Larger font
Smaller font
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font

    November 5, 1885

    “The Little Horn of Daniel 7” The Signs of the Times, 11, 42.

    E. J. Waggoner



    No Authorcode

    The Little Horn of Daniel 7

    Before making any comments on the “little horn” of Daniel 7, we wish to complete the notes on the “little horn” of Daniel 8, which was the subject of last week’s lesson. By reference to the notes of last week, it will be seen that we proved conclusively that the “little horn” of Daniel 8 represents the Roman Empire. This proof cannot be repeated, but one or two additional proofs will be given. It will be remembered that the third kingdom-Grecia-represented by the goat with the notable horn, was divided into four parts after the death of Alexander, the four divisions being represented by the four horns which “came” after the great horn was broken. The prophet then introduces the fourth kingdom-Rome-as follows:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.1

    “And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.” Daniel 8:9. This seems to some to be an objection to calling this little horn Rome; for how, they ask, could Rome be said to come forth from one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire? In point of fact, this is no objection at all; but on careful consideration is just what we might expect; for if Grecia was a universal empire, which is affirmed by both sacred and profane history, then any power which should rise up against it, must naturally come forth from some part of it. That Alexander’s dominion was universal, extending even to Rome, is attested by the following statements:SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.2

    “The Lucanians and Bruttians [inhabitants of Italy] are especially mentioned as having sent embassies to Alexander at Babylon.” “‘The Tyrrhenians also,’ said Aristobulus and Ptolemaeus, ‘sent an embassy to the king to congratulate him upon his conquests.’” “There is every reason to believe that among the Tyrrhenian ambassadors mentioned by Alexander’s historians, there were included ambassadors from Rome.... History may allow us to think that Alexander and a Roman ambassador did meet at Babylon; that the greatest man of the ancient world saw and spoke with a citizen of that great nation which was destined to succeed him in his appointed work, and to found a wider and still more enduring empire.”-Arnold’s History of Rome, chap. 30, part. 1 and 2.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.3

    But there is still more direct evidence to show the propriety of speaking of Rome as coming out of one of the divisions of the Grecian Empire. We quote and abridge from Prideaux, who relates the history in a very entertaining manner. First, however, we will state that the four divisions represented by the four horns, were Macedon, Thrace, Syria, and Egypt. In the year 168 B.C., Antiochus Ephiphanes, then king of the Syrian division, determined to make himself master of Egypt, which was then governed by his nephew and niece, who were very strong, and incapable of successful resistance. Says Prideaux:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.4

    “This he most certainly would have accomplished, but that he met a Roman embassy in his way, which put a stop to his further progress, and totally dashed all the designs which he had been so long carrying on for the making of himself master of that country.”-Connexion, Vol. 2, Book 3, “An. 168, Ptol. Philometer 13.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.5

    The embassy was one which the Roman Senate had sent in response to the request of the young Egyptian monarch for assistance against Antiochus. The reader will not fail to note that only three ambassadors, and not an army, were sent by the Romans to command Antiochus to desist from his intended war on Egypt. These ambassadors met Antiochus when he was only four miles from Alexandria, when he was on his way to be besiege that city. The chief ambassador was Popillius, with whom Antiochus had been intimate while he was in Rome as a hostage. On seeing Popillius, Antiochus reached for his hand to embrace him as an old friend. “But Popillius, refusing the complement, told him that the public interest of his country must take the place of private friendship; that he must first know whether he were a friend or an enemy to the Roman State, before he could own him as a friend to himself; and then delivered in his hands the tables in which were written the decree of the Senate, which they came to communicate to him, and required him to read it and forthwith give him his answer thereto. Antiochus, having read the decree, told Popillius he would consult with his friends about it, and speedily give him the answer they should advise; but Popillius, insisting on an immediate answer, forthwith drew a circle round him [Antiochus] in the sand, with the staff which he had in his hand, and required him to give his answer before he stirred out of that circle; at which strange and peremptory way of proceeding, Antiochus, being startled, after a little hesitation, yielded to it, and told the ambassador that he would obey the command of the Senate; whereupon Popillius, accepting his embraces, acted thenceforth according to his former friendship with him.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.6

    But the point of all this is found in the next two sentences of Prideaux. Says he: “That which made him [i.e., Popillius] so bold as to act with him after this peremptory manner, and the other so tame as to yield thus patiently to it, was the news which they had a little before received of the great victory of the Romans, which they had gotten over Perseus, king of Macedonia. For Paulus Æmilius, having now vanquished that king, and thereby added Macedonia to the Roman Empire, the name of the Romans after this carried that weight with it as carried a terror in all the neighboring nations; so that none of them after this cared to dispute their commands, but were glad on any terms to maintain peace, and cultivate a friendship with them.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.7

    Now since it was the conquest of Macedon which gave Rome its prestige among the nations, and made it virtually a universal empire, having the power to dictate to other kingdoms, and to stop their projects by a single word, it is evidently very proper to speak of it as “coming out” of one of the horns of goat, viz., the Macedonian horn. The historian, in describing the rise of the Roman Empire, could not well employ a more fitting expression than that used by the prophet, 370 years before the occurrence. The quotation given above shows the immense superiority of the Romans over Antiochus Epiphanes, and thus of itself effectually demolishes the theory held by some that that pusillanimous king was the “exceeding great” power represented by the little horn.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.8

    Now we must turn our attention to the present lesson, “The little Horn of Daniel 7.” The student must be careful not to confound this little horn with that of Daniel 8. The little horn of Daniel 8 represents the Roman Empire as a whole; the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Roman Empire only under one phase, the whole empire being represented by the fourth beast, of which the little horn was only a part. We quote the description of the beast and of the little horn, as given by the prophet.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.9

    “After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.” Daniel 7:7, 8.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.10

    When Daniel was troubled over the explanation of this vision, an angel gave him the interpretation, and in beginning said: “These great beasts, which are four, are four kings, which shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the most High shall take the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.” Daniel 7:17, 18. So the beasts represented the four universal kingdoms that cover the history of the world till the coming of the Lord. These four kingdoms have already been named, and therefore we well know that the fourth beast represents the Roman Empire. See the further description in Daniel 7:23.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.11

    But Daniel was not satisfied with the first answer given by the angel. From his connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream he must have known the main features of these four kingdoms; but there were some particulars upon which he desired more light. “Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast [answered again verse 23].... and of the ten horns that were in his head, and of the other which came up, and before whom three fell; even of that horn that had eyes, and a mouth that spake very great things, whose look was more stout than his fellows.” Daniel 7:19, 20. The answer to this request was given as follows:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.12

    “Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth.... and the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.” Daniel 7:23, 24. The fourth beast was the fourth kingdom-Rome-and the ten horns, it is plainly stated, “are ten kingdoms that shall arise,” that is, ten parts into which the Roman Empire should be divided. This division is mentioned in Daniel 2:41. It was effected by the incursions of the barbarous tribes which dismembered the Roman Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries, so graphically described by Gibbon. The division was complete, and the undivided empire of Western Rome had ceased to exist, before the close of the fifth century B.C.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.13

    After the division of Rome into ten parts another power was to arise, diverse from the others, and having the characteristics mentioned in Daniel 7:8, 20, 21, 25. These characteristics are met in the papacy, and in no other power. It uprooted three powers to make room for itself, and as if to identify the papacy as the power here referred to, the pope’s tiara is a triple crown; such a crown is worn by no other ruler.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.14

    “And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.” Daniel 7:25. If we find that these three specifications apply to the papacy, then it will be useless to look further for an application for the little horn. We can give to each specification only a brief notice.SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.15

    1. “He shall speak great words against the Most High.” It is a notorious fact that the pope is styled the “Vicar of the Son of God,” indicating that he fills the office of Christ. Paul, speaking of the papacy, which he calls the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4), says that he “exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped.” This is parallel to Daniel 7:25. It is fulfilled in the pope’s claim to have power to grant indulgences, a thing which God himself has never promised to do. Further, it is fulfilled in the papal dogma of infallibility. This dogma was ratified by the Council of 1870, and the following is a portion of the decree:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 662.16

    “And since by the divine right of apostolic primacy the Roman pontiff is placed over the universal church, we further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes the decision of which belongs to the church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the apostolic, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment.”-The Vatican Decrees, by Dr. Philip Schaff. Although this dogma was ratified in 1870, it has been held for centuries, as is shown by the following monstrous assertion in one of the Roman decretals:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.1

    “If the pope should become neglectful of his own salvation, and of that of other men, and so lost to all good that he draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps into hell, and plunge them with himself into eternal damnation, yet no mortal man may presume to reprehend him, for as much as he is judged of all, and to be judged of no one.”-Quoted by Wiley, History of Protestantism, Book 4, chap. 10.SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.2

    2. “And shall wear out the saints of the Most High.” When we come to this particular, the evidence is overwhelming. Both time and language would fail to do justice to the matter. Prominent among papal atrocities is the massacre of St. Bartholomew’s Day. On the 24th of August, 1572, was begun in Paris one of the most horrible cold-blooded massacres that history records,-that of the Huguenots. The king himself, Charles IX., took part in it, shooting down many of those who were attempting to escape the fury of his soldiers. The number slain throughout France on this occasion is placed by the best authorities at 70,000. To show Rome’s connection with the massacre, we quote:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.3

    “At Rome, when the news arrived, the joy was boundless. The messenger who carried the dispatch was rewarded like one who brings tidings of some great victory, and the triumph that followed was such as old Pagan Rome might have been proud to celebrate.... Through the streets of the Eternal City swept, in the full blaze a pontifical pomp, Gregory and his attendant train of cardinals, bishops, and monks, to the church of St. Mark, there to offer up prayers and thanksgivings to the God of Heaven for his great blessing to the See of Rome and the Roman Catholic Church.... On the following day the pontiff went in procession to the church of Minerva, where, after mass, a jubilee was published to all Christendom, ‘that they might thank God for the slaughter of the enemies of the church lately executed in France.’”-History of Protestantism, Book 17, chap.16, par. 15.SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.4

    But the saints were to be worn out. This implies more than outright slaughter. We quote one paragraph from the account of the imprisonment of the Waldenses, when, at the command of Louis XIV., who was the obedient servant of the pope, they had been driven from their valleys:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.5

    “We know not if ever before an entire nation were in prison at once. Yet now it was so. All of the Waldensian race that remained from the sword of the executioners were immured in the dungeons of Piedmont.... And how were they treated in prison? As the African slave was treated on the ‘middle passage.’ They had a sufficiency of neither food nor clothing. The bread dealt out to them was fetid. They had putrid water to drink. They were exposed to the sun by day, and to the cold at night. They were compelled to sleep on the bare pavement, or on straw so full of vermin that the stone floor was preferable. Disease broke out in these horrible abodes, and the mortality was fearful. ‘When they entered these dungeons,’ says Henri Arnaud, ‘they counted 14,000 healthy mountaineers, but when, at the intercession of the Swiss deputies, their prisons were opened, 3,000 skeletons only crawled out.’”-Hist. Protestantism, Book 16, chap. 13, par. 18.SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.6

    In the above instance, we see how an entire nation was literally worn out, yet we have scarcely more than hinted at the atrocities visited upon the innocent Waldenses. In the following brief extract from the account of the martyrdom of Cranmer, we see a sample of how Rome proceeded to “wear out” individuals:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.7

    “The fire was lighted, and then withdrawn, and lighted again, so as to consume him piecemeal. His scorch and half-burned body was raised on the pikes of the halberdiers, and tossed from one to the other to all the extent of his chain would allow; the martyr, says the martyrologist, ‘lifting such hands as he had, and his finger ends flaming with fire, cried unto the people in these words, “None but Christ, none but Christ,” and so being let down again from their halberds, he fell into the fire, and gave up his life.’”-Wiley, Book 23, chap. 10.SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.8

    Certainly more is not needed to identify papal Rome as the little horn that was to “wear out the saints of the Most High.” Rome has more than met the demands of the prophecy. And the one who reads the history from which these extracts are taken, must of necessity exclaim, Surely the Roman Catholic power is the woman whom the seer of Patmos saw “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” Revelation 17:6. Happy would it be for the saints of God if they could be assured that she is sated with blood. But such assurance cannot be given; for says the prophet, “I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.” Daniel 7:21, 22. E. J. W.SITI November 5, 1885, page 663.9

    “What Is the Use?” The Signs of the Times, 11, 42.

    E. J. Waggoner

    This is called a practical age. Men always ask before engaging in any business, Will it pay? And this is correct. It is useless to work to no profit, and so we have Scripture warrant for counting the cost before beginning any enterprise. But men are not always wise in their estimates. Sometimes, indeed in the majority of instances, the results will showed that the entire cost has not been counted. Some factor has been omitted, or else the individual has not looked far enough ahead. We might cite two instances:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.1

    It is generally considered a prudent thing for men to amass wealth. “Men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself.” Psalm 49:18. Indeed, so fixed is the idea that to get rich is the one thing essential, that few, before praising the prosperous men, stop to inquire by what means he obtained his wealth. But according to the Bible standard, the gathering of great wealth may be the most foolish thing a man can do.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.2

    The wise man says: “He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.” Proverbs 28:8. If people knew that men who are toiling and planning night and day in order to accumulate property, were simply working for someone else, and that they themselves should enjoy none of their savings, they would say, “How foolish to work so hard for nothing.” Well, that is just what the Bible says. “He that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his day, and at his end shall be a fool.” Jeremiah 17:11. How many foolish people there are, who by the world are counted wise.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.3

    All this exposes another shortsighted calculation that is very common, viz., that it is safe to do anything which is done by the majority of people. Precedent is a thing that has great weight, both in court and public opinion, oftentimes to the exclusion of justice. But numbers can never make wrong right, nor will the Lord remit the punishment due for the commission of crime, because very many are engaged in it. “Though hand show in hand, the wicked shall not be unpunished.” Proverbs 11:21. And the truth of this statement has often been demonstrated. In the days of Noah, “the earth was filled with violence,” because “every imagination of the thought” of man’s heart “was only evil continually.” Genesis 6:5, 11. Only Noah was found righteous. Yet the Lord preserved Noah, and destroyed all the wicked, “bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly.” 2 Peter 2:5.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.4

    In the days of Lot, “the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” Genesis 13:13. In all that city, careful search was made (Genesis 18:23-33; 19:12-14), and, besides Lot, not a righteous man was found. But the Lord had no respect to numbers, “and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” 2 Peter 2:6.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.5

    There was also a time when a single man, Elijah, stood out against the whole kingdom of Israel. He was not content with simply disagreeing with the majority, but he was earnest in reproving both monarch and subject. Baal-worship was popular, and was, moreover, the State religion. How presumptuous that one man attempt to teach the priests and rulers! How was it possible that he alone of all the people should have the truth? And even allowing his claims, what headway could one man hope to make against a nation? What was the use of his engaging in such an unprofitable task? Thus, the doubt, many reasoned at that time. But God vindicated the faithfulness of his servant. The prophets of Baal were slain; the wicked king and queen had the death of a dog; the apostate nation was carried into captivity; and he Elijah, who was not afraid to engage in an unpopular and seemingly unprofitable work, was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire. Who will now say that his work was to no profit? Not one.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.6

    But why is it that men can now approve Elijah’s course? Simply because the sins which he particularly denounced are not now popular. For proof of this assertion, we quote from the Friend, a religious journal published at Honolulu, H. I. It says:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.7

    “We have for a year or more had a couple of good brethren who among us, who have been devoting their time and strength, and the means of the organization that sent them, to the task of disseminating the idea that Saturday instead of Sunday should be observed as the day holy until Lord. We have often wished that the two brethren might see their way clear to engage in a worthier and more promising enterprise. One of them, Brother Scott, we think has gone back to whence he came, and we wish him well. The other brother still tarries among us, and we would not have him depart; but we hope in his behalf for more useful employment.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.8

    And then it quotes as follows from an exchange, concerning those were working in behalf of the Lord’s Sabbath:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.9

    “We are sorry to see such a waste of time and pain. If the past shows anything, it shows that the vast majority of Christendom always has been, and it is now, firmly persuaded that the first day of the week is the day of rest by divine appointment. Can this judgment be reversed? Is there the remotest possibility that it ever will be? It seems to us that there can be but one answer to these questions. If so, then all the good intentions and conscientious convictions of our brethren do not hinder their efforts from being thrown away. Besides, there is the injurious effect of turning men’s thoughts away from the due observance of the day to the very subordinate question of its numerical designation.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.10

    Not one hint of a question do we find in the above, as to whether those who educate the observance of the seventh day are really in the right, but only the consideration of popularity. “The vast majority of Christendom always has been, and it is now, firmly persuaded that the first day of the week is the day of rest.” “And since there is no probability that this verdict will ever be reversed, what is the use of trying to show its fallacy?” So the people might have talked in the days of Noah. “We are fully persuaded that the course which to us seems good is right, and you might as well quit your preaching. Better come and join us.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.11

    Likewise when Lot went out to warn the inhabitants of Sodom, “he seemed as one that mocked.” No doubt he was called an old fool for his pains. And in both of these cases it was found that there was not any possibility of changing the universal verdict. Will the Friend say that they ought to have ceased preaching? What does the Lord say?SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.12

    “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people there transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.” Isaiah 58:1. “Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me; they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.... And thou shalt speak by words unto them, whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear; for they are most of rebellious.” Ezekiel 2:3-7.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.13

    The question to be asked, then, is not, “Is the prevailing sentiment favorable to my message?” or, “Is there any hope of changing the general opinion?” but, “What is truth?” As a matter of fact, the majority of people have never been in the right, in spite of all efforts to lead them in the right way, and there is indeed no hope that they ever will be. Let us cite two authorities.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.14

    Luther, as a reformer, was very much like Elijah. In reality he was more alone than was the prophet. But the strongest arguments brought against his work was that the pope, bishops, divines, counsels, and universities were against him, and that he could not hope to convince them that they were in error. The majority never were convinced, but Luther replied as follows:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.15

    “Moses was alone when the Israelites were led out of Egypt; Elijah was alone in the time of King Ahab; Ezekiel was alone at Babylon. God has ever chosen for his prophet either the high priest, or any other person of exalted rank; he has generally chosen men of a mean and low condition,-in the instance of Amos, even a simple shepherd. The saints in every age have been called upon to rebuke the great of this world,-kings and princes, priests and scholars,-and to fulfill the office at the peril of their lives.... I say not that I am a prophet; but I say that they have the more reason to fear because I am alone, and they are many. Of this I am sure, that the word of God is with me, and that it is not with them.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.16

    “But it is further objected that men high in station pursued me with their censures. What then! Do not the Scriptures clearly show... That the majority has always been on the side of falsehood, and that the minority only on the side of truth? It is the fate of truth to occasion an outcry.”-D’Aubigne’s Hist. Reformation, Part 1, Book 7, par. 168, 173.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.17

    The second authority, we have only to refer to the overwhelming wickedness in the times of Noah and Lot, and then read these words of Christ, which brings the matter home to our own day:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.18

    “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; but the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.” Luke 17:26-30.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.19

    These illustrations are sufficient to show us that instead of appealing to common custom for proof of the correctness of any practice, that very fact ought to cause us to doubt. “The customs of the people are vain.” Jeremiah 10:3. And it will not do to say that, in the instances mentioned, those who were in the majority, and wrong, were heathen, while, in the matter of Sunday observance, the majority are Christians. In Elijah’s time it was the house of Israel-the church-that had taken Baal in preference to Jehovah. Ezekiel was sent with his warnings to the church of God; and in order that he might perform his thankless task, it was necessary that his face should be made “harder than flint.” Moreoever, he was plainly told that the house of Israel would not listen to him. Ezekiel 3:4-9. Isaiah was commanded to show God’s people their transgression. John the Baptist lifted up his voice in the wilderness against the sins of the very leaders of the church. And it was solely on account of the corruption of the church that Luther began to preach the reformation. Since our reverence for God is measured only by our obedience, and not by our profession, all those who persist in violating any of God’s commandments are termed heathen. Throughout the Bible, the judgments of God are pronounced only against the heathen; and many who say, “Lord, Lord,” will receive those judgments. So in this matter, if it can be shown that God has commanded us to keep the seventh day of the week, those who work to that end are engaged in a profitable business, even though the professed church will not hear. Those who do his commandments shall have right to the tree of life.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.20

    Next week we shall continue this subject, and show that the “numerical designation” of the day is not a “subordinate question,” and that whatever “injurious effects” may follow the preaching of truth, no blame can be attached to the few who thus labor against the majority. E. J. W.SITI November 5, 1885, page 664.21

    “The Best Argument for Sunday” The Signs of the Times, 11, 42.

    E. J. Waggoner

    From the Review of October 27th, we learned that Sabbath-keepers in Arkansas are being put to serious trouble on account of their faith. Formerly there was provision made in the Sunday law of that State, so that those who conscientiously observed the seventh day of the week were not liable to arrest for working on the first day of the week. Last spring, however, this provision was repealed, and now all who do any work on Sunday are liable to heavy fines and imprisonment.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.1

    As a natural consequence of the law as it exists at present, quite a number of Sabbath-keepers have been arrested, and Elder Wood, who is laboring there and knows the state of feeling, thinks that there will be scores of arrests before the holidays. The brethren in Arkansas are poor, and can ill afford the expense and loss of time incident to court proceedings, even should they not be convicted; any persons wishing to aid them in their time of need can forward money for that purpose to F. N. Elmore, Springdale, Ark., and it will be thankfully received and properly applied.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.2

    The leaders of the so-called National Reform party have been constant in their assurances that no harm was intended by them to the conscientious observers of the seventh day. They have often seemed to feel grieved and indignant because we have said that persecution would be the necessary result of their efforts to enforce Sunday observance. But, in spite of their pacific assurance, it has happened that, at every time the law would allow, Seventh-day Adventists have been promptly indicted for working on Sunday. If this is not a persecution because of religious convictions, then the popes of Rome never conducted such persecution.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.3

    None of our brethren need be surprised when such persecution comes. For years we have been suspecting it, knowing that it would come, because the “sure word of prophecy” plainly said that it would. The fulfillment of this prophecy is only a warning that the end is near, and an admonition to us to redouble our diligence. Here in California we have had an opportunity to see how quickly the spirit of persecution becomes rampant as soon as there is the slightest prospect of enforcing a Sunday law. And we shall watch with prayerful interest the proceedings in Arkansas. Whatever the immediate result, we are certain that God will make the wrath of man to praise him. E. J. W.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.4

    “Where Shall the Line Be Drawn” The Signs of the Times, 11, 42.

    E. J. Waggoner

    The Christian Weekly, after making a statement that polygamy is not the only evil of Mormonism, says:-SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.5

    “Its unrepublican hierarchy, that exalts the church above the Government, and demands unconditional obedience to its requirements, whatever may be the law of the land, makes it a dangerous institution in a country where the ballot box should be free from each ecclesiastical domination.”SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.6

    With the truth contained in the above quotation, there is also a very popular error. It is a truth that cannot be too often repeated at the present day, that the ballot box should be free from ecclesiastical domination. We say that this truth cannot be too often repeated at the present day, because there is not an influential and rapidly increasing party (not Mormons) whose great aim is to have the State legislate on matters pertaining to religion; or, in other words, to place the ballot box under the control of the church. When this state of things shall be brought about, the liberaties of American people will be at an end. We protest, therefore, against the ecclesiastical domination in political affairs, whether it be by Mormons or by Christians; with either class the results would be the same, for no matter how pure a church may be, if it has civil power it will persecute just as quickly as will the corrupt church. So Mormon domination of the ballot box is to be objected to, not simply because it is Mormon domination, but because it is ecclesiastical domination.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.7

    The error in the quotation is in supposing that it is wrong in principle to obey the requirements of the church, “whatever may be the law of the land.” We are no apologists for the Mormonism, but we say that this principle is not the one at issue. The question for individuals to settle is, Are the teachings of the church in strict harmony with the Bible, making unperverted Bible truth the sole standard? If fair and candid investigation shows that these teachings are in perfect accord with the Bible, then he should obey them, whatever may be the law of the land. “The powers that be are ordained of God.” Then certainly they have no right to contravene the laws of God.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.8

    As a matter of fact, the Mormons are guilty of a sin, not against God alone, but against man as well. Murder, adultery, and theft are sins which destroy the well-being of society. If these things were allowed to be practiced with impunity, human governments, which God has ordained, would be overthrown. Therefore they must not be tolerated. On this ground, and this alone, the pet abomination of the Mormons should be suppressed by the Government. But a practice which is in strict accord with God’s word, will not be detrimental to society; and against such a practice the Government has no right to enact a law; if it should, the people would be in duty bound to break that law.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.9

    No one need be confused over this matter. The Christian’s duty is plain: “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29); and if people would always remember this, and live accordingly, they would never make laws to suit their own inclinations or propensities, and try to palm them off on the people as the laws of God. E. J. W.SITI November 5, 1885, page 665.10

    Larger font
    Smaller font