"_Q._ What is this day of rest?

"_A._ The seventh day of the week, or Sat.u.r.day; for he employed six days in creation, and rested on the seventh. Gen. 2:2; Heb. 4:1, &c.

"_Q._ Is it then Sat.u.r.day we should sanctify in order to obey the ordinance of G.o.d?

"_A._ During the old law, Sat.u.r.day was the day sanctified; but _the church,_ instructed by Jesus Christ, and directed by the Spirit of G.o.d, has subst.i.tuted Sunday for Sat.u.r.day; so now we sanctify the first, not the seventh, day. Sunday means, and now is, the day of the Lord."

In "Abridgment of Christian Doctrine," we find this testimony:--

"_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."

In the "Catholic Christian Instructed," again we read:--

"_Ques._ What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Sat.u.r.day?

"_Ans._ We have for it the authority of the Catholic church and apostolic tradition.

"_Q._ Does the Scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?

"_A._ The Scripture commands us to hear the church (Matt. 18:17; Luke 10:16), and to hold fast the traditions of the apostles. 2 Thess. 2:15. But the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."

In the "Doctrinal Catechism," we find further testimony to the same point:--

"_Ques._ Have you any other way of proving that the church has power to inst.i.tute festivals of precept?

"_Ans._ Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her--she could not have subst.i.tuted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Sat.u.r.day, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority."

And finally, W. Lockhart, late B.A. of Oxford, in the Toronto (Cath.) _Mirror,_ offered the following "challenge" to all the Protestants of Ireland; a challenge as well calculated for this lat.i.tude as that. He says:--

"I do, therefore, solemnly challenge the Protestants of Ireland to prove, by plain texts of Scripture, the questions concerning the obligation of the Christian Sabbath. 1. That Christians may work on Sat.u.r.day, the old seventh day. 2. That they are bound to keep holy the first day, namely, Sunday. 3. That they are not bound to keep holy the seventh day also."

This is what the papal power claims to have done respecting the fourth commandment. Catholics plainly acknowledge that there is no scriptural authority for the change they have made, but that it rests wholly upon the authority of the church; and they claim it has a token or mark of the authority of that church; the "_very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday_" being set forth as proof of its power in this respect. For further testimony on this point, the reader is referred to a tract published at the _Review_ Office, Battle Creek, Mich., ent.i.tled, "Who Changed the Sabbath?" in which are also extracts from Catholic writers, refuting the arguments usually relied upon to prove the Sunday Sabbath, and showing that its only authority is the Catholic church.

"But," says one, "I supposed that Christ changed the Sabbath." A great many suppose so; and it is natural that they should; for they have been so taught. And while we have no words of denunciation to utter against any such for so believing, we would have them at once understand that it is, in reality, one of the most enormous of all errors. We would therefore remind such persons that, according to the prophecy, the only change ever to be made in the law of G.o.d, was to be made by the little horn of Dan. 7, and the man of sin of 2 Thess. 2; and the only change that has been made in it, is the change of the Sabbath. Now, if Christ made this change, he filled the office of the blasphemous power spoken of by both Daniel and Paul--a conclusion sufficiently hideous to drive any Christian from the view which leads thereto.

But why should any one labor to prove that Christ changed the Sabbath?

Whoever does this is performing a thankless task. The pope will not thank him; for if it is proved that Christ wrought this change, then the pope is robbed of his badge of authority and power. And no truly enlightened Protestant will thank him; for if he succeeds, he only shows that the papacy has not done the work which it was predicted that it should do, and so that the prophecy has failed, and the Scriptures are unreliable. The matter had better stand as the propheqy has placed it, and the claim which the pope unwittingly puts forth, had better be granted. When a person is charged with any work, and that person steps forth and confesses that he has done the work, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter. So, when the prophecy affirms that a certain power shall change the law of G.o.d, and that very power in due time arises, does the work foretold, and then openly claims that he has done it, what need have we of further evidence? The world should not forget that the great apostasy foretold by Paul has taken place; that the man of sin for long ages held almost a monopoly of Christian teaching in the world; that the mystery of iniquity has cast the darkness of its shadow and the errors of its doctrines over almost all Christendom; and out of this era of error and darkness and corruption, the theology of our day has come. Would it then be anything strange if there were yet some relics of popery to be discarded ere the reformation will be complete? A. Campbell (Baptism, p. 15), speaking of the different Prostestant sects, says:--

"All of them retain in their bosom, in their ecclesiastic organizations, worship, doctrines, and observances, various relics of popery. They are at best a reformation of popery, and only reformations in part. The doctrines and traditions of men yet impair the power and progress of the gospel in their hands."

The nature of the change which the little horn has attempted to effect in the law of G.o.d is worthy of notice. With true Satanic instinct, he undertakes to change that commandment which, of all others, is the fundamental commandment of the law, the one which makes known who the Law-giver is, and contains his signature of royalty. The fourth commandment does this; no other one does. Four others, it is true, contain the word G.o.d, and three of them the word Lord, also. But who is this Lord G.o.d of whom they speak? Without the fourth commandment it is impossible to tell; for idolaters of every grade apply these terms to the mult.i.tudinous objects of their adoration. With the fourth commandment to point out the Author of the decalogue, the claims of every false G.o.d are annulled at one stroke; for the G.o.d who here demands our worship is not any created being, but the One who created them all.

The maker of the earth and sea, the sun and moon, and all the starry host, the upholder and governor of the universe, is the One who claims, and who, from his position, has a right to claim, our supreme regard in preference to every other object. The commandment which makes known these facts is therefore the very one we might suppose that power would undertake to change, which designed to exalt itself above G.o.d. G.o.d gave the Sabbath as a memorial of himself, a weekly reminder to the sons of men, of his work in creating the heavens and the earth, a great barrier against atheism and idolatry. It is the signature and seal of the law.

This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on its own authority, an inst.i.tution designed to serve another purpose.

This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points; and Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast! Some who have long been taught to regard this inst.i.tution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion. We have not s.p.a.ce, nor is this perhaps the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week. Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian inst.i.tution and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue, by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church, is it not inevitably the mark of the beast? The answer must be in the affirmative.

But all these hypotheses can easily be shown to be certainties, See History of the Sabbath, and other works on the subject, published at the _Review_ Office. To these we can only refer the reader, in pa.s.sing.

It will be said again, then all Sunday-keepers have the mark of the beast; then all the good of past ages who kept this day had the mark of the beast; then Luther, Whitefield, the Wesleys, and all who have done a good and n.o.ble work of reformation, had the mark of the beast; then all the blessings that have been poured upon the reformed churches have been poured upon those who had the mark of the beast. We answer, _No_! And we are sorry to say that some professedly religious teachers, though many times corrected, persist in misrepresenting us on this point. We have never so held; we have never so taught. Our premises lead to no such conclusions. Give ear: The mark and worship of the beast are enforced by the two-horned beast. The receiving of the mark of the beast is a specific act which the two-horned beast is to cause to be done. The third message of Rev. 14, is a warning mercifully sent out in advance to prepare the people for the coming danger. There can therefore be no worship of the beast, nor reception of his mark, such as is contemplated in the prophecy, till it is enforced by the two-horned beast. We have seen that _intention_ was essential to the change which the papacy has made in the law of G.o.d, to const.i.tute it the mark of that power. So _intention_ is necessary in the adoption of that change to make it on the part of any individual the reception of that mark. In other words, a person must adopt the change, knowing it to be the work of the beast, and receive it on the authority of that power, in opposition to the requirement of G.o.d.

But how with those referred to above who have kept Sunday in the past, and the majority of those who are keeping it to-day? Do they keep it as an inst.i.tution of the papacy? No. Have they decided between this and the Sabbath of the Lord, understanding the claims of each? No. On what ground have they kept it, and do they keep it? They suppose they are keeping a commandment of G.o.d. Have such the mark of the beast? By no means. Their course is attributable to an error unwittingly received from the church of Rome, not to an act of worship rendered to it.

But how is it to be? The church which is to be prepared for the second coming of Christ must be entirely free from papal errors and corruptions. A reform must hence be made on the Sabbath question. The third angel proclaims the commandments of G.o.d, leading men to the true in the place of the counterfeit. The dragon is stirred, and so controls the wicked governments of the earth that all authority of human power shall be exerted to enforce the claims of the man of sin. Then the issue is fairly before the people. On one hand, they are required to keep the true Sabbath; on the other, a counterfeit. For refusing to keep the true, the message denounces the unmingled wrath of G.o.d; for refusing the false, earthly governments threaten them with persecution and death.

With this issue before the people, what does he do who yields to the human requirement? He virtually says to G.o.d, I know your claims, but I will not yield to them. I know that the power I am required to worship is anti-Christian; but I yield to save my life. I renounce your allegiance, and bow to the usurper. The beast is henceforth the object of my adoration; under his banner, in opposition to your authority, I henceforth array myself; to him, in defiance of your claims, I henceforth yield the obedience of my heart and life. Such is the spirit which will actuate the hearts of the beast-worshipers; a spirit which insults the G.o.d of the universe to his face, and is prevented only by lack of power from overthrowing his government and annihilating his throne. Is it any wonder that Jehovah denounces against so Heaven-daring a course the most terrible threatening that his word contains?

Chapter Eleven.

The Beginning Of The End.

We have now found what, according to the prophecy, is to const.i.tute the image which the two-horned beast is to cause to be made, and the mark which it will attempt to enforce. The movement which is to fulfill this portion of the prophecy, is to be looked for in the popular churches of our land. First, a union must be effected between these churches, with some degree of coalition also between these bodies and the beast power, or Roman Catholicism; and, secondly, steps must be taken to bring the law of the land to the support of the Sunday Sabbath. These movements the prophecy calls for. And the line of argument leading to these conclusions is so direct and well-defined that there is no avoiding them. They are a clear and logical sequence from the premises given us.

When first the application of Rev. 13:11-17 to the United States was made, over twenty years ago, these positions respecting a union of the churches and a grand Sunday movement were taken. But at that time, no sign appeared above or beneath, at home or abroad, no token was seen, no indication existed, that such an issue would ever be made. But there was the prophecy, and that must stand. The United States government had given abundant evidence, by its location, the time of its rise, the manner of its rise, and its apparent character, that it was the power symbolized by the two-horned beast. There could be no mistake in the conclusion that it was the very nation intended by that symbol. This being so, it must take the course, and perform the acts, foretold. But here were predictions which could be fulfilled by nothing less than the movement above named respecting Church and State, and the enforcement of the papal Sabbath as the mark of the beast.

To take the position at that time that this government was to pursue such a policy and engage in such a work, without any apparent probability in its favor, was no small act of faith. On the other hand, to deny or ignore it, while admitting the application of the symbol to this government, would be in accordance with neither Scripture nor logic. The only course for the humble, confiding student of prophecy to pursue in such cases, is to take the light as it is given, and believe the prophecy in all its parts. So the stand was boldly taken; and open proclamation has been made from that day to this, that such a work would be seen in these United States. With every review of the argument, new features of strength have been discovered in the application; and amid a storm of scornful incredulity, we have watched the progress of events, and waited the hour, of fulfillment.

Meanwhile, spiritualism has astonished the world with its terrible progress, and shown itself to be the wonder-working element which was to exist in connection with this power. This has mightily strengthened the force of the application. And now, within a few years past, what have we further seen? No less than the commencement of that very movement respecting the formation of the image and the enactment of Sunday laws, which we have so long expected, and which is to complete the prophecy, and close the scene.

Reference was made in chapter nine to the movement now on foot for a grand union of all the churches; not a union which arises from the putting away of error and uniting upon the harmonious principles of truth, but simply a combination of sects, each retaining its own particular creed, but confederated for the purpose of carrying out more extensively the common points of our faith. This movement finds a strong undercurrent of favor in all the churches. And men are engaged to carry it through who are not easily turned from their purpose.

And there has suddenly arisen a cla.s.s of men whose souls are absorbed with the cognate idea of Sunday reform, and who have dedicated every energy of their being to the carrying forward of this kindred movement.

The "New York Sabbath Committee" have labored zealously by means of books, tracts, speeches, and sermons, to create a strong public sentiment in behalf of Sunday. Making slow progress through moral suasion, they seek a shorter path to the accomplishment of their purposes through political power. And why not? Christianity has become popular, and her professed adherents are numerous. Why not avail themselves of the power of the ballot to secure their ends? Rev. J.S.

Smart (Methodist), in a published sermon on the "Political Duties of Christian Men and Ministers," expresses a largely-prevailing sentiment on this question, when he says:--

"I claim that we have, and ought to have, just as much concern in the government of this couniry as any other men.... We are the ma.s.s of the people. Virtue in this country is not weak; her ranks are strong in numbers, and invincible from the righteousness of her cause--invincible if united. Let not her ranks be broken by party names."

A "National a.s.sociation" has been in existence for a number of years, which has for its object the securing of such amendments to the National Const.i.tution as shall express the religious views of the majority of the people, and make it an instrument under which the keeping of Sunday can be enforced as the Christian Sabbath. This a.s.sociation already embraces within its organization a long array of eminent and honorable names: Governors of our States, Presidents of our colleges, Bishops, Doctors of Divinity, Doctors of Law, and men who occupy high positions in all the walks of life.

In the Address issued by the officers of this a.s.sociation, they say:--

"Men of high standing, in every walk of life, of every section of the country, and of every shade of political sentiment and religious belief, have concurred in the measure."

In their appeal, they most earnestly request every lover of his country to join in forming auxiliary a.s.sociations, circulate doc.u.ments, attend conventions, sign the memorial to Congress, &c., &c.

In their plea for an amended Const.i.tution, they ask the people to

"Consider that G.o.d is not once named in our National Const.i.tution.

There is nothing in it which requires an 'oath of G.o.d,' as the Bible styles it (which, after all, is the great bond both of loyalty in the citizen and of fidel in the magistrate); nothing which requires the ob of the day of rest and of worship, or which re its sanct.i.ty. If we do not have the mails carried and the post-offices open on Sunday, it is because we have a Postmaster-General who respects the day. If our Supreme Courts are not held, and if Congress does not sit on that day, it is custom, and not law, that makes it so. Nothing in the Const.i.tution gives Sunday quiet to the custom house, the navy yard, the barracks, or any of the departments of government.

"Consider that they fairly express the mind of the great body of the American people. This is a Christian people. These amendments agree with the faith, the feelings, and the forms of every Christian church or sect. The Catholic and the Protestant, the Unitarian and the Trinitarian, profess and approve all that is here proposed. Why should their wishes not become law? Why should not the Const.i.tution be made to suhf and to represent a const.i.tuency so overwhelmingly in the majority?...