Drawing His own Portrait.
Under the heading of "Ministerial Folly!" significant heading to a significant article, I. C. Wellcome, in the World's Crisis of Sept. 6, 1864, gives us the following. We give his piece entire that the "folly" may be manifest in all its length and breadth. "Among the great variety of foolish things which some men who wish to carry their points at all hazards teach, is one so entirely without foundation, and contrary to truth, that it can scarcely seem possible for any really honest person to believe it; yet we have learned that the human heart is much more ready to accept error and falsehood than to receive the truth. "The notion alluded to is that 'the Pope made Sunday,' or, properly speaking, it is extensively taught by the 'Seventh-day Sabbath keepers' that the Pope set apart Sunday as the day for the christian church to keep the Sabbath, and made it binding on them by legal enactment. When proof is demanded, those who know it is wanting twist their assertions round and say, the civil power of Rome did so at the request of the Pope, etc. etc. "A few days ago, in passing over a circuit in Maine where our seventh-day friends have lately sown their seed and made their assertions, I found many brethren and sisters who of course do not know the history of these matters, and they often asked me, 'Why do you keep the Pope's day?' I was aware where they had heard the nonsense taught; for I had heard it, and seen it in print nearly twenty years ago. "I tell our friends, this story about the 'Pope's Sunday' is a base forgery, but that probably the most of those who believe and teach it know nothing of the history of the matter. Somebody has taken the responsibility to make and tell the lie, and others who have all the means of knowing it is false take the responsibility of circulating it instead of exposing it. "Now as there are many honest christians who wish to be undeceived, and ask for the truth touching this point, I will here give it, and may hereafter give some other facts which will expose the sham statements often made to lead christians to turn to Moses. "In A. D. 316 Constantine, who had been a Pagan, and ruled a Pagan empire, having professed conversion to Christ, and commenced the observance of the Lord's day (First day), as did all Christians throughout the empire, "enjoined the religious observance of the Lord's day, not only upon all his own house-hold, but commanded that it should be kept as a day of rest throughout the Roman empire." This law was not for189Christians, for they all observed that day; but for Jews and Pagans, that they might not desecrate the Lord's day, and that uniformity or order might be observed by all classes resting on the same day. After this the council of Laodicea made some demonstrations in the same direction, and pronounced "curses on Judaists," or Jews, for keeping the seventh day. "Here we find the root from which has sprung all the parade about the 'Pope's Sunday,' and the terrible consequence of christians observing it; that thereby they received 'the mark of the beast,' and 'the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God.' "Prof. Stuart says, 'The early Christians, one and all of them, held the first day of the week to be sacred. About that there appears never to have been any question among any class of Christians, so far as I have been able to discover. The zealots of the law wished the Jewish Sabbath to be observed, as well as the Lord's day. More anon. Yarmouth, Me.
I. C. WELLCOME. Of course, Mr. W. everything that you do not believe is "foolish" and all "nonsense." We have no objection to persons' calling things foolish and nonsensical, if they will only prove them to be so; but when a person is continually calling upon us to regard certain things as foolish, offering meanwhile no proof that they are so, he is very apt to transfer to himself that contempt which he wishes us to bestow upon the object of his spite. He speaks of some things which are so "entirely without foundation, and contrary to truth, that it can scarcely seem possible for any really honest person to believe it," &c. A little further on he says, "Now there are many honest Christians who wish to be undeceived." A person must be deceived before he can be undeceived; hence "many honest Christians" have been deceived by this doctrine; the "impossibility" of their believing it has been accomplished. Again he says, on the same subject, "We have learned that the human heart is much more ready to accept error and falsehood, than to receive the truth." From all of which we may safely infer the quite rapid spread of our cause in his vicinity. Amen. The Lord speed it on. He continues as complacently as if his words were going to put an everlasting quietus on the whole subject, "I tell our friends this story about the 'Pope's Sunday,' is a base forgery." And what authority does he give us for this? Oh, his word. But is he the oracle for all christendom? Is his bare assertion sufficient authority? It looks too much as if he was trying his hand at that child's game, commencing, 'Open your mouth and shut your eyes,' &c. But he adds, "Probably the most of those who believe and teach it, know nothing of the history of the matter." Alas! brethren, that you have so long been kept in ignorance, and have been so stupid as to go round the country preaching that of which you "probably know nothing." But let us rejoice that at last one has been found who is willing to condescend to give us the infallible history on this point. Now let all historians hold their breath while we listen to the profound announcement: "In A. D. 316, Constantine, who had been a Pagan, and ruled a Pagan empire, having professed conversion to Christ, and commenced the observance of the Lord's day (first-day) as did all Christians throughout the empire, enjoined the religious observance of the Lord's day, not only upon his own household, but commanded that it should be kept as a day of rest throughout the Roman empire." Well, now, is'nt the question forever settled? Is'nt everything that goes contrary to this, 'foolishness' and 'nonsense?' But hold. Who says this? Where is the authority? We do not see any. Who says that it was in A. D. 316, that Constantine professed Christianity, and commanded the observance of the Lord's day? Who says that "all Christians throughout the empire" at that time observed the first day of the week as the Lord's day? Who says that Constantine's edict says anything about the Lord's day, as such? And who says that it was issued in favor of Christians against Jews and Pagans? We call for proof, not assertions, but authority on all these points. Give us the chapter and verse. We would advise him to look a little at history on the following points: 1. To see if it was not in A. D. 321, instead of A. D. 316, that Constantine issued his Sunday law. 2. To see if it was not as late as the year A. D. 323, two years after the promulgation of his edict for Sunday, that he professedly embraced Christianity. 3. To see if his edict says anything about the 'Lord's day (?)' at all. 4. To see if he does not speak of it simply as 'dies solis,' the day of the sun, the very name given to that day by the Pagans, by whom it had been observed as a 'wild solar holliday' from the remotest times. 5. To see if, consequently, Constantine's Sunday law, was not a Pagan edict, issued in behalf of Sunday as a Pagan festival. 6. To see if this Pagan law was not left unrepealed when Constantine professed Christianity. 7. To see if thereupon Sylvester, bishop of Rome, Pope Sylvester, if you please, did not seize upon the opportunity to install the heathen festival of the sun under the imposing title of Lord's day, as a Christian institution, and avail himself of Constantine's Pagan law as a Christian ordinance by which to enforce it. 8. To see if this Pagan law, transformed by the embryo Pope into a Christian ordinance, was not the very first law ever enacted in behalf of Sunday; to see, in other words, if it is not in reality, the fourth commandment of the Sunday institution. 9. To see if the Papacy from that time on did not assume this institution as the badge of its authority and power. 10. To explain, if 'this story about the 'Pope's Sunday,' is a base forgery,' how it happens that the Roman Catholic church claims Sunday as an institution of its own, and refers to it, as is done in almost all Catholic catechisms and books of religious instruction, as the symbol of its authority. On all these points we challenge his proof. But perhaps he will think all this is sufficiently answered by his closing paragraph, wherein he quotes from Prof. Stuart that 'the early Christians one and all of them, held the first day of the week to be sacred.' But we would like to know how Mr. Stuart knows this. If he gave his authorities for the statement why has not Eld. W. given them? The professor speaks as confidently as though he was present among 'the early Christians,' saw them 'one and all' and took notes from his own observations. But if he knows whereof he affirms, he can produce the testimony emanating from those times, to sustain it. If there is any such testimony we would like to see it. Seventh-day Adventists are not the ones who take for granted, and settle down upon that of which they 'probably know nothing.' Eld. Wellcome has now drawn his picture. He took care to prominently label it 'Ministerial Folly,' intending that it should be the likeness of some Seventh-day Adventist minister. But no sooner does he hold up the finished piece to view, than lo! to his infinite confusion it must be, nothing but his own illustrious physiognomy appears upon the canvass.