Thumbnail image

Last Updated on : Saturday, November 22, 2014



DOWNLOAD EUREKA volumes in PDF: Eureka downloads page

Eureka vol. 1 TOC | Eureka vol. 2 TOC | Eureka vol 3 TOC

Previous section | Next section



Sixth Edition, 1915
By Dr. John Thomas (first edition written 1861)



Chapter 13

Section 2 Subsection 33

The Sign of the Beast




"And he caused all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the enslaved, that a sign should be given to them upon their right hand, and upon their foreheads"  Verse 16

There was no class of European society unsubjected to the authority of the Lamb-Horned, or episcopal constituent of the Beast of the Earth; hence, what Ecclesiastical Power did with the concurrence of "the Secular Arm," the Beast is said to do. "He causes" is therefore to be understood of the Lamb-Horned Beast, or Daniel's Little Horn with Eyes and Mouth. No general imposition of a charagma, impressed sign, stamp, or mark, was enjoined upon Europeans by the authority of any of the Ten Horns. Their subjects received it; but it was in obedience to the decrees of a foreign ecclesiastical power. This charagma was a characteristic sign; so that wherever it was observed, it would be known that the bearer was claimed by the Beast as his vassal. The charagma is styled in ch. 19:20, to charagma tou theriou, the beast's sign or mark; because it was characteristically employed by the Latin Hierarchy before the Image was set up as an independent monarchy.

At the time the Apocalypse was given, and long both before and after, it was a common practice for slaves, soldiers, and devotees, to bear the imprint of those who claimed, or were supposed to claim, absolute control over them. The impression was generally on the forehead or the hand, in token of servitude. Speaking of the custom for slaves, an old author says, "literarum notis inuri," branded with marks of letters; so that the slaves was styled "literatus," or "lettered." Ambrose says, "charactere domini inscribuntur servuli," "slaves are inscribed with the mark of the master;" and Petronius notes the "forehead" as the place of the sign. Soldiers were marked in "the hand" by the name of the emperor. In Lev. 19:28, the Israelites were forbidden to imprint any marks upon themselves; for it was an idolatrous practice: and continued to the present time by the Hindoos, who mark themselves on the forehead with the "charagma," or characteristic emblem, of the god they are devoted to.

Now, the spirit, in allusion to this ancient custom and practice, predicted, that the Beast of the Earth would distinguish itself by a certain character, sign, or mark, as the symbol of its faith and power which it would impose, under the severest pains and penalties upon all recusants, upon every soul without exception under its dominion. What the characteristic symbol would be is not revealed. It was to be a sign of its own selection; and for the universal adoption of which, it was to be terrifically zealous. Commentators have thought that this emblematic mark consists of the three Greek letters, (XEC) of the last verse of his chapter, which stands for 666; and that the phrase, in verse 17, "the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name," is equivalent to the intimation, that the mark, name, and number, are all the same. I have no objection to the idea, that the triliteral sign (XEC) is a representative number symbolical of "the name of the beast," and of the numerals contained in the name; but I do object to the notion, that this triliteral is emblematic of "the sign" imposed by the legislative enactments of the Beast upon all its subjects without exception. The sign of the Beast is not apocalyptically signified; but is simply styled to charagma, the sign or mark, and is left to history and public notoriety for its identification.

The "charagma," then, is to be considered as something apart, and distinct from the name and number of the name of the Beast. History and public notoriety show, that all the worshippers of the Clerical Hierarchy are impressed with a Sign emblematic of their spiritual profession and operation, as soldiers to their emperor, slaves to their master, and devotees to their god. The fulfillment of this stands out palpably in the ecclesiastical institutions of the west. Boniface VIII., who ascended the throne of the Pontifical Image, A.D. 1294, declared in the decree "Unam Sanctam," that "it is essential to the salvation of every human being that he be 'subject' to the Roman Pontiff;" and prefixing thereto the words, "whosoever obeys not as the scripture declares, let him die the death." In accordance with this, both the secular priests and those of the monastic orders, took on themselves the vow of obedience, and received the Romish Sign upon their hands, in public token thereof. This is evident from the "Pontificale Romanum" p.49, (A.D. 1627) on the Ordination of Priests. "Tum Pontifex cum oleo catechumenorum inun-git unicuique ambas manus, simul junctas, in formam crucis;" that is, then the Bishop anoints both the hands of each of the catechumens, joined together "in the form of a cross:" and before handing them the cup and paten, or plate, "Producit manu dextra signum crucis super manus illius quem ordinat;" that is, he makes with the right hand "the sign of the cross upon the hand" of him whom he ordains. The soldiers of the papacy enrolled for the murder and extermination of "Heretics," were to wear upon their vesture the Papal Cross, from which sign they acquired the name of "crusaders." In the words of the fourth Lateran Council, "crucis assumpto charactere," the mark of the cross being assumed, the Pontiff-king, through his anointed priests, imposed the sign of his order upon all other classes of his subjects. All these without exception were compelled to receive it through episcopal confirmation and the clerical ordinance of infant sprinkling, or "rhantism," which the worshippers of the beast, absurdly enough, term "baptism!" - in which ordinances of the Apostasy, the sign of the cross is impressed upon the "forehead." This was to be the "charagma" imposed according to Canon 9, Sess. 7, of the Council of Trent, entitled "De Charactere;" that is, "Concerning the Mark;" which states the doctrine thus: "Si quis dixerit in tribus Sacramentis, baptismo, scilicet, confirmatione, et or-dine, non imprimi 'characterem' in anima, hoc est signum quoddam spirituale et indelebile unde ea iterari non possunt, anathema sit:" that is, if any one shall speak against the three sacraments, to wit, baptism, confirmation, and ordination, that the "Mark" should not be impressed upon a soul (this is a certain spiritual and indelible sign, whence they cannot be repeated) let him be accursed." "Character," in ecclesiastical Latin, is the equivalent of "charagma" in the text. On this Canon, Chemnitz, in his Ex. Dec. Conc. Trid., observes, "And perhaps God permits that they should contend so perniciously in defending the opinion of 'the mark' in confirmation and orders (he ought to have added 'in baptismo') that it may be manifested among whom that mark may be, and is found, of which much may be said." "Their chrism," says Junius, "by which in the sacrament of confirmation (as they call it,) they make servile unto themselves the persons and doings of men, 'signing them in their foreheads and hands:' and as for the sign left by Christ, and of the holy sacrament of baptism, 'they make it void.' For whom Christ joined to himself by 'baptism,' this Beast maketh challenge unto them by her greasy chrism; which he doubteth not to prefer before baptism both in authority and efficacy."

Besides the reception of the charagma from the clergy, there was to be a repetition of the Sign of the Cross by the people themselves, as appears from Bellarmine's "Dottrina Christiana Breve," in which a master asks his disciple, "In che consiste principalmente la Fede di Christo?" that is, In what principally consists the faith of Christ? To which he is made to reply, "In due misteri principali, che sono rinchiuisi nel Segno della Santa Crotce;" that is, In two principal mysteries, which are included in the Sign of the Holy Cross," adding, "Il segno della Santa Croce Si fa mettendo primo lamano destra al capo, dicendo, in nome del Padre; poi sotto al petto, dicendo, e del Fighuolo: finalmente alla spada sinistra ed alla destra, dicendo e dallo Spirito Santo;" that is, The Sign of the Holy Cross is made by putting first, the right hand to the head, saying, "In the name of the Father;" then under the heart, saying, "and of the Son;" finally on the left shoulder, and on the right, saying, "and of the Holy Spirit." In this way the devotees of the superstition were to sign themselves with the Beast's Sign in token of their bondage to him. These slaves of sin have great confidence in the efficacy of this sign as a defense against all sorts of invisible demoniacal influences. The sign of the cross, with the hand dipped in "holy water," is a great terror to the Devil, who is said to hate it exceedingly! They call it "the Sign of the Holy Cross;" as if that which brought the curse of the law upon Jesus for hanging upon it, could be holy. It would be as reasonable to say Holy Gallows, on which murderers are hanged, as Holy Cross. There is nothing holy pertaining to the Beast. Hence, its sign is like itself accursed, and significant of the perdition that awaits all who glory in it.

But the Ecclesiastical Power was not satisfied with imposing its "sign" and "character" upon its willing devotees, as a spiritual and indelible impression imparting holiness to the crossed; it used the mark as a token of disgrace to heretics who had renounced their convictions to save their lives. It obliged them to wear upon their breasts two crosses of a different color from their clothes, to quit places suspected of heresy, and to establish themselves in cities zealous for their Romish idolatry, where the eyes of all would be fixed upon them by the cruciferous costume they were condemned to wear.

The Sign of the Cross is the universal character of the Apostasy, both in its Romish and Protestant manifestations. It is erected upon their temples, or spiritual bazaars, and upon the flags of Protestant and Papal nations, as well as upon the hands and foreheads of individuals. The Papists impress the sign on these with water and "greasy chrism" in rhantism, confirmation, and orders, as already shown; while Protestants, or anti-papal rebels, still retaining the character, less frequently parade the sign in the practice of their superstition. They pertinaciously hold on to their institutions of the sign, rhantism, confirmation, and orders; though they do not sketch the character, charagma or mark, upon the hands or forehead in the observance of each. Millions of them think that, if the Sign received from their Roman Mother is impressed on the forehead rhantismally, it need not be repeated in confirmation or ordination; because none are admitted to these Papistical ordinances who have not been previously signed with the Sign of the Cross in what they call "baptism," but which is no baptism at all. The correctness of this statement may be verified by reference to the Mass Book of the "Harlots" of Britain and the United States, styled "The Book of Common Prayer." Thus, when the priest pours, or sprinkles, water upon the upturned face of an infant, he falsely affirms that he baptizes it in the name of the Father, etc., and then proceeds to say, "We receive this child into the congregation of Christ's flock, and do Sign him with the Sign of the Cross." In the book authorized by the Protestant Episcopal Harlot of America, is a marginal appendix to this, saying, "Here the minister shall make a Cross upon the child's forehead. "I do not know if the Maternal Harlot of England, "as by law established," would permit the sign of the cross to be omitted in rhantism on any consideration; if she would not, then we are bound to admit, that her American Daughter is more accommodating than she: or as politicians would say, "more liberal;" for she has inserted a note to the effect that, "if those who present the infant shall desire the Sign of the Cross to be omitted, although the Church knows no worthy cause of scruple concerning the same, yet, in that case, the minister may omit that part." The omission then of the betokening charagma does not impair the supposed efficacy of the sprinkling or pouring. The sprinkling and Signing of the Cross are two actions pertaining to one and the same ecclesiastical ordinance. The old Roman Mother will not permit either action to be omitted. Her disobedient grand-daughter in America thinks the sign might in some cases be dispensed with, seeing that the thing signified may be obtained by the sprinkling alone. She thinks it, however, safer to hold on to the sanctifying use of both actions; she therefore orders this "charagma" of the Beast be observed.

But, certain of the Babylonian Harlot's progeny, born after her British Daughter, and styled apocalyptically, "Names of Blasphemy and the Abominations of the Earth;" but, historically and currently, "Protestant Dissenters"  do not see why the Sign of the Cross may not be permanently omitted in rhantism, as their Episcopalian relations have dispensed with it in Confirmation and Ordination without their supposed virtue being impaired. Hence, therefore, the more to spite their Babylonian Mother, they have suppressed the cross-signing, and retain the sprinkling "as its equivalent." This, however, does not alter their spiritual relations to the Beast; for though they omit a constituent of the outward sign, they pertinaciously adhere to the "sign-ordinance" invented for them, and delivered to them by their acknowledged mother, the Babylonian Harlot; of whose golden wine cup they have imbibed copious and intoxicating draughts. The Nonconformist Sign-ordinance is the Romish "baptism," undecorated by the movement of the operator's finger crosswise upon the forehead. Dissenting "sorcery" contents itself with applying "holy water" to the forehead of an unconscious babe in the form of drops, and leaving them to assume what shape, or charagma, regenerating, sanctifying or dedicating, grace, may give them! It is the "grace" in aqueous suspension that produces the magical effects attributed to the rhantismal ordinance of the beast by his worshippers. Some of them style it "sub venient, "(§) others "prevenient," and perhaps others again may regard it as postvenient, and some not venient at all. Upon this matter they are not agreed. They are all, however pretty well agreed that the "grace" is what they call "Holy Ghost," or an invisible regenerating and sanctifying afflation from the object of their adoration, which they say is "without body or parts," dwelling beyond the bounds of space!" This spiritual essence, it is pretended, "sanctifies the water to the mystical washing away of sin;" that is, makes the water holy; so that, in whatever form applied to the new born Hin-doo, Mohammedan, Greek, Latin, Protestant, or Jewish, babe, the grace in aqueous solution, or suspension, "spiritually," or mystically, "regenerates" it; so that it is "born again, and made an heir of everlasting salvation," and "released from sin!" This is the theory of "subvenient grace," as taught by the Romish and Protestant Episcopal Churches of England and America, to which also Episcopal Methodism claims relation as mother and sister; and which all rhantist names and denominations recognize as Christians, though not of such an advanced type as themselves. In 1848, or thereabouts, an heretical opposition to this theory was started within the pale of the English Harlot by a Mr. Gorham. He was shocked at the conclusion to which this theory led. Christ said to Nicodemus, "Except a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God;" which was equivalent to saying, he cannot be saved. The idea that water in any form was essential to salvation was intolerable to this episcopal priest. He had no objection to admit that "grace" was essential; but he could not brook the notion that it was conveyed to a babe only through the sanctified water. But, if not, why make the water holy by the infusion of "grace"? He contended that the "mystical washing" or "spiritual regeneration," ensued through the "grace" operating or coming upon the babe before the water in the drops and sign of the cross were impressed upon the forehead. Hence, the term prevenient, a coming before. The ridiculous issue between subvenient and prevenient grace greatly agitated the whole Protestant kingdom. Though the courts and council of the nation were appealed to, no-thing could be determined in solution of the difficulty. If grace came before, it might also come after, the use of water; so that "saved by grace," in the mouth of the Beast's worshippers, might supersede the Beast's rhantism, miscalled by them "baptism," altogether. And at this conclusion (§) the Quakers have long since arrived. They make no use of water in any form; but pretend that they have been mystically washed and regenerated by grace, styled by them "the light within!" "If the light within you be darkness," said Christ, "how great is that darkness?" This great darkness is common to them and all baby-sprinklers; for the operation of their traditions is to leave them all without grace and salvation in verity and truth.
 (§)Prevenient and subvenient are theological terms. The former claitns that "grace" can precede repentance by predisposing the heart to seek God; the latter defines it as following repentance. The efficacy of Infant Baptism or rhantism (sprinkling) depends upon the doctrine of prevenient grace, that is, grace that precedes repentance, for it is obvious that the baby so sprinkled is ignorant of the significance of what is done. fn the middle of last century, great prominence was given to this doctrine, as well as related ones, such as the effect of Baptism, the present possession of Holy spirit power by an effluence from heaven, and so forth. These and other doctrines are discussed in the book Clerical Theology Unscriptural by J. Thomas reproduced in the book Contending For The Faith obtainable from Logos Publications - Publishers

Well might Junius say, "as for the sign left by Christ and of the holy sacrament of baptism, they make it void." In order that the uninitiated may know what the Beast's Hierarchy means by the word "sacrament" and the connection therewith of "sign," or "charagma," I will quote from the catechism of the American Episcopal Harlot. In this it is asked, "What meanest thou by this word 'sacrament?' Answer; I mean 'an outward and visible sign' of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself; as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof. Question; How many parts are there in a sacrament? Answer; Two; 'the outward visible sign,' and the inward spiritual grace. Question; What is the outward visible sign or form in Baptism? Answer; Water; wherein the person is baptized, In the name of the Father," and so forth. This is the dogma of the Babylonian Mother, also from whom her harlot progeny receive it. The Mother and her Protestant Daughters are not all of one mind exactly concerning "the outward sign." They all agree that the proper subject to be "charagmatized" is an unconscious babe, Hindoo, Mohammedan, Greek, Latin, Protestant, or Jew. In other words, that intelligence, belief, and repentance are unnecessary for the subject of the Sign of the Beast, or the outward part of what the Beast's Hierarchy styles "baptism." They all agree that the outward sign, or "charagma," is to be made "visible" by the use of water; and that the water is to be "rhantized," or sprinkled, on the forehead; but they do not all agree that the spiritual wizard who performs the legerdemain should figure a cross with his dripping finger. Many of them say, that the Holy Water sprinkled is "sign" or "form" enough without the cross-figuration. In this opinion they differ from their Babylonian Mother who with tridentine indignation, pronounces them to be "accursed;" which no doubt they are. As already quoted, "if any one shall say," said she, "that in baptism the character (or sign of the cross) should not be impressed upon a soul, let him be accursed." This little difference excepted, they furthermore agree in the general, that this rhantismal ordinance of the Beast was "ordained by Christ himself." A greater lie was never uttered by the children of the Devil (John 8:44). The Babylonian Mother herself denies this. The late Archbishop Hughes, in his controversy with Breckenridge, the Presbyterian, in 1833, I think it was, candidly confessed, that Infant Rhantism was not taught in the New Testament, as Protestants stupidly and ignorantly affirm; but was decreed by the authority of the Latin Church, from which all baby-sprinklers have received it. This is true. It is emphatically the Beast's outward and visible sign; which, as Junius saith, "has made void the sign left by Christ."

If what the Beast's hierarchy teaches those that wonder after it as "the inward and spiritual grace" conveyed to the sprinkled baby be true, there can be no use for "the sign left by Christ." The clergy teach that the babe in the work performed, in opere operato, receives the "Holy Ghost;" by which it is washed, sanctified, regenerated, released from sin, made a living member of Christ's holy church, and an heir of everlasting salvation in the kingdom of heaven! Is not that parsonic aqueous manipulation of a baby's forehead a wonderful piece of sorcery or conjuration? Are not the spiritual performances of those clerical jugglers well styled "sorceries" in Apoc. 9:21; 18:23, and they themselves "sorcerers" in ch. 22:15? Yea, verily; they are those without the city "who love and invent a lie." In view of this "inward and spiritual grace" thus magically acquired by a babe, what possible use can there be in "the Sign left by Christ?" It can do no more for believing adults of the most Scriptural intelligence and Abrahamic disposition, than the Sign of the Beast is said to do for its worshippers. Even supposing a babe were a proper subject of baptism (the reader, not drunk with Babylonian Wine, will excuse the supposition by way of argument) the "reverend" sorcerers ignore both faith and repentance. It will not do to say that these are in the god-parents or sponsors, who answer for the babe. The doctrine of Christ knows nothing of such substitutional representatives in baptism. The "one faith," the "one hope" and the "one baptism," are a personal affair; no one can believe, or hope, or be baptized, for another; for "without faith it is impossible to please God; for he that cometh to God (and they say, "he, "the babe, "coming to thy holy Baptism;" and, therefore, in baptism, to God) must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them who diligently seek him." A babe cannot do this, and, therefore, no operation of which a babe is the passive automaton can be anything but disgusting and blasphemous before God. Besides, it is notorious that under the shadow of the archiepiscopal palace at Lambeth, god-fathers and sponsors are often hired from the neighboring cabstand at a shilling a head, to make "baptismal vows" for baby candidates they never expect or wish to see again, after returning to their cab from the clerical bazaar! These profane Jehus, as "sureties," undertake that the babe shall "renounce the Devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the sinful desires of the flesh; so that he shall not follow, nor be led by them!" But this blasphemous farce is not played only by these sons of the whip; it is substantially played off by all orders and degrees of the Beast's worshippers. All the royal family, nobility, gentry and clergy of England, have, by proxy in rhantism and personally in confirmation, vowed to do the same things. Yet all the world knows that their vows are unheeded and unperformed; for what else are these orders than the embodied "pomp and glory of the world" reveling in "the sinful desires of the flesh" by which they are led! They are the blind misleaders of the blind; for like priests, parson and minister, or by whatever name the public sorcerer may be known, who administers or performs the rhantismal conjura-ion, so are the people led. By proxy they promise to "constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently to keep his commandments," while they are as ignorant of what He requires them to believe and do, as if He had never spoken since He placed man upon the earth. The effect of all this upon papist, protestant and dissenter, is the inwrought supposition that they are baptized members of Christ's church, and heirs of everlasting life! This is what Paul terms a strong delusion and believing a lie (2 Thess. 2:11). They have substituted "the Sign of the Beast" for "the Sign of Christ" - or Rhantism of Babes for the Baptism of Adults, enlightened by "the truth as it is in Jesus;" so that the whole rhantized world is unbaptized and "alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" (Eph.4:18).

There is one remarkable absurdity not to be pretermitted in this exposition of the Sign of Beast. Its "reverend" sorcerers say that the water they use is sanctified by the Holy Ghost to the mystical washing away of sin, and that the babe, sprinkled on the forehead with this sanctified water, is released from sin, and sanctified with the Holy Ghost! Now, the question is, what sin is this ghostly sanctified babe released from? The apostle saith "sin is the transgression of law;" what law has a babe transgressed who is without speech and without volition? Every one not drunk or insane knows that a babe is not an actual transgressor; and, therefore, has no sins to be released from. But, as they refer to the fact, that "all men are conceived and born in sin," it is to be inferred that this is the sin to be released from - "original sin," as causing the flesh to be what it is. There is no other sort of sin a babe can be released from. To be released from sin is to be released from subjection to it, and from the penalty thereby incurred. Does such a release result from the subjection of a babe to the "outward visible sign?" Is it released from sin's flesh and its "emotions?" If so, how does it come to be sick or to die? The punishment of sin is death, a sentence passed upon all the descendants of Adam, eph' hopantes hemarton, in whom all sinned-Rom 5:12. Upon this federal principle, the babe sinned in Adam, and, therefore, falls sick and dies, although it has committed no sins. What a monstrous absurdity in the face of these stubborn facts, to say that sanctified water (supposing it were really sanctified) or the essence of holiness supposed to be in it, releases a babe from the only sin that can be imputed to it, seeing that it is released from none of the evils that sin entails! If the inward spiritual grace said to be contained in the outward visible sign released the babe from sin, it would be freed from "all the ills that flesh is heir to," and live forever. In such an event the Sign of the Beast would be a wonderful institution; but as it accomplishes nothing claimed for it by the "reverend divines" who practice it, there is no other conclusion that can be arrived at than that it is a sign characteristic only of those who obey and worship the Beast, "of whom there has not been written the names in the book of life of the Lamb from the foundation of the world"-ch. 13:8; 17:8.

But, before closing this section it will be proper to make a brief statement of the sign left by Christ and made void by the Sign of the Beast. For the information, then, of sincere and candid inquirers after the truth, it may be remarked that the SIGN LEFT BY CHRIST is the "One Baptism." It is the institution to which all must subject themselves as evidential of their obedience to the faith; for as Rhantism is the Sign of obedience to the Beast, so Baptism is the Sign of obedience to Christ.

Its constituents are a proper subject, sufficient water. and the action indicated in the word. A proper subject is one who has been "taught of God" (John 6:44,45). God's teaching finds access to a man's mind by the study of the Scriptures, which are sufficient for instruction in righteousness, and the development of a man of God (2 Tim. 3:16). A man thus taught believes "the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 8:12); and, in acquiring this faith, finds himself possessed of an enlightened mind, a love for the truth he believes, and a disposition such as Abraham possessed; in other words, he is a subject of a "faith that works by love," and "purifies the heart" (Gal. 4:6; Acts 15:9). Such an one as this, having the "one faith" and the "one hope" is the only proper subject of the "one baptism."

Baptism being the institution that affords scope for the obedience of faith, and obedience to the faith, can only be Scripturally and rightly observed by a true believer - a believer of "the truth as it is in Jesus." The religious use of water is of no efficacy to any other kind of subject. No invention can supply the lack of an intelligent belief of the gospel of the kingdom in the person to be baptized. He must be “dead to sin,” that he may be “baptized into Christ’s death,” who “died for sin once;” for it is only the dead, in this sense, who are released or freed from sin (Rom. 6:1,3,10,7).

The quantity of water is not sufficient if the subject cannot be buried therein. In whatever place there are persons “ordained for eter?nal life,” sufficient water will always be found. The quantity required is indicated by the word immersion, which is the English synonym for the Greek word baptisma. “We are buried with Christ,” says Paul, “through the baptism into the death” of Christ. The action of baptism is, there?fore, a burial in water as a sign of burial with Christ; which signified bur?ial no one can be the subject of who does not believe “the things of the name of Jesus Christ.” The phrase used by Christ in his conversation with Nicodemus, indicates the quantity of water, and the action insepar?able from baptism — “Except a man be born of water and spirit he can?not enter the kingdom of God.” To be born of anything is to emerge from that thing in which the subject of birth had been previously con?cealed. Hence, no one can be “born of water” unless he had been cov?ered with, or put out of sight, in water. The action of baptism is, there?fore, clearly a burying in water, or immersion, and an emergence from it. This is a sign based upon the burial of Christ crucified for our of-fences, and his resurrection for our justification (Rom. 4:25); and sig?nifies that the subject, having Christ in him by faith (Eph. 3:17), is crucified, dead, buried and risen together with him, to walk in newness of life.

Such is the sign left by Christ for the mystical washing away of sins. If there were no literal or actual washing, as in the Sign of the Beast, there could be no mystical washing away. In the Beast’s sign there is no faith in the subject, no literal washing, and, consequently, no basis for a mystical or emblematical washing. The absence of faith in the subject is substituted by the bungling conceit of putting “holy ghost” in the water, and apply it homeopathically for an emblematic washing, where there is no sign-washing at all! Look now, gentle reader, upon this picture, then upon that. Contrast the Sign of the Beast with the Sign left by Christ, and you will easily perceive that the one is a mere invention of the drun?ken Sorceress of Babylon, authoritatively delivered to, and reverently received by, the worshippers of the Beast; while the other has the Scrip?tural impress of Christ’s image and superscription evincing its Divine authority; and has been recognized by the faithful in all the ages and generations since it was delivered, as the only true sign, betokening “the Father’s name written in the foreheads of the redeemed” (Apoc.14:1,3,4)




Eureka Diary -- reading plan for Eureka