p. 16 | A FALSE WITNESS by W. N. G.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Nov 26, 1896

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 22, No. 47.

A FALSE WITNESS.

By W. N. G.

It is said of the witnesses who testified against our Lord, "But neither so did their witness agree together." Mark 15:59. This was proof that they testified falsely. We have before us the testimony of but one who is in the same condition as were those who witnessed against Jesus. But neither so does his witness agree together.

We refer to an article, entitled "The Day Changed from Saturday to Sunday—the Prophecy fulfilled," in the Sunday Reform Leaflets, of August, 1896, published by the Sunday League of America, at Columbus, Ohio. The proof which the writer brings for this change is Eze. 43 : 27, which reads: "And when these days are expired, it shall be that upon the eighth day and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt-offerings on the altar, and your peace offerings, and I will accept you saith the Lord." Upon this the Leaflets remarks:—

"Here is a plain statement that the offerings should be made on the eighth day, corresponding with our Sunday, the first day of the week; and unless the worship on the eighth day refers to the Christian dispensation it has not been fulfilled. In no where do we find it fulfilled in the services of the Jewish temple. In no where do we read of the Jewish nation changing the day and their worship from the seventh to the eighth day."

If the reader will turn to Ezekiel 43 and read from verses 18 to 27 he will see that the directions given are not for any weekly worship whatsoever, but are instructions for dedication and purification of the altar in the proposed temple. It gives specific instruction as to what was to be done, not on each day of the week, but on each day of that ceremony. "Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves," and then follows the verse above, which simply states that on the eighth day and thenceforth the altar was ready for the usual daily offerings. That eighth day, so far as that altar was concerned, was to be just like the days which followed it. The only reason why that text was taken that we can see is that the term "eighth day" is spoken of, and some early "father" refers to Sunday as "the eighth day." But the two have no more connection with each other than the Fourth of July has with Wednesday of this week.

Then this Leaflets, after showing, we presume, to its own satisfaction, if a leaflet can be satisfied, that the Sabbath was changed "from Sabbath to Sunday." It says:—

"The merits of a lawsuit is the same whether it is tried on Monday or on Tuesday, and the merits of the Sabbath is the same altho the day is transmitted by the divine Lawgiver from Saturday to Sunday. 'Ah, but we are commanded,' says one, 'to keep the seventh day of the week.' We are commanded to keep the seventh day, but in no where in the Bible are we commanded to keep the seventh day of the week. And as the Bible does not tell us on what day to commence to count, then we commence to count on Monday, and when we come to Sunday it will be the seventh day."

Wonderful logic! The express command is nothing, but our count of the days as applied to Sunday is all-sufficient! Well, let us see. The Sabbath is expressly mentioned in connection with "the first day of the week," in three of the Gospels (Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:1, 2; Luke 23:56; 24:1), and in every case the Sabbath "according to the commandment" is the day just before "the first day of the week." Is it not then the seventh day of the week? But neither "the first day" nor "the first day of the week" is anywhere commanded in the word of God. The seventh day of the seven, which the passages above referred to show to be the seventh day of the week, is commanded over and over again, was kept by patriarch, prophet, and apostle, and by our Lord Jesus Christ. What more can be asked?

The witness of the Leaflets agree not together. It is yea and nay. Not so the word of God and the example of Christ.

The Devil's Signature.

Two prominent Catholics of Europe, the editor of the Cologne Volkszeitung, the second leading Catholic paper of Germany, and the Catholic Director Künzle, of Feldberg, in the Tyrol, the editor of the Pelikan, are quarreling over the genuineness of an alleged signature of the devil. Künzle believes it genuine and the Volkszeitung declares it to be superstition to believe such a thing. According to a pamphlet published at the office of the Pelikan, "the devil Vitru appeared Oct. 18, 1883, in a Freemasons' lodge room in Rome, and, accompanied by prominent members of the lodge, such as Crispi, Lemmi, and others, he made public declaration that Sophi Sapho, who was then present, would on the 29th of September following give birth to the grandmother of the antichrist. In testimony of these facts a document was then and there drawn up and signed by those present, on which document the devil then and there present signed himself as 'Sanctus Daemon Primarius Praesas' (first presiding holy demon)." Whether it be the signature of the devil or not we have no means of knowing, nor do we care. We do know this, that Satan has written his signature all over this sin-cursed earth, in the faces and lives of the vicious, the vile, the falsehearted, upon and in all who will yield to him, as well as upon every system of false religion. But we also thank God that the blood of Jesus Christ will obliterate it all if the sinner will but let it be cleansed, and in its place he will write the name—the blessed character—of Eternal Righteousness. For this we contend. Is it not worth contending for?

Invading the Rights of Conscience.

In support of Sunday laws the Christian Statesman quotes Judge Cooley, author of "Constitutional Limitations," as saying that "no one can complain that his rights of conscience are invaded by enforced respect to a prevailing religious sentiment." Inasmuch as this expression is quoted approvingly, the editor as well as the judge thereby logically endorse all the religious persecutions of the past, as also all that may come in the future. "Prevailing religious sentiment" is the only power that ever did invade the rights of conscience by enforced respect to its behests. When a recognized legal text-book, the judges of most of the state courts and of the United States courts, and the masses of the church element in the country, endorse such a sentiment as this from Judge Cooley, is it too much to expect that the prevailing religious sentiment will yet succeed in enforcing its pet dogmas by law? But the ideas of the Sunday law advocates in regard to invading the rights of conscience are quite variable. They have all along been claiming that their rights of conscience are invaded because everybody will not keep Sunday. If it should happen that the prevailing religious sentiment insisted that all should observe some other day, we would soon hear a different cry about the invasion of the rights of conscience.