Old Style and New Style.
By J. M. A.
SISTER M. F. D. wishes some one to tell about "the change from Old to New Style." She says, "We are told by some of the wise men of our Bible-class, that we cannot know to any certainty about the day of the week as regards the Sabbath, on account of the many changes, and loss of time;" and mentioned particularly the so-called change from Old to New Style, as the prominent objection that is urged by these "wise men" against a definite day for the Sabbath. I presume these same wise men, notwithstanding this objection which they urge so gravely against the Seventh day, are great sticklers for the first day as the true Sabbath. Why? Because, say they, the Saviour rose from the dead on that day. "This is the day which the Lord hath made," &c. How soon they forget the fact (?) that was so fresh and vivid in their minds when taking position against the Seventh day! Thoughts of Old Style, or New Style, or "loss of time" never so much as come into their minds when the question of the first day is at issue! Surely our first-day friends should not raise an issue with us on this definite-day question. Their own position must swamp them at once in such an effort. But what about Old Style and New Style? How is the Sabbath affected thereby? I answer, Not at all. Let us for a moment consider the facts: The Julian Calendar, so called, or that which was established by Julius Cæsar, by which every fourth year was made to consist of 366 days, and the other years of 365 days, is called Old Style. By this mode of computation, the years were made to average something over eleven minutes too much; so that in the course of a few centuries there would be a perceptible disarrangement of the equinoxes; i. e., the sun would actually arrive at an equinoctial point, several days perhaps, before the time indicated by the day of the month on which it should annually recur. It will be seen that if such a mode of computation were to be continued indefinitely, a complete change, or displacement of the seasons of the year would eventually be wrought. Pope Gregory XIII, A. D. 1582, in order to correct the Equinoxes at that time, or to bring back the Vernal Equinox to the same day as at the Council of Nice, A. D., 325, found it necessary to retrench ten days. He accordingly retrenched that number of days in the month of October, A. D., 1582, which was done by simply calling the fifth day of the month the fifteenth. This reformation of the Julian Calendar by Pope Gregory was adopted in Great Britain by act of Parliament, A. D., 1751, at which time it was necessary to retrench eleven days. Accordingly eleven days were retrenched in the month of September in the following year, simply by reckoning the third day as the fourteenth. This method, (by which every year divisible by 4, unless it be divisible by 100, without being divisible by 400, has 366 days, and all other years 365 days,) is what is called New Style. By reckoning, according to this ingenious mode, there can never occur any perceptible disarrangement of the Equinoxes, as would continually occur under the former Calendar, or Old Style. I have been thus minute in this statement, that those who are not posted in regard to Old and New style, may understand the import of these terms, and the cause which led to the change in question. We have now only to consider the effect of such change with reference to the Sabbath. Then I would inquire, with as much gravity as the case will admit, Does the simple act of calling the third day of Sept. the fourteenth day,—and thereby retrenching eleven days in that month—make any change whatever in the days of the week? Suppose the third day of Sept. fell on Friday the sixth day of the week, would it not still be Friday, the sixth day of the week, though it be called by act of Parliament the fourteenth day of the month? And would not the next day be the seventh day of the week as really as though no such retrenchment had been made? Most assuredly it would. And no act of Parliament would suffice to convince the most simple-minded person that his reckoning was wrong; or the faithful Sabbath-keeper that the earth in her diurnal revolutions had made a mistake in measuring off to him the true Sabbath. I care not if there be a change like that from Old to New Style, as often as every new moon, the Sabbath cannot be affected thereby. The earth, notwithstanding all their technical changes, still rolls on, and measures off to us most accurately, and in regular succession, each day of the week. It recognizes no calendar but its own. To-day is Friday, Dec. 22 A. D. 1865. Suppose every legislative body in the wide world, should see fit to enact that it be called the first day of January, A. D. 1870; would not to-morrow be the Sabbath nevertheless? Indeed it would. But in such case, they tell us of time lost! or time gained! This is all imaginary; there is nothing real about it. The great Sabbath Calendar brings all the time there is into accurate account, so that as regards the regular recurrence of the Sabbath, there is no such thing as time lost, or time gained, by any change that man can make in his calendar. The Sabbath of the Lord rests upon a sure foundation. Let the would-be "wise men" object if they will. J. M. A.