Review and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 5. (7/14/1874)

Review and Herald

Jul 14, 1874

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 14, 1874

WHO CHANGED THE SABBATH?

Time was when the first day of the week was not observed as a Christian institution. Allowing it the utmost antiquity which its most fervent friends will claim, we cannot go back beyond the resurrection of our Saviour, not eighteen hundred and fifty years ago. Previous to that time, another day, the seventh day of the week, was observed as the Sabbath by that people whom God had set apart to preserve a knowledge of himself and of his truth in the earth.

While some confusion of ideas prevails in regard to what effect the change from the Jewish to the gospel dispensation has had upon the Sabbath, some believing it to be unaffected, and others supposing it to have been abolished, the majority believe that it has been changed. And so we find in all Catholic and Protestant countries, that all who keep any Sabbath at all, excepting a few who keep the seventh day, observe the first day of the week. And most of them do it on the ground that this day occupies in this dispensation the same position that the seventh day occupied in the old, and that its observance rests upon the same authority.

This is certainly a very remarkable change. And the bare suggestion that this change is not in accordance with the will of God, nor in harmony with his word, is enough to raise the query in very many minds. How then has it come about? Who has thus changed the Sabbath? By what means has this revolution been accomplished? And not a few attempt to forestall all inquiry on this point, by claiming that the fact that such a change has been made, is itself sufficient evidence that God has wrought it.

But this is altogether too hasty a conclusion; for Satan has not been asleep these eighteen hundred years; and it has been only by the most diligent care that anything has been preserved to the Christian church free from the taint of fatal corruption.

It is not the object of this article to enter into an examination of any of the Scripture evidences for or against the change; for this would involve an extended discussion of the Sabbath question from a Bible point of view; nor is it designed to show the particular steps by which the change has been brought about; for this would involve an examination of the history of the Sabbath from apostolic times. We only inquire here respecting the agent or power which has been employed in this work. Most Protestants claim that this change was made by Christ and his apostles. But a rival claim to the honor of this work here comes in from the man of sin, the papacy; hence the issue; and it becomes a very important point, and one which has quite a bearing on the character of the institution, to determine whose work it is—that of Christ or Antichrist.

It will be conceded on all hands that a change of the Sabbath involves a change of what is usually regarded as the moral law, that is, the ten commandments, or decalogues. The law which required of Israel the observance of the seventh day of the week, as the fourth commandment certainly did under that dispensation, could not at the same time enjoin upon them the keeping of the first day of the week. Nor can it enjoin this observance upon us, unless it has been so changed as to demand such a service. If there has been no change, it demands of us exactly what it did of Israel.

But if the first day is the divinely appointed Sabbath of the fourth commandment for this dispensation, then the new and unwritten version of the ten commandments for this dispensation so reads as to require the observance of that day.

The question then resolves itself simply into this: Who has changed the law of God? Who was competent to do it? No one except the Father, or his Son who was associated with him in the creation and the government of the world. Respecting the attitude which Christ should bear toward the law of God, the prophet Isaiah says: “He shall magnify the law and make it honorable.” Isa. 42: 21. To abolish it, as though it was no longer worthy of existence, or to change it, as if it had previously been imperfect, would not magnify it or make it honorable. Christ did neither of these things. Speaking himself of the law of God through the psalmist, he says: “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40: 8. These expressions denote no hostility on the part of Christ against his Father’s law. We are therefore prepared to hear him declare in his very first sermon that he came not to destroy the law, and that not a jot or tittle should pass from it till heaven and earth should pass, not the smallest fragment should perish, nor the least item be changed, through any work of his.

There is a power, however, brought to view in prophecy, which was to hold a very different relation to God and his law. This power was to speak great and blasphemous words against the Most High, wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws. It is symbolized by the little horn of the fourth beast of Daniel 7; and that symbol all Protestants agree in applying to the papacy.

That power which would blaspheme God, and wear out his saints, would be just the power to undertake to change his law. So the prophet expressly specifies on this point: “he shall think to change times and laws.” These laws must certainly be the laws of the Most High. To apply it to human laws, and make the prophecy read, “And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change human laws,” would be doing evident violence to the language of the prophet. But to apply it to the laws of God, and let it read, “And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and shall think to change the times and laws of the Most High”—then all is consistent and forcible.

The Septuagint, the Danish, and German Bibles, read, “the law,” in the singular, which more directly suggests the law of God. So far as human laws are concerned, the papacy has been able to do more than merely “think” to change them. It has been able to change them at pleasure. It has annulled the decrees of kings and emperors, and absolved subjects from allegiance to their rightful sovereigns. It has thrust its long arm into the affairs of the nations, and brought rulers to its feet in the most abject humility. But the prophet beholds greater acts of presumption than these. He sees it endeavor to do what it was not able to do, but could only think to do; he sees it attempt an act which no man nor any combination of men can ever accomplish; and that is, to change the laws of the Most High. Bear this in mind, while we look at the testimony of another sacred writer on this very point.

Paul speaks of the same power in 2 Thess. 2; and he describes it, in the person of the pope, as the man of sin, and as sitting as God in the temple of God (that is, the church), and as exalting himself above all that is called God, or that is worshiped. According to this, the pope sets himself up as the one for all the church to look to for authority, in the place of God. And now we ask the reader to ponder carefully the question how he could exalt himself above God. Search through the whole range of human devices: go to the extent of human effort; by what plan, by what move, by what claim, could this usurper exalt himself above God? He might institute any number of ceremonies, he might prescribe any form of worship, he might exhibit any degree of power; but so long as God had requirements which the people felt bound to regard in preference to his own, so long he would not be above God. He might enact a law and teach the people that they were under as great obligations to that as to the law of God. Then he would only make himself equal with God. But he is to do more than this: he is to attempt to raise himself above him. Then he must promulgate a law which conflicts with the law of God, and demand obedience to his own in preference to God’s. There is no other possible way in which he could place himself in the position assigned in the prophecy. But this is simply to change the law of God; and if he can cause this change to be adopted by the people in place of the original enactment, then he, the law-changer, is above God, the law-maker. And this is the very work that Daniel said he should think to do.

We now inquire what changes the papacy has undertaken to make in the law of God. By the law of God we mean, as already stated, the moral law, the only law in the universe of immutable and perpetual obligation, the law which Webster says, defining the terms according to the sense in which they are almost universally used in Christendom, “The moral law is summarily contained in the decalogue, written by the finger of God on two tables of stone, and delivered to Moses on Mount Sinai.”

If now, the reader will compare the ten commandments as found in Roman Catholic catechisms with those commandments as found in the Bible, he will see in the catechisms that the second commandment is left out, that the tenth is divided into two commandments to make up the lack of leaving out the second, and keep good the number ten, and that the fourth commandment (called the third in their enumeration) is made to enjoin the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath, and prescribe that the day shall be spent in hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, and reading moral and pious books.

Here are several variations from the decalogue as found in the Bible. Which of them constitutes the change of the law intended in the prophecy? or, are they all included in that change? Let it be borne in mind that, according to the prophecy, he was to think to change times and laws. This plainly conveys the idea of intention and design, and makes these qualities essential to the change in question. But respecting the omission of the second commandment, Catholics argue that it is included in the first, and, hence, should not be numbered as a separate commandment. And on the tenth, they claim that there is no plain a distinction of ideas as to require two commandments. So they make the coveting of a neighbor’s wife, the ninth commandment, and the coveting of his goods, the tenth.

In all this they claim that they are giving the commandments exactly as God intended to have them understood. So, while we may regard them as errors in their interpretation of the commandments, we cannot set them down as intentional changes. Not so, however, with the fourth commandment. Respecting this commandment, they do not claim that their version is like that given by God. They expressly claim a change here, and also that the change has been made by the church. A few quotations from standard Catholic works will make this matter plain.

The following, from Butler’s Catechism, shows how the ten commandments are numbered and taught in that church:—

“ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

“Ques. Say the ten commandments of God.”

“Ans. 1. I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before me, &c. 2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. 3. Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day. 4. Honor thy father and thy mother. 5. Thou shalt not kill. 6. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 7. Thou shalt not steal. 8. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. 9. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.”

The same catechism then amplifies on the third commandment (the fourth in our enumeration) as follows:—

“THE THIRD COMMANDMENT.

“Ques. Say the third commandment.”

“Ans. 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.”

“Q. Which are the chief duties of religion in which we should spend the Sundays?”

“A. Hearing mass devoutly; attending vespers, or evening prayers; reading moral and pious books; and going to communion.”

“Q. The hearing of mass, then, is not sufficient to sanctify Sunday?”

“A. No; a part of the day should also be given to prayer and good works.”—Butler’s Catechism, p. 26.

In the “Catholic Catechism of Christian Religion,” further instruction is given on the third (fourth) commandment, with the authority for the change as shown by the following questions and answers:—

“Ques. What does God ordain by this commandment?”

“Ans. He ordains that we sanctify, in a special manner, this day on which he rested from the labor of creation.”

“Q. What is this day of rest?”

“A. The seventh day of the week, or Saturday; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2: 2; Heb. 4: 1, &c.”

“Q. Is it, then, Saturday we should sanctify in order to obey the ordinance of God?”

“A. During the old law, Saturday was

the day sanctified; but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of God, has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord.”

“Q. Had the church power to make such change?”

“A. Certainly, since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is inspired by that Holy Spirit.”

In another Catholic work, called the “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” the Catholic church asserts its power to change the law in the following manner:—

“Ques. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?”

“Ans. 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 commands, they again deny, in fact, the same power.”

In the “Catholic Christian Instructed” is presented the following list of feast days, which all rest upon the same foundation; namely, the authority of the Catholic church. Of these, Sunday takes the lead:—

“Ques. What are the days which the church commands are to be kept holy?”

“Ans. 1. The Sunday, or our Lord’s day, which we observe by apostolic tradition, instead of the Sabbath. 2. The feasts of our Lord’s Nativity, or Christmas day; his circumcision, or New Year’s day; the Epiphany, or twelfth day; Easter-day, or the day of our Lord’s resurrection, with the Monday following; the day of our Lord’s ascension; Whit-Sunday, or the day of the coming of the Holy Ghost, with the Monday following; Trinity Sunday; Corpus Christi, or the feasts of the blessed sacrament. 3. We keep the days of the Annunciation, and Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 4. We observe the feasts of All-saints; of St. John Baptist; of the holy apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. 5. In this kingdom we keep the feasts of St. Patrick, our principal patron.”

(Concluded next week.)

“WE SHALL BE LIKE HIM.”

We shall be like Him, oh, beautiful thought ! Well may our souls into rapture be wrought. After the sorrows, the woe, and the tears, We shall be like Him when Jesus appears.

After the conflict in peace to sit down, After the cross to be wreathed with the crown, After the dust and the soil of the way, With Him and like Him forever to stay.

Never again shall the throbbing head ache, Never again shall the beating heart break, Never the task drop from wearying hands, Nor the feet ever fail in that brightest of lands.

Never shall sin with the trail of its shame Shadow love’s sunlight, nor chill its clear flame ; Saviour, oft grieved in the house of thy friends, Ne’er will we wound thee when earth’s frail life ends.

Death ! ’tis this thought does away with thy sting, Makes us triumphant to meet thee and sing, “ Glory to God.” When the Jordan is passed We shall go home and be like Him at last.

Master, alas ! thee we’ve often denied ; When the world scorned, we have shrunk from thy side ; Yet, blessed Jesus, thou knowest thy love, Pardon and help us with grace from above.

When thou appearest, oh, rapturous thought ! Well may our souls into rapture be wrought, We shall be like thee when this life is o’er, Wound thee, deny thee, offend thee, no more. —Sel.

The Kingdom of God.—No. 15.

By J. H. WAGGONER

EVERY one possessed of the spirit of the gospel must entertain feelings of pity for the heathen, as for all others under the dark and blighting influences of sin. The apostle felt for them, and was willing to lay down his life for the privilege of laying the offer of life before them; but having the mind of Christ, he “knew what was in man,” and faithfully described his natural state. See Rom. 1:18–32; 3:9–19.

Missionaries, and all who have dwelt in heathen lands, and all authentic history, assure us that wickedness of the most abominable kinds, and to an awful extent, prevails and has ever prevailed among the heathen. Of a truth it is said, “The dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty.” We are informed by those who have resided among them that their ignorance of right is not so great as their hatred of right. Those who claim another probation for them attribute their wickedness to their blindness and ignorance; whereas the Scriptures attribute their blindness to their wickedness. Rom. 1:28. “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.” See also verses 22–26; compare Isa. 29:13, 14; Rom. 11:7–10, 20; 2 Thess. 2:11, 12. Of the very best of the heathen, their sages and philosophers, Melanchthon observed, “I admit that there were found in Socrates, Xenocrates, and Zeno, constancy, temperance, chastity. Those shadows of virtue existed in impure minds, and sprang from self-love; and therefore ought they to be regarded not as genuine virtues, but as vices.” Of this expression the celebrated historian D’Aubigné says: “This may seem a harsh judgment, but only when Melanchthon’s meaning is misapprehended. No man felt more disposed than he was to own that the pagans had virtues worthy of human esteem; but he maintained that great truth, that the supreme law given by God to all his creatures is, that they should love him above all things. Now, should man in doing God’s commands, act from love to himself, not from love to God, could God ever approve of his thus daring to substitute himself in the room of his Infinite Majesty? And would there not be vice in an act involving express rebellion against the supreme God?”

It must be confessed that all whose minds have not been renewed by grace through faith (which, of course, includes the heathen), are considered carnally minded. But “the carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God.” This justifies the sentence that “to be carnally minded is death.” To the same intent, and of the same general application are the words of Paul in Gal. 5:19–21. “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.” These are placed in opposition to the fruits of the Spirit; and as surely as the fruits or graces of the Spirit abound where the Spirit dwells, and the Spirit cannot dwell where these are not, so do those prevail in all flesh, where the flesh with its affections and lusts is not crucified, or subdued by the grace of God. Not that all have outwardly committed all these crimes, but they inhere in the carnal mind, and are very often more restrained by circumstances than by the will. That which is perfectly subject to the law of God is perfect in love, for “love is the fulfilling of the law.” But that which is enmity against God, and not subject to his law, is complete in hatred to God, and a transgressor of his holy law in every respect. That all are by nature the children of wrath, and have carnal minds, will not be denied; and therefore all who are not justified by faith and made at peace with God through Christ, are in the deplorable condition described by the apostle.

These statements of the apostle naturally grow out of the supremacy of God, and the universality of his law, as revealed by the plainest declarations of Scripture to which reason itself demands that all assent. “Now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; THAT EVERY MOUTH MAY BE STOPPED, AND ALL THE WORLD MAY BECOME GUILTY BEFORE GOD.” Rom. 3:19.

In this connection the apostle says that God is the God of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews, and also that we have “proved both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin.” It does seem that, when they are already convicted and their guilt is plainly declared by inspiration, the mouths of opposers ought to “be stopped,” and they should cease their efforts to excuse sin and to impeach the divine plan of salvation. God is not under obligation to any sinner. But if such teachers as are here referred to are correct; if the justice of God cannot be vindicated without saving them, or giving them a better chance than the gospel affords; or, in other words, if obligation of any nature rests upon God to provide for their salvation, then that salvation is not of grace, but is only the discharge of a legal obligation resting upon God! This conclusion is just, and cannot be evaded. We must express our astonishment that the teachers of that theory are not shocked at the tendency of their own doctrines.

But the testimony of the Scriptures is equally pointed on the universality of the gospel means. The apostle says, of Jews and Gentiles, “There is none righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is an open sepulcher; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace have they not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.” Rom. 3:10–18.

Now on such plain Scripture we found the following argument:—

“The wages of sin is death.” Rom. 6:23.

“All have sinned.” Chap. 3:23.

Therefore all are under condemnation to death. Verse 19.

These truths need neither confirmation nor comment; if any would deny them, we have only to say, “Who art thou that repliest against God?” But they might as well deny the statements at once as to deny the conclusions to which they unavoidably lead. As surely as these Scripture statements are true, so surely are they fatal to the position we call in question. They would be a sufficient vindication of the justice of God should he at this instant destroy them all from the face of the earth. And they must and will be so destroyed when the just judgments of God fall on a guilty world.

The means and conditions of the gospel do not admit of a new system of probation in another age, for any who are under condemnation in this age, inasmuch as the penalty of their transgressions is of such a nature that it is impossible for them to avail themselves of another probation. They now stand condemned, and death is the penalty. When Jesus comes to take vengeance on his enemies, the wrath of God will fall on “them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel.” Who, then, will escape? They only who have complied with the conditions, which are “repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” The following scriptures show what is required of all in order that they may escape the coming judgments:—

John 3:16: “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”

Luke 13:3: “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.”

Heb. 12:14: “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”

Rom. 8:9: “Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.”

1 Cor. 16:22: “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be an accursed creature.”

Gal. 3:22: “The scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.”

1 Pet. 4:18: “And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?”

Matt. 12:30: “He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”

There is no neutral ground. It is either gathering or scattering; righteous or wicked; life or death. Not the bare absence of inveterate or openly avowed hatred, but active, perfect love, is required. Not merely abstinence from great, out-breaking sins, but holiness of heart, and walking in the Spirit.

A prominent teacher of that system once wrote:—

“To prove that probation, in the present dispensation, will close when Christ comes, and to prove that there will be no probation in the future age, are very different things.”

The above may justly be called a play upon words. We have never thought it necessary to prove that “probation in the present dispensation will close when Christ comes;” for it is universally admitted that the dispensation itself closes at that time; and of course probation in this dispensation could not possibly continue after the dispensation terminated. One truth is undeniable, to wit: that all are on probation in this dispensation; and that the probation of all ceases before Christ comes is evident from the proofs adduced that all are under condemnation, or “subject to the judgment of God” (Rom. 3:19, margin), and I have never yet heard of any method by which condemned probationers of this age may be shoved over and given a new and different probation in another age. Reason, justice, and Scripture, all show that they will be held to account under the claims of the present age, in which they are already under condemnation. The judgment of all classes is clearly revealed, and the time given in Rom. 2:12–16. Any system to give them another probation in another age would do violence to revealed principles.

Again, the same author said:—

“God’s mode of saving men may change without change in principle. It was not the same in the Jewish dispensation as it is in the Christian.”

In these quotations it will be noticed there is an acknowledgment that probation terminates with this dispensation, though he thinks it will be renewed in another; and that the mode of probation would be different from that of this age. But the latter declaration, in this connection, is somewhat ambiguous; for, if by the “mode of saving men,” he merely refers to positive institutions, his statement does not reach the case, as will be shown; but if by it he would embrace the plan of salvation, he is in error. This plan has never changed. It has ever been the same, though there have been different methods of illustrating and enforcing its saving truths. Each shadow of the Jewish age was equivalent to a promise; and these promises are now in process of fulfillment in the work of Christ in the sanctuary in Heaven. But not one declaration of the Bible can be produced to show that its conditions will apply to any in a future age.

Reference to a change of “mode,” and a change from the past to the present dispensation, is of no avail, as there was no termination of probation at the close of that age, nor did the Judgment act upon the transgressors of that age, as will be the case at the close of this. Hence there is no analogy; it is reasoning from unlike to unlike. The question is not in regard to types and positive institutions, but to the duration of the gospel system on which all these institutions and ordinances depend for their existence.

Positive institutions have only a relative importance. Those of the Jewish age looked forward to the work of Christ—to his death and mediation—and without these they would have been of no importance whatever. The positive institutions of this age refer to the same things. But there is this difference: those of the Jewish age all looked beyond that into the present age, while those of the present do not look into the future. Baptism represents the burial and resurrection of Christ; the supper represents his death, and this only, “till he come.” The close of this age brings us to the last link in the chain. All past dispensations have been clearly connected, but there is no connecting link between this and any future time of probation. As this departs, the Judgment of the great day of God’s wrath opens before us. The Saviour’s work in the heavenly sanctuary will then be finished; he has entered Heaven once as a priest after the order of Melchisedec; when he leaves that station the saints will be sealed with the seal of the living God, and the filthy and the unjust will be so still. See Rev. 22:11, 12.

It is easy to perceive how a change of positive institutions has taken place in the past, in strict conformity with established principles, as they all refer to a work now being done. “Things hoped for” are symbolized in this manner, but when his intercession ceases—when the atonement is fully made, they can have no further efficacy, as no remission can be granted after that time except on the principle of granting indulgence for future sins, by pardoning the crime before it is committed.

The importance of the truth on this subject cannot be estimated. A mistake here may lead to fatal results. To cry, Peace, when there is no peace, and to promise security, and to build up hope where destruction is impending, is the work of false prophets. They say that the coming of Christ and the introduction of the day of the Lord will be a means of blessing to the nations now in darkness and in sin. But the Lord says: “Sound an alarm; let all the inhabitants of the land tremble; for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.” It is the time of the judgment of the heathen. It is the time of the smiting of the image of Daniel 2, when the kingdoms shall be destroyed from off the earth; when all the wicked shall be given to the sword. It is the time when the seven last plagues, in which is filled up the wrath of God, shall be poured out upon men; when they shall drink of the unmixed wine of his wrath. It is the time when they who cry, Peace and safety, shall not escape from the sudden destruction which shall come; when the blind and their blind leaders shall fall together.

J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded next week.)

Stars in the Milky Way

“DEAR Christians, you may not all shine like the sun, or like the moon, but each of you may be at least a star of the milky-way. Behold that broad and luminous pathway in the heavens, supposed to be the blended light of innumerable fixed stars, which cannot be distinguished with ordinary telescopes. So you may take your stations in the glory of feeble stars and blend your light together, and you shall not shine in vain.”

The Lisbon Earthquake.

A FEARFUL TRAGEDY OF THE LAST CENTURY.

[THE following is the most impressive description of the great event that marked the opening of the sixth seal, Rev. 6:12, that we have ever seen.—ED. REVIEW.]

The morning of Nov. 1, 1755, dawned serene, but the heavens were hazy. Since midnight the thermometer had risen 1 degree, and stood at 9 o'clock at 14 above freezing, Réaumur. As it was the feast of All-Saints, the churches were thronged from an early hour, and all their altars brilliantly illuminated with thousands of tapers, and decorated with garlands of various tinted muslin and thin silk. At a quarter of 10 o'clock, the first shock was felt. It was so slight that many persons attributed it to the passage of heavy wagons in the street, and even to mere fancy. Three minutes afterward, a second shock occurred, so violent that it seemed as if the heavens and earth were passing away. This agitation lasted fully ten minutes, and ere it diminished, the greater portion of the city was in ruins. The dust raised obscured the sun; an Egyptian darkness prevailed, and to add to the universal horror, the fearful screams of the living and the groans of the dying rose through the air.

In twenty minutes all became calm again, and people began to look around them, and consider the best means of escape. Some were for going to the hills, but were soon discouraged from so doing by the rumors that those who had already gone thither were suffocating from the effects of the dense fog of dust which still rose from the falling buildings. Then they rushed toward the quays which line a part of the Tagus, but only to learn the horrible news that these had sunk into the earth, with all the people and edifices upon them.

Those who thought to put to sea were told to look at the river, and lo! in its center they beheld a whirlpool which was sucking in all the vessels and boats in its vicinity, not a fragment of any of them being ever seen again. The royal palace had been entirely swallowed up, and over its site is now the vast square of the Baco, or Black Horse, one of the largest public places in Europe. The great library of the Holy Ghost was in flames, and its priceless Moorish and Hebrew manuscripts were fast becoming ashes. The opera-house had fallen in, the Inquisition was no more, and the great church of San Domingo was a heap of stones, beneath which lay crushed to atoms the entire congregation. The Irish church of St. Paul was the death place of a thousand persons, and the palace of Bemposta, where Catherine of Braganza, widow of Charles II., lived and died, had fallen over from the heights on which it was built, and utterly destroyed the poor but populous part of the town which lay beneath it. In a word, where but an hour since was Lisbon was now nothing but desolation. As to the people, who can describe their condition? At least 70,000 persons had perished, and the majority of the survivors were cruelly wounded and in an agony of mind and body. Some went mad with fright, some lost forever the power of speech, sinners went about confessing their secret crimes, and fanatics, believing the last day had come, cried out to the horror-stricken multitude “to repent, for that Christ was coming to judge the quick and the dead.”

As the day waxed on, the wretched Lisbonese grew calmer, and it was universally declared that the safest places, now that the dust was diminishing, were the heights overlooking the city, and thither the majority fled. Here they found the Court assembled, for the Royal family was fortunately at Belem, where, strange to say, the earthquake was scarcely felt at all, and had hastened at once to the hills. The Cardinal-Patriarch was here also, and so was Pombal; and these two men, with surprising presence of mind, by their admirable courage, were enabled before night to inspire some feeling of order in the excited throng. The King and Queen behaved nobly, and the young Duke of Lafoens deserves to be immortalized for his splendid conduct. He organized a band of noblemen who went about aiding the wounded, rescuing the children, and even burying the dead.

It was a strange and awful sight to see this multitude gather together on the summit of the hills which once overlooked their magnificent capital, and which now looked down upon a mere mass of smoldering ruins. As day declined and night came on, the Cardinal issued a proclamation, ordering all to kneel in prayer and entreat the mercy of God upon them, and then rose on the air the wailing tone of that saddest of psalms, the Miserere. When the shades of night had fully fallen, a frightful discovery was made; the city was in flames in a hundred places. The conflagration was greatly increased by a strong wind blowing in from the sea. There was now no hope of saving anything, and it was but too well known that thousands of human beings who had taken refuge in the cellars and crypts were being roasted alive.

But if the anxiety of the escaped was dreadful to witness, the scenes within the city itself were even more terrible. Robbers, escaped jail-birds, low sailors, and degraded negroes, formed bands, and went about amidst the ruins pillaging the wounded of their trinkets, and even murdering those who ventured to oppose their ghastly deeds. The lewd inhabitants of the brothels broke from the rigid restraint in which they were confined by the law and joined the bandits. They plundered such of the wine-stores as were left intact, and maddened with drink and probably with terror, cast off their garments, and went dancing and whooping blasphemous songs through the desolate streets, if such they could now be called, while the lurid light from the innumerable fires cast a blood-colored glow on their naked and contorted forms. They got into the churches, robbed the sacred images, threw the holy vestments over their shoulders, and made the ruined walls re-echo the shouts of their beastly revelry. “It seemed,” says Fray Bernardo de Carmo, “as if hell had vomited forth its demons, and that the powers of darkness had indeed prevailed.”

From the cellars of the houses rose the piercing cries of those who were perishing of their neglected wounds, or suffering from the effects of foul atmosphere. Here a mother wept over the bodies of her children; there a group of timid nuns stood around their Abbess and knew not which way to turn; now a fanatic rushed along howling dismal prophecies; now a long file of white-clad Cistercians passed by reciting mournful prayers; and then again fell upon the ear the horrid maniacal laughter of the gang of lewd women and brutal men at their dreadful revelry. An aged noble woman in full court garments was seen searching among the ruins of her palace for her jewels; and a famous Phryne of the day, Theresa Brandao, suddenly converted, did such noble deeds of charity that her name deserves to be written in letters of gold.

For fifteen days was the city infested with robbers, until Carvalho, afterward the celebrated Minister Pombal, set an example of courage and energy. He descended into Lisbon, and remained days and nights together in his carriage or on horseback, directing affairs and assisting in clearing away the ruins; he planted soldiers all over the city, and whoever could not give a clear account of the property found in his possession was hung then and there, and three hundred and fifty-seven persons thus perished. Many months elapsed ere tranquillity was in a measure restored, and before the people began to think of rebuilding their homes. Indeed, it was at one time almost decided to remove the capital to Rio de Janeiro.—Lippincott for July.

Continue reading: More Objections, or the Cross in the Way