THE THIRD ANGEL'S MESSAGE.
The Place of Sunday Legislation in the Making of the Beast.
By the whole history of the case, we have seen that by their perversions of the truth, and their accommodating their teachings to the ways of the heathen, the self-exalted teachers and leaders in the apostasy had secured to themselves a host by reason of transgression. And when that church succeeded in forming a union with the Roman State, that “host” was infinitely increased, since it took in practically the whole mass of the people, without any change of life whatever. The State and the Church became practically one and the same thing; and that one thing was a solid mass of hypocrisy. Upon this we have the plain, forceful, and indisputable words of the authoritative Church historian, Schaff:— By taking in the whole population of the Roman Empire, the Church became, indeed, a Church of the masses, a Church of the people, but at the same time more or less a Church of the world. Christianity became a matter of fashion. The number of hypocrites and formal professors rapidly increased: strict discipline, zeal, self-sacrifice, and brotherly love proportionally ebbed away; and many heathen customs and usages, under altered names, crept into the worship of God and the life of the Christian people. The Roman State had grown up under the influence of idolatry, and was not to be magically transformed at a stroke. With the secularizing process, therefore, a paganizing tendency went hand in hand. Just here the Church encountered a difficulty upon which she had not reckoned: she found herself unable to control by any power legitimately hers, this mass of transgressors. She found that her discipline was impotent to restrain the evil “host” which she had by transgression gathered to herself; and if Church discipline were to be maintained with this “host,” it could be maintained only by the power of the State. This power, however, the Church was not only willing, but glad, to employ; because it was a step which would only increase her power: and power was the sole aim in every stage of this procedure, from the first steps taken, and the first words spoken in speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. The principal thing which had characterized the Church of Rome, from the beginning of the apostasy—and, indeed, the chief thing in the apostasy—was the exaltation of Sunday. This was her sign of authority; this was the key of her ambition and of her power. And now the power of the State was gladly seized upon by the Church, to accomplish the further, and even the supreme, exaltation of Sunday; and, by this, to enforce Church discipline, not only upon those who were adherents of the Church, but also upon all who were not. By this means, she could enforce the authority of the Church, and a submission to the authority of the Church, upon those who were in no wise connected with the Church. This, at one stroke, gave to her power over all; and this power was held by her, and was confirmed by the State, as the power of God; because “there had in fact arisen in the church a false theocratical theory,” which aimed at “the formation of a sacerdotal State, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way.” “This theocratical theory was already the prevailing one in the time of Constantine; and . . . the bishops voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by their disputes, and by their determination to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.” — Neander. This false theocratical theory, and the formation of a sacerdotal State—a false theocracy—is the foundation and the explanation of the whole course of things in the making of the Beast, and of the place of Sunday legislation in the making of the Beast. A true theocracy is the government of God. A false theocracy is a government of men in the place of God. True theocracy is the kingdom of God itself; false theocracy is a government of men in the place of God, passed off upon men as the kingdom of God. In a previous study, we have seen how that the Church in Rome claimed to be Israel oppressed by the new Pharaoh, Maxentius; and that Constantine was the new Moses, “called by God” to deliver Israel from Egypt and the oppressions of Pharaoh. And when that deliverance had been wrought, the bishops of the Church claimed, and insisted, that the kingdom of God as prophesied by Daniel was come. In the system now being formed, the State was not only to be subordinate to the Church, but was to be the servant of the Church to assist in bringing all the world into the new kingdom of God. The bishops were the channel through which the will of God was to be made known to the State. Therefore the views of the bishops were to be to the government the expression of the will of God; and whatever laws the bishopric might deem necessary to make the principles of their theocracy effective, it was their purpose to secure. Accordingly, no sooner had the Catholic Church made herself sure of the recognition and support of the State, than she secured from the emperor an edict setting apart Sunday especially to the purposes of devotion. March 7, A. D. 321, Constantine, playing into the hands of the new and false theocracy, issued his famous Sunday edict, which, both in matter and in intent, is the original and the model of all the Sunday laws that have ever been made. It reads as follows:— Constantine, Emperor Augustus, to Helpidius: On the venerable day of the sun let the magistrates and people residing in the cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country, however, persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits; because it often happens that another day is not so suitable for grain-sowing or for vine-planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations, the bounty of heaven should be lost. (Given the 7th day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls each of them for the second time.)—Schaff's translation from the Latin, 'History of the Christian Church,' Vol. II, sec. 75, par. 5, note 1. All know that, when the original Israel had been delivered indeed from Egypt by the Lord, the Sabbath was given to them, and by a law, to be observed in that government of God, that true theocracy. And the establishment of Sunday observance by law, in the new, false theocracy of the fourth century, was simply another step taken by the creators of this new theocracy, in imitation of the original. This setting apart of Sunday in the new theocracy, and its observance being established and enforced by law, was in imitation of the act of God in the original theocracy in establishing the observance of the Sabbath. This view is confirmed by the testimony of one of the leading bishops of his day, as well as one of the principal bishops engaged in the making of the Beast. These are the words:— All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day.—Eusebius, “Commentary on the Psalms,” 92. Thus at the very first examination of the subject it is seen that the change of the Sabbath—the rejection of the Sabbath of the Lord, and the substitution of Sunday—is the essential feature, the chief instrumentality, in the making of the Beast. And there is yet more to be told, which only the more confirms this truth: confirms it to the extent that makes it impossible for any one honestly to deny it.