Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 4, 1859
CHAPTER IX
By John Nevins Andrews
HISTORY OF THE SABBATH AND FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK;
SHOWING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SABBATH HAS BEEN SUPPLANTED BY THE HEATHEN FESTIVAL OF THE SUN.
[Concluded.]
CHAPTER IX.
SUNDAY OBSERVANCE IN ENGLAND.
The observance of Sunday in this country is mainly derived from England. Hence we have a peculiar interest in the origin of Sunday observance in England. Morer gives the following account:
A. D. 692. "Ina, king of the west Saxons, by the advice of Cenred his father, and Heddes and Erkenwald his bishops, with all his aldermen and sages, in a great assembly of the servants of God, for the health of their souls, and common preservation of the kingdom, made several constitutions, of which this was the third: 'If a servant do any work on Sunday by his master's order, he shall be free, and the master pay thirty shillings; but if he went to work on his own head, he shall be either beaten with stripes or ransom himself with a price. A freeman if he works on this day, shall lose his freedom, or pay sixty shillings; if he be a priest, double.'"
"In the year of our Lord 747 a council was called under Cathbert, archbishop of Canterbury, in the reign of Egbert king of Kent, and this constitution made: 'It is ordered that the Lord's day be celebrated with due veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship of God. And that all abbots, and priests, on this most holy day, remain in their respective monasteries and churches, and there do their duty according to their places.'"
A. D. 784. "Egbert, archbishop of York, to show positively what was to be done on Sundays, and what the laws designed by prohibiting ordinary work to be done on such days, made this canon: 'Let nothing else, saith he, be done on the Lord's day, but to attend on God in hymns and psalms, and spiritual songs. Whoever marries on Sunday let him do pennance for seven days.'"
A. D. 876. "Alfred the great, was the first who united the Saxon Heptarchy, and it was not the least part of his care to make a law, that among other festivals this day more especially might be solemnly kept. . . . And whereas the single punishment for sacrilege committed on any other day, was to restore the value of the thing stolen, and withal lose one hand, he added that if any person was found guilty of this crime done on the Lord's day, he should be doubly punished." And Morer adds that these laws, "at the league between Gunthrum, king of the Danes, and Edward, son and successor to the said Alfred, were again ratified in the year 905, or soon after, and the penalties inflicted as mentioned before."
"King Athelston, followed the examples of his father and grandfather, and in the year 928 made a law that there should be no marketing or civil pleadings on the Lord's day, under the penalty of forfeiting the commodity, besides a fine of thirty shillings for each offence."
In a convocation of the clergy about this time it was decreed that all sorts of traffic and the holding of courts, &c., on Sunday, should cease. "And whoever transgressed in any of these instances, if a freeman, he was to pay twelve oræ, if a servant, be severely whipt."
"About the year 943, Otho, archbishop of Canterbury, had it decreed that above all things the Lord's day should be kept with all imaginable caution, according to the canon and ancient practice."
A. D. 967. "King Edgar commanded that the festival should be kept from three of the clock in the afternoon on Saturday, till daybreak on Monday."
"King Ethelred the younger, son of Edgar, about the year 1009 called a general council of all the English clergy, under Elfegus, archbishop of Canterbury, and Wolston, archbishop of York. And there it was required that all persons in a more zealous manner should observe the Sunday, and what belonged to it."
"Henry II entered on the government about the year 1155. Of him it is reported that he had an apparition at Cardiff (in South Wales) which from St. Peter charged him, that upon Sundays throughout his dominion, there should be no buying or selling, and no servile work done."
But it seems that all these decrees of kings and canons of councils which we have cited, did not accomplish the work of establishing the sacredness of Sunday. We are now to learn what was done to accomplish this object. Morer introduces it thus:
"In the year 1201 in the beginning of king John's reign, Hubert Walter being archbishop of Canterbury, Eustachius, abbot of Flay, returned into England, and preaching the word of God from city to city, and from place to place, he forbid markets to be held on the Lord's day. . . . To keep up the peoples' spirits, the abbot produced a divine warrant, or mandate from heaven, for the strict observation of the Lord's day, in the words following:
"AN HOLY MANDATE touching the Lord's day, which came down from heaven unto Jerusalem, found on St. Simeon's altar in Golgotha, where Christ was crucified for the sins of all the world, which lying there three days and three nights, struck with such terror all that saw it, that falling on the ground they besought God's mercy. At last the patriarch and Akarias the archbishop, ventured to take up with their hands the letter of God, wherein it was thus written:
" 'I am the Lord who commanded you to keep the Lord's day, and you have not kept it, neither repented of your sins; I caused repentance to be preached unto you and you believed not; then I sent the pagans among you, who spilt your blood on the earth, and yet you believed not; and because you did not observe the Lord's holy day, I punished you a while with famine, but in a short time I gave you fullness of bread, and then you believed yourselves worse than before. I again charge you, that from the ninth hour on Saturday until sunrising on the Monday, no man presume to do any work, but what is good, or if he do let him repent for the same. Verily I say unto you, and swear by my seat and throne, and by the cherubim which surround it, that if you do not hearken to this my mandate, I will send no other letter unto you, but will open the heavens, and rain upon you stones, wood and scalding water by night, so that none shall be able to provide against them. I say ye shall die the death for the Lord's day; and other festivals of my saints which ye have not kept; and I will send among you beasts with the heads of lions, and the hair of women, and the tails of camels, which being very hungry shall devour your flesh. And you shall desire to flee to the sepulchres of the dead, and hide you for fear of those beasts. And I will take the light of the sun from your eyes, and send such darkness that not being able to see, you shall destroy each other. And I will turn my face away, and not in the least pity you. I will burn your bodies and hearts of all them who do not keep the Lord's day. Hear then my words, and do not perish for neglecting this day. I swear to you by my right hand, that if you do not observe the Lord's day, and festivals of my saints, I will send pagan nations to destroy you.'"82Such was the first attempt in England, after the apparition of St. Peter, A. D. 1155, to supply divine authority for Sunday observance. "It shows," as Morer quaintly observes, "how industrious men were in those times to have this great day solemnly observed."
And Morer adds: "To that end it was again produced and read in a council of Scotland, held under pope Innocent III, about two years after, A. D. 1203, in the reign of king William, who passed it into a law that Saturday from twelve at noon ought to be accounted holy, and that no man shall deal in such worldly business as of feast days were forbidden. As also that at the tolling of a bell, the people were to be employed in holy actions, going to sermons and the like, and to continue thus until Monday morning, a penalty being laid on those who did the contrary. About the year 1214, which was eleven years after, it was again enacted, in a parliament at Scone, by Alexander III, king of the Scots, that none should fish in any waters, from Saturday after evening prayer, till sunrising on Monday, which was afterwards confirmed by king James I."
Such are the steps by which Sunday was established in Scotland. We return to the history of Sunday laws in England.
"In the year 1237, Henry III being king, and Edmund de Abendon archbishop of Canterbury, a constitution was made requiring every minister to forbid his parishioners the frequenting of markets on the Lord's day, and leaving the church, when they ought to meet and spend the day in prayer and hearing the word of God. And this on pain of excommunication."
A. D. 1358. "Islippe, archbishop of Canterbury, with very great concern and zeal, expresses himself thus: 'We have it from the relation of very credible persons, that in divers places within our province, a very naughty, nay, damnable custom has prevailed, to hold fairs and markets on the Lord's day.' . . . Wherefore by virtue of canonical obedience, we strictly charge and command your brotherhood, that if you find your people faulty in the premises, you forthwith admonish or cause them to be admonished to refrain going to markets or fairs on the Lord's day. . . . And as for such who are obstinate and speak or act against you in this particular, you must endeavor to restrain them by ecclesiastical censures and by all lawful means put a stop to these extravagances."
"Nor was the civil power silent; for about that time king Edward made an act that wool should not be shown at the staple on Sundays and other solemn feasts in the year. In the reign of king Henry VI, Dr. Stafford being archbishop of Canterbury, A. D. 1444, it was decreed that fairs and markets should no more be kept in churches and church-yards on the Lord's day, or other festivals, except in time of harvest."
Such were the steps by which Sunday observance became general in Great Britain. The people were restrained "by ecclesiastical censures," backed by the severe penalties of civil law. And as these were not sufficient to establish the sacredness of the venerable day of the sun, an apparition of St. Peter, and a roll written by God himself, completed the chain of evidence in its support.
We have now traced this observance to a time when these arguments in its support would hardly avail. The light of the Reformation was just beginning to dawn upon Europe, and the fables and superstition of the dark ages were, as a matter of course, beginning to be dissipated before the light of advancing day. It would be naturally supposed that the pagan Sunday would fall from its high place when the sources of its former strength were cut off. But such was not the case. When the word of God was seen to be the only divine rule, and every thing else of no importance, it became necessary either to give up Sunday observance, or to justify it by the Bible. Strange as the case may appear, it was the Puritans of England who discovered that the pagan festival of Sunday was the day enjoined in the fourth commandment!
The ecclesiastical historian Coleman, a first-day Sabbatarian, thus records this important discovery:
"The true doctrine of the Christian Sabbath was first promulgated by an English dissenter, the Rev. Nicholas Bound, D. D. of Norton, in the county of Suffolk. About the year 1595, he published a famous book entitled, 'Sabbathum Veteris et Novi Testamenti, or the True Doctrine of the Sabbath.' In this book he maintained 'that the seventh part of our time ought to be devoted to God—that Christians are bound to rest on the Lord's day as much as the Jews were on the Mosaic Sabbath, the commandment about rest being moral and perpetual; and that it was not lawful for persons to follow their studies or worldly business on that day, nor to use such pleasures and recreations as are permitted on other days.' This book spread with wonderful rapidity. The doctrine which it propounded called forth from many hearts a ready response, and the result was a most pleasing reformation in many parts of the kingdom. 'It is almost incredible,' says Fuller, 'how taking this doctrine was, partly because of its own purity, and partly for the eminent piety of such persons as maintained it; so that the Lord's day, especially in corporations, began to be precisely kept; people becoming a law unto themselves, forbearing such sports as yet by statute permitted; yea, many rejoicing at their own restraint herein.' The law of the Sabbath was indeed a religious principle, after which the Christian church had, for centuries, been darkly groping. Pious men of every age had felt the necessity of divine authority for sanctifying the day. Their conscience had been in advance of their reason. Practically they had kept the Sabbath better than their principles required. . . .
"Public sentiment, however, was still unsettled in regard to this new doctrine respecting the Sabbath, though few at first violently opposed it. Learned men were much divided in their judgments about these Sabbatarian doctrines; some embraced them as ancient truths consonant to Scripture, long disused and neglected, now seasonally revived for the increase of piety. Others conceived them grounded on a wrong bottom; but because they tended to the manifest advance of religion, it was a pity to oppose them; seeing none have just reason to complain, being deceived unto their own good. But a third sort flatly fell out with these propositions, as galling men's necks with a Jewish yoke against the liberty of Christians; that Christ, as Lord of the Sabbath, had removed the rigor thereof, and allowed men lawful recreations; that this doctrine put an unequal lustre on the Sunday, on set purpose to eclipse all other holy days, to the derogation of the authority of the church; that this strict observance was set up out of faction, to be a character of difference to brand all for libertines who did not entertain it. No open opposition, however, was at first manifested against the sentiments of Dr. Bound. No reply was attempted for several years.
"His work was soon followed by several other treatises in defence of the same sentiments. 'All the Puritans fell in with this doctrine, and distinguished themselves by spending that part of sacred time in public, family and private devotion.' Even Dr. Heylin certified the triumphant spread of those puritanical sentiments respecting the Sabbath.
"This doctrine, [he says,] carrying such a fair show of piety, at least in the opinion of the common people, and such as did not examine the true grounds of it, induced many to embrace and defend it; and in a very little time it became the most bewitching error and the most popular infatuation that ever was embraced by the people of England."
Such was the origin of the seventh part of time theory; a doctrine most opportunely framed at the very period when nothing else could save the venerable day of the sun. With the aid of this theory, the pagan festival of the sun was able coolly to wrap itself in the fourth commandment and then to challenge obedience from all Bible Christians. It could now cast away the other frauds on which its very existence had depended, and support its authority by this one alone. It fastened itself once to the throne of the Roman empire; but now it had anchored itself by the throne of the Most High. And thus a day which God "commanded not nor spake, neither came it into" his "mind," was enjoined upon mankind with all the authority of his holy law.
Charles I ascended the throne of England in 1625. He places this Sunday festival in the true light, viz., as of equal authority with Easter, when addressing the persons who were engaged in this vindication of Sunday as a divine institution. We quote from Morer as follows:
"I conceive, saith he to the new reformers in his reign, the celebration of this feast [Easter] was instituted by the same authority that changed the Jewish Sabbath into the Lord's day or Sunday. For it will not be found in Scripture where Saturday is discharged to be kept, or turned into Sunday; wherefore it must be the church's authority that changed the one and instituted the other. Therefore my opinion is that those who will not keep this feast may as well return to the observation of the Saturday, and refuse the weekly Sunday."
CHAPTER X.
SABBATH-KEEPERS IN EUROPE AT THE TIME OF THE REFORMATION—SABBATH OBSERVANCE INTRODUCED INTO AMERICA—SEVENTH-DAY BAPTISTS—SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS—THE ARMENIANS OF THE EAST INDIES ARE SABBATH-KEEPERS—THE CHURCH OF ROME ON THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH—SYNOPSIS OF FACTS.
At the time of the reformation there were some, at least, who adhered to the ancient Sabbath of the Lord. Thus Mr. Utter writes:
"Early in the sixteenth century there are traces of Sabbath-keepers in Germany. The old Dutch Martyrology gives an account of a Baptist minister, named Stephen Benedict, somewhat famous for baptizing during a severe persecution in Holland, who is supposed by good authorities to have kept the seventh day as the Sabbath. One of the persons baptized by him was Barbery von Thiers, wife of Hans Borzen, who was executed on the 16th of September, 1529. At her trial she declared her rejection of the idolatrous sacrament of the priest, and also the mass. 'Relative to Sunday and the holy days, she said the Lord God had commanded to rest the seventh day; in this she acquiesced, and it was her desire by the help and grace of God, to remain and die as she was, for it was the true faith and right way in Christ.' In Transylvania there were Sabbath-keepers, among whom was Francis Davidis, first chaplain of the court of Sigismund, and afterward superintendent of the Transylvania churches. In France, also, there were Christians of this class, among whom was M. de la Roque, who wrote in defense of the Sabbath, against Bossuet, Catholic bishop of Meaux."
In England, the promulgation in 1595 of Dr. Bound's new theory of the seventh part of time was the means of bringing into notice several advocates of the seventh day "who vindicated its claims with great boldness and ability. John Traske began to speak and write in favor of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, about the time that the Book of Sports for Sunday was published under the direction of the archbishop of Canterbury, and king James I, in 1618. He took high ground as to the sufficiency of the Scriptures to direct to all religious services, and the duty of the state to refrain from imposing any other contrary to the word of God. For this he was brought before the Star Chamber, where a long discussion was held respecting the Sabbath. . . . Traske was not turned from his opinion, and was censured in the Star Chamber. Paggitt's Heresiography says that he 'was sentenced, on account of his being a Sabbatarian, to be set upon the pillory at Westminster, and from thence to be whipt to the Fleet prison, there to remain a prisoner for three years. Mrs. Traske, his wife, lay in Maiden Lane and the Gatehouse prisons fifteen years, where she died, for the same crime.'"83"Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in the established church, wrote a book, which was printed at London in 1628, wherein he argued 'that the Lord's day is not the Sabbath day by divine institution,' but 'that the seventh day Sabbath is now in force.' . . . About this time Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the Sabbath. He was educated in the established church of which he became a minister. Having changed his views respecting the mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath, he abandoned that church, and became 'a mark for many shots.' He held several public disputes about his peculiar sentiments, and did much to propagate them. James Ockford was another early advocate in England of the claims of the seventh day as the Sabbath. He appears to have been well acquainted with the discussions in which Traske and Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied with the pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book in defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled, 'The doctrine of the fourth commandment.' This book, published about the year 1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the established church."
A short time after this Sabbath-keepers were raised up in New England. Isaac Backus wrote a history of the Baptists in New England from their first arrival in the country till his own time. His preface is dated July 9th, 1777. He makes the following mention of Sabbath-keepers:
"In the beginning of 1665 Mr. Stephen Mumford, a Seventh-day Baptist, arrived from London at Newport, R. I., and Mr. Hiscox, Mr. Hubbard, and other members of Mr. Clarke's church soon embraced the keeping of that day; but in 1671 two or three men who had so done, turned back to the observation of the first day, which Mr. Hubbard and others called apostasy."
Mr. Mumford "brought with him the opinion, that the ten commandments, as they were delivered from mount Sinai, were moral and immutable, and that it was an anti-christian power which changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. . . . In December, 1671, Stephen Mumford, William Hiscox, Samuel Hubbard, Roger Baster, and three sisters entered into church covenant together, thus forming the first Seventh Day Baptist church in America."
From that time to the present the Seventh Day Baptists have maintained their position before the world as observers of the ancient Sabbath of the Bible. At the present time they have some sixty-eight churches in the United States, and about eighty ministers of the gospel. They have about 7000 members in their churches. They have a missionary station in the Chinese empire, and another at Jerusalem.
The claims of the Bible Sabbath began to attract the attention of believers in the near advent of the Saviour, about 1844. "The commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," as constituting an important part of the third angel's proclamation in Rev. xiv, have been preached by them in connection with their views of the near approach of the everlasting kingdom. There are, at the present time, it is estimated some ten thousand who are keeping the Sabbath of the Lord, and waiting the advent of his Son from heaven.
On the opposite side of the globe there is at the present time a numerous body of Sabbath-keepers, who have for many ages preserved the holy Scriptures, and retained its precepts and doctrines in their lives. A distinguished clergyman of the church of England a few years since visited the British empire in India, and bears the following testimony:
"The history of the Armenian church is very interesting. Of all the Christians in Central Asia, they have preserved themselves most free from Mahomedan and Papal corruptions. The pope assailed them for a time with great violence, but with little effect. The churches in lesser Armenia indeed consented to an union, which did not long continue; but those in Persian Armenia maintained their independence; and they retain their ancient Scriptures, doctrines and worship, to this day. 'It is marvelous,' says an intelligent traveler, who was much among them, 'how the Armenian Christians have preserved their faith, equally against the vexatious oppression of the Mahomedans, their sovereigns, and against the persuasion of the Romish church, which for more than two centuries has endeavored, by missionaries, priests and monks, to attach them to her communion. It is impossible to describe the artifices and expenses of the court of Rome to effect this object, but all in vain.'
"The Bible was translated into the Armenian language in the fifth century, under very auspicious circumstances, the history of which has come down to us. It has been allowed by competent judges of the language, to be a most faithful translation. La Croze calls it the 'Queen of Versions.' This Bible has ever remained in the possession of the Armenian people; and many illustrious instances of genuine and enlightened piety occur in their history. . . .
"The Armenians in Hindustan are our own subjects. They acknowledge our government in India, as they do that of the Sophis in Persia; and they are entitled to our regard. They have preserved the Bible in its purity; and their doctrines are, as far as the author knows, the doctrines of the Bible. Besides, they maintain the solemn observance of Christian worship throughout our empire, on the seventh day, and they have as many spires pointing to heaven among the Hindoos, as we ourselves. Are such a people then entitled to no acknowledgement on our part, as fellow Christians? Are they forever to be ranked by us with Jews, Mahomedans and Hindoes?"
The church of Rome claims to have changed the Sabbath. We have traced the course of this apostasy for many centuries, and may therefore allow the Papal doctors to speak for themselves on this point. An eminent writer of that church uses the following language:
"Ques. Had the church power to make such change?
"Ans. Certainly, since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is inspired by that Holy Spirit. The uniform, universal and perpetual tradition of all ages and nations, attest the antiquity of, and consequently the divine assent to, this change; even the bitterest enemies of God's church admit and adopt it.
"Ques. Why did the church make this change?
"Ans. Because Christ rose from the dead upon Sunday, and rested from the great work of redemption; and because, on this day the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles and on the church."
Another of their divines, the Rev. Dr. Challoner, writes on the same point:
"Ques. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath which was the Saturday?
"Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition.
"Ques. Does the Scripture say where command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?
"Ans. The Scripture commands us to hear the church, [Matt. xviii, 17; Luke x, 16.] and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess ii, 16. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath. . . . So that truly, the best authority we have for this, is the testimony and ordinance of the church. And therefore those who pretend to be so religious of the Sunday whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humor, and not by reason and religion; since Sundays and holy days all stand upon the same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church."
Another of their writers uses similar language:
"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.
"Ques. How prove you that?
"Ans. 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."
These quotations from the Romanists may be fully concluded with the following cutting reproof from another of their writers:
"The word of God commandeth the seventh day to be the Sabbath of our Lord, and to be kept holy: you [Protestants] without any precept of scripture, change it to the first day of the week, only authorized by our traditions. Divers English Puritans oppose against this point, that the observation of the first day is proved out of scripture, where it is said the first day of the week. Acts xx, 7; 1 Cor. xvi, 2; Rev. i, 10. Have they not spun a fair thread in quoting these places? If we should produce no better for purgatory and prayers for the dead, invocation of the saints, and the like, they might have good cause indeed to laugh us to scorn; for where is it written that these were Sabbath days in which those meetings were kept? Or where is it ordained they should be always observed? Or, which is the sum of all, where is it decreed that the observation of the first day should abrogate or abolish the sanctifying of the seventh day, which God commanded everlastingly to be kept holy? Not one of those is expressed in the written word of God."84In concluding this tract it will be of interest to note in a brief manner the ground which we have passed over.
1. The Sabbath of the Lord was made for the human family before their expulsion from Paradise.
2. The knowledge of the true seventh day has been preserved to the present time.
3. The Bible Sabbath rests in the very bosom of the decalogue.
4. The New Testament teaches the perpetuity of the commandments, and most solemnly enjoins obedience to them.
5. The Bible does not contain a single hint that the Sabbath is changed to the first day of the week.
6. The epistle of Barnabas, which is the first historical document quoted to sustain Sunday, is a forgery.
7. The epistle of Ignatius is made to sustain Sunday by means of a gross fraud.
8. The Bible Sabbath was extensively observed for several centuries after Christ. The day of the resurrection, as also that of the betrayal and that of the crucifixion was early observed as a festival in the church. The same is true of the passover and pentecost.
9. Sunday, at the time of the early apostasy in the church, was extensively observed by the heathen world as a festival in honor of the sun.
10. The early fathers 'thought fit to keep the same day and the same name of it that they might not appear causelessly peevish and thereby hinder the conversion of the Gentiles.'
11. Justin Martyr was a no-Sabbath man. He speaks of the first day merely as the day of the sun, and as a matter of voluntary observance.
12. The term Lord's day is first applied to Sunday by Tertullian, A. D. 200.
13. It is in Tertullian's time that we find the first slight trace of abstaining from work on that day.
14. Justin Edward's statement that the martyrs were tested as Sunday observers is shown to be without foundation.
15. Constantine's Sunday law, A. D. 321, allowed all kinds of agricultural business; yet says Mosheim, it caused the day to be 'observed with greater solemnity than it had formerly been.'
16. This law which elevated Sunday to the highest rank throughout the Roman empire was made in support of Sunday observance as a heathen festival, and not as a Christian institution.
17. Constantine himself was a heathen at heart when he enacted this law.
18. In the fifth century Sunday labor was general in the church.
19. About this time men were taught that if Sunday were well kept it would bring relief on that day to the damned in hell.
20. The Lord's Sabbath was extensively observed in the fifth century.
21. The famous lightning argument of Justin Edwards in support of Sunday was first used by a council at Paris, A. D. 829.
22. In the year 1155 an apparition of St. Peter warned the king of England, Henry II, that upon Sundays throughout his dominion no servile work should be done.
23. In the year 1201 a roll was brought into England, said to have fallen from heaven, in which the people were commanded to observe Sunday, and threatened in case of disobedience, that stones, logs of wood and scalding water should be rained upon them by night.
24. A council held in 1534 acknowledged that they were not keeping the day which God had ordained; nevertheless they exhorted the people to spend Sunday in prayers and psalms, as though this would make amends for their disobedience.
25. In the year 1595 the seventh part of time theory was invented. This has enabled Sunday-keepers from that time to this to enforce the day by the authority of the fourth commandment!
The same zeal that has been manifested in past ages to build up this Sunday institution is to be seen at the present time in the earnest efforts put forth to sustain it. Its advocates claim to be friends of the Sabbath. If they were such in reality, they would keep the day enjoined in the commandment. How can they convict men as transgressors for not observing Sunday, when the question comes directly home to themselves, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?"
THE RIVER OF GOD.
“There is a river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God.” “And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.”
River of God! that springest
Before the throne on high,
To weary men thou bringest
Healing and comfort nigh.
Beside thy crystal waters,
Within thy golden street,
God’s chosen sons and daughters
In one bright body meet.
They know no care for ever;
Sorrow and pain are o’er;
That union nought shall sever—
They “live for evermore.”
They stand in peace before him
Whose name is on their brow;
They love and they adore him
Before whose throne they bow.
They see the hand that fed them,
The power that kept them strong;
They bless the love that led them
Tenderly all life long.
River of God! with gladness
That city thou dost fill;
Thou dost dispel all sadness—
Thou dost all strength instill.
River of God! beside thee
Pure joys and love abide,
What though earth’s mists may hide thee—
What though rash men deride?
They hide, but cannot stain thee;
We feel that thou are pure
We cannot yet attain thee,
Yet know thee ever sure.—Sel.
BABYLON.
In the "Crisis" of the 20th ult., we find the following utterances: "As evidences increase, foreboding the destruction of Rome, the 'most celebrated city in the world, either ancient or modern,' we presume a few words of description may be read with interest," &c. Again alluding to the same event, it says: "She who is 'drunken with the blood of saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus,' is about to reap her 'reward'—death and mourning and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire."
The judgments here mentioned stand in the sacred book, as threatenings against mystical Babylon the great: the "Crisis" applies them to the city of Rome. We can but inquire, therefore, if the "Crisis" believes that Rome, literal, is the Babylon of the Apocalypse, and that the present war will result in the fulfillment of the prophetic proclamation of that angel who cries mightily, Babylon is fallen, come out of her, my people?
Let us notice a few facts:
1. Babylon signifies, mixture, confusion. Why the literal city of Babylon on the banks of the Euphrates, was thus named, is well understood; viz., because God there confounded the languages of men, thus thwarting their impious attempt to build a tower to heaven. From this circumstance the city took its name. Literal Babylon then has had its existence, and suffered its doom. Isa. xiii. This definition must of course guide us largely in our application of Babylon in its mystical sense. But what is there in the city of Rome which would lead us to apply the term there. What is there of confusion or mixture there, that we should call it Babylon above any other city on the face of the earth? None at all. Again, literal Babylon being a literal city, there is involved therein an antecedent improbability that "mystery Babylon the great," should be a literal city also.
2. If Rome is Babylon, its "fall" [Rev. xiv, 8; xviii, 2.] must be its destruction, and take place when, as quoted by the "Crisis," it is utterly burned with fire. But a grand difficulty meets us here; for it is after Babylon's fall that God's people are called out of her. "Babylon is fallen," and because she is thus, "come out of her, my people," says the Lord by his angel. Rev. xviii, 4. But the idea of calling God's people out of a burnt-up city is simply preposterous.
3. We learn by verse 4, that Babylon's plagues are future, when she is in her fallen state. One of these plagues is to be utterly burned with fire. Verse 8. If therefore her fall is her being burnt with fire, and even then her plagues are future which burn her with fire again, we have two utter burnings in a short space of time, predicated of the same city: a theological "camel" which we can never swallow.
4. God's people are in Babylon; the idea conveyed is that as a body, they are there: Who believes they are in Rome?
Rome may be burnt as a result of the present war; and it may not. If it should be, it would be no fulfillment of the Apocalyptic threatenings against Babylon. If she perishes in the flames, it will not be the smoke of Babylon that is ascending to the heavens. It will take a greater destruction than that of Rome, to cause the kings of the earth to stand afar off, and lament for her, crying, Alas! that great city! It must be a greater destruction than that of Rome, unimportant as a commercial metropolis, to cause the merchants of the earth to lament over her, those dealers in "gold, silver, precious stones, pearls, fine linen, purple, silk, scarlet, thyine wood, all manner of vessels of ivory, brass, iron and marble, and cinnamon, odors, ointments, frankincense, wine, oil, wheat, fine flour, beasts, sheep, horses, chariots, slaves and souls of men." Surely the destruction of Rome could not cause them to raise the bitter cry that "no man buyeth their merchandise any more!"
It is of no use to court disappointment by making forced interpretations, and riding untenable theories; nor is there danger of our doing this unless we ignore the theoretical teachings of the Bible on the great subject of the last days, and the end of the world, especially the prophetic periods, and so are compelled to build on the bare signs the whole superstructure of our doctrine on this point, and rest on them alone as the main-spring of our zeal. It is thus that people are in danger of impressing events into a service for which they were never designed.
In regard to the subject of Babylon, we have some very prominent facts to guide us; and if we interpret with strict fidelity to these, we can hardly go amiss in our application. Thus, we know (1) that Babylon signifies mixture, confusion; and whatever object we apply the term to, must possess these characteristics. (2.) Babylon is where God's people are as a body; hence it is not any particular locality, but bodies with which the people of God stand connected, and from which they are to come out. (3.) The fall of Babylon is not a physical but a moral one; for the primary reason of God's people being called out of her after her fall is that they partake not of her sins, and consequently, receive not of her plagues. And on no other ground can her existence be accounted for after her fall.
These facts must be apparent to the most cursory examiner of the testimony relative to the fall and destruction of Babylon; and no interpretation, not rendered in accordance with these, can be sound. The application that we make, it is not necessary that we reiterate.