by those movements, and which simply results from those movements which he is unable to detect?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.9

And yet further this is emphasized by the fact that the Third Angel’s Message was opened to the world by the Lord long before the Image was made. Now, if the Message is a warning only against the worship of the Image, and not just as much against the making of the Image, then why should the Message ever has been opened up before the Image is made? Surely, it can not be worshiped until it shall have been made. Then, if the warning against the worship of the Image is the only true bearing and strength to the Message, there can be no place for that Message of be preached until after the Image shall have been made.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.10

But, instead of that, the Third Angel’s Message was opened to the world more than fifty years ago—long before any of these definite steps had been taken toward the making of the Image of the Beast. This very fact makes it certain that the message must be given in warning against the making of the Image, just as certainly as against the worship of it after it shall have been made.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.11

In these studies we have called attention to the falling away from the gospel, in Christianity in this nation, just as there was a falling away in Christianity in the Roman Empire. And, as the result of this falling away in Christianity in this nation, we have traced, step by step, her theories and practices in the exact likeness of those that appeared in the falling away in Christianity in the Roman Empire. And from these things, no one who sees them can fail to see that there is being made here, to-day, the Image of the Beast. That is as certain as that those things that occurred in the Roman State were the making of the Beast.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.12

Six to ten years ago, Seventh-day Adventists, throughout this whole nation, were wide-awake and active in discerning the making of the Image of the Beast, and in warning people against it. Why are they not so active now? Have all the efforts ceased that were then being made in the formation of the Image of the Beast?—It is hardly possible that any person even thinks that those efforts have ceased. And if it were possible that there should be any who so think, it is certain that they would be thinking wrongly; because it is the truth that there has been not only no cessation of those efforts, but that all continue which were then in vogue, and many others have been added. And these new efforts are no less powerful in their working, and no less portentous in their meaning, than were the others; yea, they are even more portentous, because of the added strength of the original efforts, by the lapse of time; and because of this lapse of time itself, which brings us so much nearer the great culmination.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.13

The efforts which, six to ten years ago, were rife in the making of the Image of the Beast, and to which we were all so alive at the time, are summed up in the words—the repudiation by this nation of the principle of Protestantism.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.14

But the National Reform system—that combination which accomplishes the formation of the Image of the Beast—does not end with the repudiation of the principles of Protestantism: it includes also the repudiation of the principles of republicanism. The repudiation of the principles of both these was inherent in the National Reform movement from the beginning. The repudiation of republican principle inheres in the repudiation of the Protestant principle. This the National Reformers knew. Not only did they know it, but they proclaimed it. They said openly, and published it to the world, that “to appeal to divine authority in our legislation would be to fundamentally change the law of our land, or the principle adopted by our fathers when they said that all governments drive their just powers from the consent of the governed. I for one do not believe that as a political maxim. I do not believe that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And SO the object of this movement is AN EFFORT TO CHANGE THAT FEATURE OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW.... And I see in this reform a providence teaching us the necessity of recognizing something else besides the will of the people as the basis of government.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.15

It has been a repeated declaration of representative men of the Nation Reform movement, that “governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.16

Accordingly the abandonment by the government of the United States of the fundamental principle of the nation, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is not at all a new thing except in the mere acts in which the thing is manifested in practice. This practice is only the fruit of the evil seed diligently sown all over the land for more than thirty-five years by the National Reform organization.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.17

All these years their organization has been working and aiming definitely to turn the Untied States government into a government of another form. Accordingly that organization has denied and repudiated the fundamental principles of this nation as the nation was founded.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.18

All these years this organization has had its agents traveling throughout the length and breadth of the land, diligently teaching these principles, which are antagonistic to the principles of the nation. These agents have had unquestioned entry into the academies and colleges of the whole country; they have been prominent on the programs of Chautauqua assemblies; they have had the sympathy and support of the churches, and of religious and temperance organizations, everywhere. And all these opportunities they have employed to the uttermost.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.19

Now, in the discussion of this question in national circles to-day, it is recognized that it is the younger generation of public men who are leading in the path of world-glory at the expense of the fundamental principles of the nation; while the old men are the conservatives, and call for allegiance still to these principles wherever the jurisdiction of the nation may be extended.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.20

This is the truth. And this younger generation of public men of to-day were the boys in the academies and colleges of the country twenty to thirty years ago—in the time when the National Reformers were sowing that evil seed in the colleges and academies everywhere. These were the boys who in those academies and colleges were inoculated in those years with this virus of the National Reformers—that governments do not derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. And now when those boys, as the men of the younger generation in public affairs to-day, meet a crisis in which it must be decided whether the fundamental principles of the nation shall be adhered to or repudiated, they are prepared, and have long been prepared, to repudiate these principles in the interests of a will-o-the-wisp of “the empire of the Son of God,” and in order to the execution of “his will”!ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.21

This is the secret and the true philosophy of this national repudiation of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the nation to-day,—the repudiation of the principles of republicanism.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.22

Thus this national repudiation of the principles of republicanism to-day, is just as certainly an element in the National Reform movement, is just as certainly a part of that movement, as was the national repudiation of the principles of Protestantism seven to eight years ago. This to-day is just as certainly an element in the making of the Image of the Beast, as was that of seven to eight years ago. Is it possible that there are any who profess to know the Third Angel’s Message, who can not see that this is so? And if this be possible, then is it not high time for them to awake out of sleep, and look diligently lest they themselves shall be found taking part in the making of the Image of the Beast?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.23

To-day, while it is called to-day, is the most thrilling and the most critical time that the people of the Third Angel’s Message have ever seen. Who is awake to this time and its work? Who is studying the Third Angel’s Message as for his life? Who is proclaiming the Third Angel’s Message, as that message is to-day, for to-day?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.24

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 25, p. 392.

LAST year there was held, in the city of Rome, the Plenary Council of Latin America. The acts and decrees of this council have only lately been issued, in Latin. The Independent of May 10 presents a translation of some of the items of these acts and decrees. In the title, “On Catholic Faith,” says the Independent, “it very severely attacks the civil indifferentism which would allow the state to take no care of religion. It declares, following the Pius IX Syllabus of Errors, against public schools in which religion is not taught, and insists that “they are totally in error who say that there must be a separation between church and state.” It condemns “those who either reject the notion of revelation, or who, practically withdrawing all revelation from society and all authority of God and the church, declare for a separation of church from state, and a political atheism bewitched by a show of refinement and progress.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 392.1

“Studies in Galatians. The Two Covenants. Galatians 4:21-25” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 77, 25, 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 bond-woman 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.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.1

Ishmael was the son of Abraham, born after the flesh. And what was his disposition? Before he was born the Lord described it: “He will be a wild ass man.” The Revised Version translates it: “He shall be as a wild ass among men.” “His hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.2

Remember that this child of Hagar, this son that was born after the flesh, this “wild ass among men,” was the fruit of the invention of Sarai’s, which sprang from her distrust of God and unbelief of his promise to give a son. Accordingly, bear in mind that this son was intended by Sarai to fulfill the promise of God. It was really intended, and even expected by Sarai, and even by Abraham, that this child of the flesh, this wild man, should be accepted by the Lord as the son whom he intended in his promise; and that the promises to Abraham should be fulfilled in him. This is certain, by the fact that, afterward, when the Lord told Abraham that he would give him a son by Sarai, Abraham answered; “O that Ishmael might live before thee!”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.3

Now remember that Hagar, the mother of this “wild ass man,” represents the covenant from Sinai; and her son, who was born after the flesh,—this wild man,—represents the children of that covenant from Sinai. And just as, in the invention which brought forth Ishmael, it was intended that he should fulfill the promise of God, and that the Lord’s covenant with Abraham should be fulfilled through him, so these children of the covenant at Sinai, like Ishmael, born after the flesh, expected that they could fulfill the promise of God, and that the Lord’s covenant with Abraham should be accomplished in its fullness through them; that is, through the flesh.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.4

But Abraham kept the commandments of God. The righteousness of God is an essential part of the covenant with Abraham; for, without it, no one can attain unto the inheritance given to Abraham in the covenant. But how would Ishmael, born after the flesh, keep the commandments of God, when the minding of the flesh is only enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, and neither indeed can be? How could that wild ass man keep the commandments of God, with his hand against every man, when one of the two principles of the whole law of God is, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.5

And this child of Hagar the bondwoman corresponds to the children of that covenant at Sinai, which gendereth to bondage. As Ishmael, they know only the birth of the flesh, and only “the minding of the flesh,” which is enmity against God, and is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, they covenanted to keep the law of God “indeed”!ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.6

But Ishmael was not the son intended by the Lord: he could not fulfill the promise of God, nor could the promise of God be fulfilled in him. So far as God’s promise was concerned, and God’s covenant with Abraham, Ishmael’s birth was no more than as if he had never been born at all.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.7

Accordingly, when Abraham said to the Lord: “O that Ishmael might live before thee!” “God said, Nay, but Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his seed after him. And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.” Genesis 18:19-21, R. V.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.8

At this time Sarai had become a believer in God’s promise, and trusted God alone, and the Lord had changed her name to Sarah. And so, “through faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed;” and according to the promise Isaac was born.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.9

Now what was Isaac’s disposition?—It is illustrated in his conduct at the time that Abraham and he supposed that he was to be offered as a sacrifice. He submitted, as a lamb, to be offered. It is further illustrated in the record in Genesis 26: After Abraham had died, and Isaac was the heir of the covenant, he dwelt for a time in the land where the Philistines were. “Now all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. And Isaac departed thence, and encamped in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.10

“And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father, for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. And Isaac’s servants digged in the valley, and found there a well of springing water.” Genesis 26:15-19, R. V.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.11

These wells were doubly Isaac’s. Abraham had digged them, and they therefore belonged to Abraham. And when Isaac became heir of Abraham, these wells became his by inheritance. And now he had digged them again, which was the same as if he had digged them new. Thus they were doubly his. Yet by even more than this they were his, because the Philistines, when the wells were open, had filled them with earth, showing in the strongest possible way that they did not wish them at all.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.12

Yet the Philistines come now to Isaac, and say of the wells which he had opened, and which, by such full right, were his: “The water is ours.” Verse 20. Isaac let them have it. But what would Ishmael have done? And what would you do? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.13

Isaac “digged another well,” and the Philistines “strove for that also.” But Isaac, instead of striving with them for this, which was by such large right altogether his own, “removed from thence, and digged another well.” But what would Ishmael have done? And what would you do? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.14

When Isaac had digged this last well, for it the Philistines “strove not: and he called the name of it Rohoboth: and he said, For now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be fruitful in the land.” Verse 22.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.15

But how was it that the Lord made room for him?—Simply by Isaac’s refusal to strive with the Philistines, by his yielding to them all that they claimed, even when it was his by every possible right. But could the Lord have ever “made room” for Ishmael and those Philistines? Does the Lord “make room” for you and the envious opposers? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.16

“And he went up from thence to Beer-sheba. And the Lord appeared unto him the same night, and said, I am the God of Abraham thy father; fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for my servant Abraham’s sake. And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the Lord, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac’s servants digged a well.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.17

“Then Abimelec went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath one of his friends, and Phicol the chief captain of his army. And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you? And they said, We saw certainly that the Lord was with thee... Thou art now the blessed of the Lord.” Verses 28-29. But it was only by Isaac’s continual yielding before them that they ever had any opportunity to see that the Lord was with him, and that he was the blessed of the Lord. But what would Ishmael have done? And what would you do? What do you do? Which of the “two sons” of Abraham are you? “These are the two covenants.” Of which covenant are you?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.18

And so “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 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 bond age, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount Sinai, 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.” Are you?ARSH June 19, 1900, page 328.19

“Protestants and Catholics” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 77, 25, pp. 394, 395.

JUNE 5 we reprinted, from the Christian Advocate, an editorial on “The Church of Rome and Protestantism,” which closed with the following excellent words:—ARSH June 19, 1900, page 394.1

If the twentieth century obliterates distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics, the latter will swallow up individual Protestants in ever-increasing numbers; while at the other extreme, agonosticism will flourish, and many of the most spiritually minded Protestants, distracted, will react into various forms of fanaticism; and worse, though different, forms of confusion than those that have marked the well-defined conflicts of the past will leave a large majority of the population of adult years drifting into worldliness or agnosticism, protected from suspicion and unpleasant embarrassment by a politic silence.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 394.2

This is not prophecy, but conclusions based upon an “if.” To say that if dynamite is ignited, there will be an explosion, is not prophecy, but truth.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 394.3

These words are worth reprinting again for the truth which they contain; and this especially in view of what further we have not to present; for the Christian Advocate is pre-eminently the church paper of the Methodist denomination.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 394.4

The Methodist General Conference always prints a Daily Christian Advocate, giving full proceedings of the Conference. The editor of the Daily Christian Advocate is chosen by the General Conference, at each session. At the late session of the Conference, Levi Gilbert, D.D., was editor of the Daily Christian Advocate. By the Conference he was also elected editor of the Western Christian Advocate, an official paper of the denomination, for the Cincinnati district. In the Daily Christian Advocate of May 28, there is an editorial on “Protestants and Catholics.” This editorial is written with reference to the statement of Justice Brewer, and of the New York Sun in commenting upon it, which we reprinted June 5. After referring to the statement of Justice Brewer, and the article of the Sun, the editor of the Daily Christian Advocate says:—ARSH June 19, 1900, page 394.5

But the true position of religious bodies, either in their relation to the truth, to the age, or to each other, can never be learned accurately from an examination simply of their dogmas. Pastors in the field can better report the practical situation. They know that there is a better entente cordiale [French for “cordial understanding”] between the two great sections of Christianity than there was fifty years ago. The old bitterness and rancor is somewhat subsiding. There is, perhaps, owing to a larger and more sympathetic study of history, a better understanding of each others’ position and a better appreciation of the great work being done by each. At least this is so in the Protestant pulpit. It is true that the Protestant minister still thinks that Rome has very much superstition and misleading ceremonialism to eliminate before she can become a truly apostolic church; but he no longer identifies that church with the “scarlet woman” or thunders against Babylon. Rather he sees very much good working with and underneath the evil,—the good overbalancing the evil,—and he prays that more and more that great church may free itself from abuses and errors, and come, purified, into a clearer faith. He fraternizes not infrequently with Catholic priests. He is glad to sit side by side with them in public meetings, such as those conducted by the Anti-Saloon League, and to speak on the same program. He welcomes the growing spirit of Americanism shown by their great prelates, like Keane, Ireland, and Gibbons. He reverences the memory and deeds of such brave and good priests as Father Malone and Dr. McGlynn and Father Damien. He is glad to admit that the Church of Rome to-day is not what Luther found it; that Pope Leo is not another Borgian, but a leader of high character, piety, and intellectual genius; that the church in the United States is not what it is in Spain and Mexico—that it is involuntarily affected by the atmosphere and institutions of freedom, and this process will go on wherever spreads in the lands of absolution.ARSH June 19, 1900, page 394.6

From this it is plain that even in the Methodist Church there are influential persons who are “obliterating distinctions between Protestants and Roman Catholics,” and so are helping forward the time when the Catholic Church “will swallow individual Protestants in ever-increasing numbers.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 395.1

It must be borne in mind also that all of this “better understanding” and “better appreciation” is on the side of the Protestants. And what is peculiar about it is that these Protestants think they know more about Rome than Rome herself knows; they insist that Rome is better than she used to be, while Rome herself insists that she is not—that “Rome never changes.” They declare that “the Church of Rome to-day is not what Luther found it,” while the Church of Rom herself declares that she is to-day exactly what she was before “the so-called Reformation.”ARSH June 19, 1900, page 395.2

June 12, 1900

June 26, 1900