p. 1 | BABYLON'S FORNICATION

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Oct 8, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 48.

BABYLON'S FORNICATION.

IN past numbers it has been shown, as all will admit, that the professed church of Christ is, from a human view-point, hopelessly divided, and that this division is prophetically expressed by the term Babylon—confusion. The message of God's word would heal her, but she will not be healed. Instead of accepting the pure wine of God's word, the saving truth of his gospel, Babylon prefers to quaff the poison liquor of her human brewing, to cling to the errors of tradition; and therefore the Lord sadly declares:—

"Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."

Babylon has not only chosen to retain her errors in preference to the unpopular though not less precious and mighty truth of God's word, but in doing this she has said to the nations of earth that the wine of error is better than the wine of truth. And the wine of

error has she poured out to them lavishly from her ten thousand pulpits and presses. Of course, this has not only corrupted the nations, but has caused the moral fall of Babylon,—the divided churches,—evidence of which from themselves we gave last week, and which could be multiplied indefinitely.

Yes, sad as it is to record it, the great Protestant churches have fallen. The word of God does not mean to them what it once did. Regeneration does not mean what it once did. Protestantism, in the sense of protesting against Romish errors, has lost its power; the Sunday sabbath, wholly a traditional, papal institution, is preferred in the place of the Sabbath of Jehovah, kept by the faithful from Adam to Christ.

Babylon's Fornication.

The word "fornication" means unlawful intercourse between the sexes. The church, Babylon though she was, was espoused to Christ, and God had not forsaken her. In fact, he desired to heal and restore her wholly. She belonged to him, and professed so to do. But when she turned from his remedy, choosing rather the errors of the world, she fell. When God in mercy sends his truth, in the eyes of her followers and of the world, Babylon must either give up her errors and accept the truth or attempt to justify the errors she holds. The churches as a whole have chosen the latter course. Now and then honest souls have, compelled by conviction of duty, sacrificed all and heeded the Shepherd's voice. But the church organizations have not done this. Their representatives have sought to defend, in what they themselves consider a test, the Sunday sabbath by contradictory and mutually destructive arguments, based on perversions of Scripture. Failing in this, they have sought to tradition. Lying tradition having failed, they have turned and are turning more and more to the nations of the earth and imploring them to use civil power to enforce an unscriptural institution. In other words, they have turned from the gospel of Christ to civil law; from Christ, the lawful husband, and have committed fornication with the rulers of the earth. The "wine of fornication" leads to fornication itself. Breaking her union with Christ in her wantonness leads to unlawful union with the world. Rejecting Christ within by faith,—the mystery of godliness,—means enthroning in his place the mystery of iniquity. Rejecting the gospel, his armor of righteousness and the word of persuasion leads to the acceptation of the law of man, the carnal weapons, and the word of compulsion and tyranny.

It is needed that only one instance be given of this, one world-wide and well known, namely, that of the position of the churches in promoting and upholding the Sunday sabbath. It has been repeatedly shown by Protestant and Catholic authorities that there is no Biblical proof for Sunday observance. The Roman Catholic Church with unblushing effrontery holds the ecclesiastical Sunday aloft as a mark of her authority. Says Eusebius, a most eminent "Father" of the Catholic Church, and the deifier of the corrupt Constantine, "All things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day (Sunday)." In Butler's catechism, an authoritative work used in Catholic schools, are the following questions and answers on the fourth or Sabbath commandment:—

Question—Say the third commandment. Answer—Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. Q.—What is commanded by the third commandment? A.—To spend the Sunday in prayer and other religious duties.

But all who know how to read the Sabbath commandment know that the above is not commanded. The law says, not the first day but the seventh day. But this Roman Catholics know. We quote from them again:—

Q.—Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to institute festivals of precept? A.—Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her,—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority. Q.—When Protestants do profane work upon Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do they follow the Scripture as their only rule of faith?—do they find this permission clearly laid down in the Sacred Volume? A.—On the contrary, they have only the authority of tradition for this practice. Q.—How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days? A.—By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church. Q.—How prove you that? A.—Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the church's power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.

The following is a letter written by the chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons:—

CARDINAL'S RESIDENCE, Baltimore, Md., February 25, 1892. JOHN R. ASHLEY, Esq.—Dear Sir: In answer to your first question, directed by the cardinal to reply to your letter, I will say:— 1. Who changed the Sabbath? Answer—The holy Catholic Church. 2. Are Protestants following the Bible or the holy Catholic Church in keeping Sunday? A.—The Protestants are following the custom introduced by the holy Catholic Church. 3. The Protestants do contradict themselves by keeping Sunday, and at the same time profess to be guided by the Bible only. I am faithfully yours, C. F. THOMAS, Chancellor.

Here are some Protestant authorities:— Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine, in A.D. 321. Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or his apostles. By none of the Fathers before the fourth century is it [the first day of the week] identified with the Sabbath; nor is the duty of observing it grounded by them either on the fourth commandment or on the precept or example of Jesus or his apostles. . . .

Unquestionably the first law, either ecclesiastical or civil, by which the Sabbatical observance of that day is known to have been ordained, is the edict of Constantine, 321 A.D. . . .

But it was not till the year 538 that abstinence from agricultural labor on Sunday was recommended, rather than enjoined, by an ecclesiastical authority (the third Council of Orleans), and this expressly that the people might have more leisure to go to church and say their prayers; nor was it till about the ninth century that the emperor Leo, "the philosopher," repealed the exemption [that is, permission for country people to labor] which it enjoyed under the edict of Constantine.

Sunday, therefore, on the strength of Roman Catholic claims and Protestant declarations and admissions, is wholly traditional and papal. It has its origin in apostasy and will worship.

But the sure word of prophecy has also declared that the apostate church, united with the powers of earth, would attempt to make this change in God's law. The Papacy is represented in Daniel 7 by "the little horn," in Rev. 13:1-10 by the leopard "beast," in 2 Thess. 2:3-7 as "the man of sin" and "mystery of iniquity." Of the power symbolized by these it is declared as follows:—

"And he shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time, times, and half a time." "And they worshiped the beast." "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life." "That day [the day of Christ's coming] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."

These predictions are concerning the same work and the same power. The message of God to his people is, "Fear God and give glory to him; . . . and worship him." The highest, truest worship men can render a power is implicit obedience. Says our Lord to Satan, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." Here we learn that worship is service, and service is obedience, doing just what is told. Jesus says: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." "If ye love me, keep my commandments." "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?"

By the above and many other texts it is readily seen that the real test of true worship to God is faithful service or obedience to his law. Now note carefully the following: The worship of an opposing power would be to obey that power instead of God. The difference between the worship or obedience would constitute the mark of the worshipers. If the law of God and the law of another power required the same, there could be no mark of opposition. If the law of another power differed from the law of God, the point of difference in each law becomes the mark, or sign, of the power which issues the law. The difference in the service of the worshipers, or subjects, constitutes the mark of the power to which they bear allegiance. Therefore the change which the beast power has thought to make in God's law, but which rather makes it a perverted law of its own, must constitute the mark of the beast. The only material difference between the decalogue of the Papacy and the Decalogue of Jehovah is respecting the Sabbath precept. God commands the seventh day, Bible time; the Papacy commands the first day, Roman time. The papal Sunday is therefore "the mark of the beast."

Again: The "little horn" should think to change "the appointed times and the law," the time connected with the law, referring directly back to the times appointed of God, connected with his worship. The first "times" mentioned in the word of God are the day and the week, the day beginning and closing at evening, and the week, or septenary cycle, closing with the sacred day, the Sabbath. But the apostasy has changed the beginning of the day from sunset to midnight, and the end of the week from the seventh day to the first day, and so thought to change the law of God in the only commandment which refers to time. This, as before shown, the Roman Catholic Church claims, and Protestantism admits.

All this is done by "the man of sin," the one above all others who has caused man to sin by perverting God's law, by trampling it underfoot, by claiming authority to change it, and anathematizing those who do not admit the claim. Thus does "the man of sin," the very "mystery of iniquity," place himself in the temple, or church of God, exalting himself above God, arrogating to himself not only the power which belongs to God, but a power (rather perversion of power) which God has not,—to change that which in the nature of the case cannot be changed, namely, the law of God, the transgression of which is sin.

Sunday therefore, as an ecclesiastical institution, is wholly papal, the mark of the beast. Many, the great majority, of Sunday keepers once did not know this, but all are now rapidly becoming enlightened. But, rather than yield the Sunday, some are yielding their Protestantism, and defending the Roman Church; and the Protestant churches themselves are demanding civil law to enforce the observance of the day. Therefore, when the churches thus deliberately choose between God's Sabbath, the sign of his Deity, as both Creator and Redeemer, and the institution of tradition and apostasy, which Rome claims as her own, choosing the latter in preference to the former; when these churches demand of the governments of earth that these governments, in ways essentially papal, shall by statute law enforce the observance of this pseudo sabbath; and when the governments of this earth thus yield to the blandishments and threats of these apostate churches,—when all this is done, in the face of God's warning message, then it may be truthfully said that the last division of Babylon the great, the modern so-called Protestant churches, has committed fornication with the kings of the earth, and has accepted and is enforcing the mark of the beast.

To what extent the churches have done and are doing this will be considered in our next.