Earlier text: General ArticlesSainthood and Christianity
HE who is not a saint is not a Christian. Everyone who accepts Christ, also accepts the obligation to give himself to Christ. There is a universal rule under which every professor of the Christian religion must come, and it is this: "Let everyone that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." In other words, let him put on the life of Christ or put off the name of Christ; let him show the hand and heart of a Christian in the world in works of holiness and obedience, or else let him not take the name of a Christian. "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." —Quiver for October. THE WRATH OF GOD.
By Arthur T. Pierson
JESUS taught us that wrath in God is the unchangeable perfection of holiness; and that holiness is love to the holy and wrath to the guilty. The same fire that warms and cheers, that refines and purifies, also burns and blasts, tortures and consumes; it all depends on our relation to the fire, whether it be our friend or our foe. We ourselves, by our sin, create the repulsion, with which we often find fault in God. In Retsch's illustrations of Goethe's Faust, there is one plate where angels are seen dropping roses down upon the demons who are contending for the soul of Faust. But every rose falls like molten metal, burning and blistering wherever it touches. God rains roses down, but our sinful hearts, meeting divine love with hate, and grace with stubborn, willful disobedience, turn love into wrath; and what dropped from his hand a flower, beautiful and fragrant, becomes, when it touches the ungrateful and unloving soul, a live coal.—Arthur T. Pierson. A story is told of an English minister, who, being called to pray by the bedside of a dying man, sought to take him by the hand, in token of their agreement in offering united prayer. The sick man withheld his hand, keeping it under the bedclothes, and the minister prayed without it. Presently the man died, and then as his hand was uncovered, the mystery was explained—he was holding in his hand, with the grasp of death, a key—the key of his safe where his money was kept. The Lewiston Journal tells of a man in Durham, Maine, who was very penurious and a very determined man. He died at an advanced age. On his death-bed he kept his right hand closely clutched. As he drew his last breath he tightened his hold. Everybody there knew what he held in that hand. It was the key to the chest in which he kept his gold. As his nerveless hand unclosed, the key dropped from it, and clattered against the bedside. As if to hold it even after he was dead, the miser had tied the key about his wrist by a strong cord, which he grasped as long as life remained. He could not take his gold with him, but he kept the key. They buried him as he was, with the key to his money-chest tied about his wrist. "And what became of the gold?" "Oh, the heirs have taken care of that just the same! They split open the chest with an ax and divided the gold, and let the miser keep the key about his wrist." He is mouldering in the grave and the key is rusting beside him. We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out of it. "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"—Selected. We cannot compromise with sin without drawing just that much away from God. THE third chapter of the second epistle of Peter contains some positive evidence concerning the sure word of prophecy, which, as we have seen, points out the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The chapter opens with the statement that the epistle is written for the purpose of stirring the brethren up to take heed to "the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets." There is special reason for this admonition, because just before the end, the darkness will be more intense, as the apostle Paul says, "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." 2 Tim. 3:13. And these evil men will scoff, saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." 2 Peter 3:4. That this is a falsehood, and that they ought to know better if they do not, Peter declares in the next two verses, saying:— "For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." The phrase, "the earth standing out of the water and in the water," does not at all express the idea of the original. The Greek word which in the Authorized Version is rendered "standing," should, as the margin indicates, be rendered "consisting." Robinson's "Lexicon of the New Testament" says of the word: "To place together parts into a whole, i. e., to constitute, to create, to bring into existence. Hence, in N. T., intransitive, to be constituted, created; to exist," as in Col. 1:17, "by him all things consist." Wakefield translates the passage thus: "A heaven and earth formed out of water and by means of water." Bloomfield says: "The earth . . . being formed out of water, and consisting by means of water." Murdock's translation of the Syriac has it: "The earth rose up from the waters, and by means of water, by the word of God." The meaning is that the earth in its chaotic state was simply a watery mass, as indicated by Gen. 1:2: "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." "Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished." When God gathered the waters together into one place, and made the dry land appear, he evidently stored large quantities of water in the interior of the earth. This is indicated in the second commandment, by the phrase, "the waters which are under the earth," and by Ps. 136:6: "To him that stretched out the earth above the waters," and also by Ps. 24:1, 2. In the flood which destroyed the earth in the days of Noah, the waters in the interior of the earth united with the rain from heaven, as the record says: "The same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Gen. 7:11. The idea of the passage in Peter's epistle is that the very element from which the earth was formed, was made to contribute to its destruction. Having disproved the assertion that all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation, the apostle draws a parallel, thus:— "But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word [the word of God, see verse 5] are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men." 2 Peter 3:7. Instead of "are kept in store reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment," a better translation would be, "stored with fire, reserved unto the day of Judgment." Now the comparison is at once apparent. By the word of God, the earth, in the beginning, was formed from the watery mass which God had spoken into existence. Part of this water was stored up in the earth, and by the word of God was afterward caused to overflow the earth and contribute to its destruction. And the same word of God, which performed this, has stored the interior of this present earth with fire, and is keeping it till the day of Judgment, when, as in the case of the waters of the flood, the fire within the earth, uniting with that which comes down from God out of Heaven (Rev. 20:9), will destroy it. Particular attention should be given to the word "kept." Instead of all things continuing as they were from the beginning of the creation, the earth has within it the elements of its destruction, and it is only the power of God that stays the catastrophe. Some have fancied that this chapter teaches that the earth will be annihilated at the Judgment-day. This is a mistake. This earth will be destroyed in the same sense that the original earth "perished" by the waters of the earth. It was all broken up, and the face of it was changed, so that the earth after the flood had no resemblance to the earth before the flood. This was the last and greatest curse caused by sin, and completed the desolation of the earth. But the matter which composed the earth was not destroyed. So by the fires of the last day "the elements shall melt with fervent heat," but they will not be annihilated. From these melted elements, "new heavens and a new earth" will be formed, which will have no more resemblance to this sin-cursed earth than this earth does to Eden, the garden of God. The people that shall dwell in it will all be righteous (Isa. 60:21); and "the wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing; the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God." Isa. 35:1, 2. The "sure word of prophecy" tells us again and again that this earth shall be destroyed by fire, and that in that fire the ungodly shall be burned up. Scoffers say that they see no evidence that any such event will ever take place; but the apostle Peter assures us that the instrument of the earth's destruction is already prepared, and is stored within it. Just as surely as the earth was once destroyed by water, so surely will it again be destroyed by fire. "But these prophecies were spoken hundreds, and some of them thousands, of years ago, and there is no more evidence of their fulfillment now than there was when they were uttered." Thus argues the scoffer; but it is a vain argument; (1) because it is not true, and (2) because of the following statement:— "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8. God "inhabiteth eternity." The flight of time makes no difference with his plans. Compared with his eternity, the entire 6,000 years of earth's existence are but a span. Says the psalmist, "For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night." Ps. 90:4. Therefore the apostle concludes that "the Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness." That which seems to men forgetfulness of the promise, is only a kindly delay to allow dilatory men to secure the promise. In God's reckoning, it is only as the three days' grace which men allow for the payment of a promissory note. It should not be forgotten that while a thousand years is with the Lord as one day, one day is as a thousand years. This is too often overlooked. While he may take a thousand years for the fulfillment of a promise, and then it will be the same as though performed the next day, he can do in one day the work of a thousand years. Therefore there is no warrant for settling down to carnal ease, thinking that it will necessarily be a long time yet before the work of God on earth can be accomplished. "For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness; because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth." Rom. 9:28. Having now examined some of the prophecies concerning "the power and coming" of the Lord, and having shown how sure they are to be fulfilled, we will next turn our attention to some of the prophecies that mark the progress toward the fulfillment of the promise. W. BABYLON, CYRUS, AND THE JEWS.
WITH the exception of Jerusalem, there is more said about Babylon in the Bible than there is about any other city or power in the world. In the history it occupies a large place; in the prophecies a much larger place. Babylon is the first city named in the Bible. Gen. 10:10; 11:8. In the time of Isaiah she was called "The lady of kingdoms." Isa. 47:5. Isaiah himself called her "The glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency," and "The golden city." Chap. 13:19; 14:4. Jeremiah called it "The praise of the whole earth." Chap. 51:41. Herodotus, who lived about 484-430 B. C., says of it:— "The city stands on a broad plain, . . . and is an exact square, 120 furlongs in length each way, so that the entire circuit is 480 furlongs. While such is its size, in magnificence there is no other city that approaches to it. It is surrounded, in the first place, by a broad and deep moat full of water, behind which rises a wall 50 royal cubits in width, and 200 in height. (The royal cubit is longer by three fingers' breadth than the common cubit.)"—Her., book 1, chap. 178. And of its walls and fortresses Nebuchadnezzar, the great king of Babylon, says:— "Imgur-bel and Nivit-bel, the great walls of Babylon, I built them square. . . . I repaired, with bitumen and bricks, the sides of the ditches that had been dug. I caused to be put in order the double doors of bronze, and the railings and the gratings, in the great gateways. I enlarged the streets of Babylon so as to make them wonderful. I applied myself to the protection of Babylon and Vale-Seggain (the pyramid), and on the most elevated lands, close to the great gate of Ishtar, I constructed strong fortresses of bitumen and bricks, from the banks of the Euphrates down to the great gate, the whole extent of the streets. I established their foundations below the level of the waters. I fortified these walls with art. I caused Imgur-bel, the great wall of Babylon, the impregnable, such as no king before me had made, to be measured, 4,000 mahargagar." "This measurement," says Lenormant, "corresponds exactly with the 480 stades [sixty miles] given by Herodotus as the circuit."—Ancient History of the East, book 4, chap. 5, sec. 3, par. 16. The city, as stated above, lay in the form of a square, 15 miles on each side, making 60 miles around it. It was surrounded by a wall 350 feet high, and about 85 feet thick at the top. On the top of the wall, at irregular intervals, were built towers to guard the most accessible parts. Of these towers there were 250. The open space on the wall, within the line of these towers, was of sufficient breadth to allow a four-horse chariot to turn with safety. Twenty-five gates pierced the wall on each side, making 100 gates in all in the outer wall. These were double gates of solid brass, with brazen lintels and posts, and fastened with bars of iron. Around the wall on the outside ran a moat, broad and deep, and partly filled with water. Under the wall and diagonally through the city, from corner to corner, so as to obtain the greatest length of water, ran the River Euphrates. On each side of the river, inside of the city, was built a strong wall, each wall being pierced with twenty-five gates opening into the streets that ran from the outer gates. These were also brazen gates like those in the outer wall. The banks of the river were lined throughout with brick laid in bitumen, with sloping landing-places at the gates. Boats were always ready at these landing-places by which to pass from side to side of the river. Over the river, about the middle of the city, was a drawbridge thirty feet wide supported on stone23 piers. At the two ends of the bridge were the two grand palaces of the city. Of course this vast area within the city was not built up solidly with houses, as in a modern city. There were gardens, orchards, and fields interspersed among the houses, and about the palaces and temples. It was expected that if ever the city should be besieged, they could grow sufficient provisions within the walls to support the population, so that they might shut their gates, man the towers, and dwell securely with no fears of ever being overcome by any besieging force. The houses were mostly three or four stories high, magnificently built, and both houses and grounds grandly adorned. Its temples were marvels of architecture, and most richly furnished; and its temple of Bel and its hanging gardens were among the wonders of the world. "The spoils of Nineveh, Jerusalem, and Egypt had enriched it; its armies had swept like a torrent over the finest countries of the East; the arts and sciences, driven from Phoenicia and Egypt, were centered here; and hither the philosophers of the West came to imbibe instruction." The astronomers of Babylon were the leading ones of the world in her time. The following quotation from Rawlinson gives a just view of Babylon's place in regard to the arts and sciences:— "Babylon seems to have been the source from which Assyria drew her learning, such as it was, her architecture, the main ideas of her mimetic art, her religious notions, her legal forms, and a vast number of her customs and usages. But Babylonia herself, so far as we know, drew her stores from no foreign country. Hers was apparently the genius which excogitated an alphabet—worked out the simplest problems of arithmetic—invented implements for measuring the lapse of time—conceived the idea of raising enormous structures with the poorest of all materials, clay—discovered the art of polishing, boring, and engraving gems—reproduced with truthfulness the outlines of human and animal forms—attained to high perfection in textile fabrics—studied with success the motions of the heavenly bodies—conceived of grammar as a science—elaborated a system of law—saw the value of an exact chronology—in almost every branch of science made a beginning, thus rendering it comparatively easy for other nations to proceed with the superstructure. To Babylonia far more than to Egypt, we owe the art and learning of the Greeks. It was from the East, not from Egypt, that Greece derived her architecture, her sculpture, her science, her philosophy, her mathematical knowledge—in a word, her intellectual life. And Babylon was the source to which the entire stream of Eastern civilization may be traced."—Seven Great Monarchies, Fourth, chap. 8, last par. Yet as great as Babylon was, the Lord said she should be "as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation." "I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water; and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts." And he has done it. The prophecies concerning the fall and the final ruin of Babylon are many and remarkable, and they have been so perfectly fulfilled that the subject forms a most interesting study. That which makes it the more so is the fact that in this case the history is so full and authentic. About all that there is to do is to quote the words of the prophecy and set alongside of it the statements of the history. The first mention of Babylon in any prophecy is in Isaiah 39:1-7. Hezekiah king of Judah had been sick unto death, and the Lord told him by Isaiah to set his house in order, for he should die, and not live. Then he prayed that he might live longer, and the Lord granted him fifteen years, and the prophet told him he should recover. Hezekiah asked what should be the sign that the Lord would heal him, and Isaiah answered, "This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken; shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?" Hezekiah asked that the shadow might go back ten degrees. "And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord; and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz." 2 Kings 20:8-11. The Babylonians, being great astronomers, noticed the phenomenon, and in their inquiries in regard to it, learned that Hezekiah had been sick and was recovered, and that this solar phenomenon had occurred in connection with the matter. Therefore Merodach-baladan, who was then king of Babylon, sent ambassadors with letters and a present unto Hezekiah, "to inquire of the wonder that was done in the land." "And Hezekiah hearkened unto them, and showed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armor, and all that was found in his treasures; there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah showed them not." Then Isaiah came and asked Hezekiah who these men were, and what they had seen. Hezekiah told him they came from Babylon, and that there was nothing among all his treasures that he had not showed them. "Then said Isaiah to Hezekiah, Hear the word of the Lord of hosts: Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon." 2 Chron. 32:31; Isa. 39:2-7. All this occurred about 712 B. C., and from one hundred and six to one hundred and fourteen years afterward, this prophecy was literally fulfilled. For then Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, captured Jerusalem. "And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes . . . to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans." One of these was Daniel, and God "brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs." Dan. 1. After that, in the eighth year of his reign, Nebuchadnezzar again besieged and took Jerusalem. "And he carried out thence all the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house, and cut in pieces all the vessels of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said." 2 Kings 24:13. But Isaiah not only prophesied that the people should be carried captive to Babylon, he also said they should be released from captivity, and that without price or reward, and even gave the name of the man who should release them. "Thus saith the Lord to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him;" "for Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name; I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me." "He shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts." Isa. 45:1, 4, 13. When the Medes and Persians had taken Babylon, Daniel was made prime minister of the empire. He showed to Cyrus this prophecy which called him by name, and told him of the true God; and in his very first year, Cyrus, king of Persia, "made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom, and put it also in writing, saying, Thus saith Cyrus king of Persia, All the kingdoms of the earth hath the Lord God of Heaven given me; and he hath charged me to build him an house in Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Who is there among you of all his people? The Lord his God be with him, and let him go up." 2 Chron. 36:22, 23; Ezra. 1:1-11. Now we have found that Isaiah told of the captivity more than a hundred years before the people were carried captive; and the captivity lasted seventy years. Therefore Isaiah prophesied their release, and named the man who should release them, one hundred and seventy-six years before it came to pass. But Cyrus was about sixty-three years old when he issued this proclamation. Therefore Isaiah called him by name one hundred and thirteen years before he was born. At that time there was no such country as Persia, and the ancestors of Cyrus were only wandering tribes. This word of Isaiah was as though, in A. D. 1619, someone in England had called Washington by name, and had said to king James I, that the American colonies would be set free from the power of Britain, and that Washington would be the man who should set them free. The word which Isaiah spoke is the word of God. In the case of Babylon and Cyrus, and the captivity and release of the Jews, it was literally fulfilled. Other prophecies concerning Babylon will be noted hereafter. ORIGIN OF SUNDAY OBSERVANCE.
By J. H. W.
BEARING in mind that it has been fully proved that the decree of Constantine was the first authority for Sunday rest, I ask if here is not a most important item of reliable history in proof of our position? Of the times more than a century later than Constantine, Heylyn speaks thus of the building up of this institution:— "The faithful, being united better than before, became more uniform in matters of devotion; and in that uniformity did agree together to give the Lord's day all the honors of an holy festival. Yet was not this done all at once, but by degrees; the fifth and sixth centuries being well-nigh spent before it came into that height which hath since continued. The emperors and the prelates in these times had the same affections; being earnest to advance this day above all other; and to the edicts of the one, and ecclesiastical constitutions of the other, it stands indebted for many of those privileges and exemptions which it still enjoyeth." One of the most effectual means of degrading the Sabbath, and of exalting the Sunday above it, in the feelings and practice of the people, was to make the Sabbath a fast-day, and to forbid fasting on the Sunday. A rigidly enforced fast is always burdensome to any people; and while the Sabbath was made a gloomy day to them, everything was done that could be, to make the Sunday a day of personal enjoyment. It is easy to tell which day would become the popular one, under such circumstances. This was the course pursued by the governors of the church, as all historians testify. It was a shrewd step in the direction of an entire change of the day of Sabbath observance. But it was not by any one step that this change was brought about. Nor was it a brief work. As the historian says, it was not done all at once, but by degrees. Dr. Hase in his "Church History," thus testifies:— "The Roman Church regarded Saturday as a fast-day in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath. Sunday remained a joyful festival in which all fasting and worldly business was avoided as much as possible, but the original commandment of the decalogue respecting the Sabbath was not then applied to that day." This practice, "in direct opposition to those who regarded it as a Sabbath," was altogether of Rome. The Eastern churches long refused to comply with this order, as Dr. Heylyn testifies:— "In this difference it stood a long time together, till in the end the Roman Church obtained the cause, and Saturday became a fast almost through all parts of the Western world. I say the Western world, and of that alone, the Eastern churches being so far from altering their ancient custom that in the sixth council of Constantinople, A. D. 602, they did admonish those of Rome to forbear fasting on that day upon pain of censure." But Rome prevailed. It was decreed by the Council of Nice, and confirmed by Constantine, that "the primacy should remain with Rome;" and, though the Eastern churches long resisted the usurpations of the Roman bishops, this decree was never reversed, and the emperors were diligent to see that it was enforced. As long as the primacy of Rome was acknowledged, and maintained by the emperors, of course the faith promulgated by Rome was "Catholic," and all dissenters were heretics, to be punished with anathemas from the church, and more immediate penalties by the emperors. The action of Justinian, who fully established the supremacy of the Pope (John 2), is proof as strong as any can require, that the emperors stood at nothing that could make effective the Roman faith. The following is from Bower's "History of the Popes":—8 "While the Arian king was striving by the most just and equitable laws, to clear the church from all simony in the west, the Catholic emperor was employing the most unjust and unchristian means of clearing her from all heresies in the East, that of persecution, and the most cruel persecution any Christian emperor had yet set on foot or countenanced. For by an edict which he issued to unite all men in one faith, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, such as did not, in the space of three months, embrace and profess the Catholic faith, were declared infamous, and, as such, excluded from all employments, both civil and military, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and their estates confiscated, whether real or personal. These were convincing arguments of the truth of the Catholic faith: but many, however, withstood them; and against such as did, the imperial edict was executed with the utmost rigor. Great numbers were driven from their habitations with their wives and children, stripped and naked." Such were the means by which people came to the unity of the faith in the early church. And it must be borne in mind that Justinian and other emperors did not declare any faith,—they simply enforced the faith which had been declared by the Catholic bishops and councils. And what was the declared faith and practice of the Catholic Church, in regard to the Sabbath and Sunday, in the time of this inhuman conduct of Justinian? Leo the Great was made Pope a little less than a century before Justinian's execrable action in behalf of the church. Of Leo, "McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia" says:— "Leo I., saint and Pope, surnamed The Great, noted as the real founder of the Papacy." He was the real founder of the Papacy in this sense, that he did more than all his predecessors to subject all the churches to the authority of the Roman bishops; and Bower represents his course, in the accomplishment of this purpose, as dishonorable, unscrupulous, utterly unworthy of anyone bearing the name of a Christian. But it is enough that he put forth every effort to establish the Papacy, that he should be sainted; it is this that covers all sins in their estimation. The character and position of Leo cannot but be appreciated in connection with the upbuilding of the Sunday institution. The Bibliotheca Sacra has an article on the subject of the change of Sabbath, written by Rev. L. Coleman, author of "Ancient Christianity Exemplified." In this he speaks as follows:— "The reasons for keeping the first day in preference to the seventh, have already been stated from Justin Martyr. They are more fully explained by Leo the Great, of the fifth century. On this day the world had its origin. On the same day, through the resurrection of Christ, death came to an end, and life began. It was upon this day also that the apostles were commissioned by the Lord to preach the gospel to every creature, and to offer to all the world the blessings of salvation. On the same day came Christ into the midst of his disciples, and breathed upon them, saying, Receive the Holy Ghost. And finally upon this day the Holy Ghost was shed upon the apostles. So that we see as it were an ordinance from Heaven evidently set before us, showing that on this day, on which all the gifts of God's grace have been vouchsafed, we ought to celebrate the solemnities of Christian worship." This is, indeed, a very important document—important because of the position of the author; of the influence he exerted over the church, which, as we here see, is not lost even to the present day; important as most fully explaining the reasons for keeping Sunday, not one of which the Scriptures ever noticed; important as an example, showing how an ordinance from Heaven can be deduced from a Papal "as it were." And if such respect is paid to these words of Leo the Great, Pope, in this century, by a leading Protestant publication in America, what must have been their influence, their force, when Leo had supreme control over the faith of Christendom, and was backed by the authority of the emperors. In the entire absence of evidence from the Scriptures, in favor of the Sunday institution, what can we think of the knowledge or frankness of a man who will affirm that not an item of history can be produced to show that the Papacy changed the Sabbath? As decisive as is this evidence, it is not the strongest that we have to offer. McClintock and Strong make the following statement:— "Chrysostom (A. D. 360) concludes one of his Homilies by dismissing his audience to their respective ordinary occupations. The Council of Laodicea (A. D. 364), however, enjoined Christians to rest on the Lord's day." This puts it very mild indeed. In regard to the influence of the decisions of this council, they say:— "Sixty canons were published which were accepted by the other churches." In their synopsis of these, they say:— "Canon 29 forbids Christians observing the Jewish Sabbath." In these two statements we get the whole truth: 1. It enjoined the observance of the first day of the week. 2. It forbade the observance of the Sabbath. Let it be remembered that this council was held in less than half a century of the time when Constantine issued his first decree, for the first observance of the venerable day of the sun as a day of rest from labor. As the historian says, it was taken from the hands of the emperors by Popes and councils, and rest enforced upon it as a Christian festival. I am happy to be able to give the most definite information on the action of this council on this subject. I will here give three versions of this celebrated canon. First the original, as given by the council itself, in Latin:— "Quod non oportet Christianos Judaizare, et in Sabbato otiari, sed ipsos eo die operari: diem autem Dominicum preferentes otiari, si modo possint, ut Christianos. Quod si inventi fuerint Judaizantes sint anathema apud Christos." The following is the German translation as given in Bishop Hefele's "History of the Councils":— "Dass die Christen nicht Judaiziren und am Sabbat nicht müssig sein, sondern an diesem Tage arbeiten sollen; den Tag des Herrn aber sollen sie besonders ehren und wenn möglich an demselben nicht arbeiten, wenn sie aber als Judaisten erfunden, so sollen sie von Christus ausgeschlossen sein." The following is an English translation:— "Christians ought not to Judaize, and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but preferring the Lord's day, should rest, if possible, as Christians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them be accursed from Christ." There is no necessity that I should take another step to fully establish my propositions. It is abundantly proved, beyond all chance of denial, that the first law of any kind for resting from worldly labor on the first day of the week, was that of Constantine, who commanded only certain classes to rest upon it as the venerable day of the sun, in conformity with his worship of Apollo, the sun god. And in less than half a century after that time, a Catholic council enacts a canon which was accepted as orthodox, which not only contains the first formal church law for the observance of the Sunday, but likewise forbids the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath, under penalty of being accursed from Christ! Now, if anyone can imagine what would be changing the Sabbath, if this is not, I would be extremely happy to learn what it could be. In less than half a century after Constantine's first Sunday decree, we find this sweeping canon of the Council of Laodicea. In less than a century after the publication of this canon, Leo the Great gave his decision in the most emphatic terms, that Christians ought to rest on the Sunday and not on the Sabbath. And in less than a century after Leo's decision, Justinian subjected all, whether Jews, Gentiles, or Christians, to the Catholic faith, of which the substitution of the Sunday for the Sabbath was a prominent part, of which they had to make a public profession within three months, under penalty of being declared infamous, excluded from all employments, rendered incapable of leaving anything by will, and having their estates, of whatever nature, confiscated. Now, it being clearly shown that a part of the Catholic faith to which they were subjected, under such severe penalties, was that people should not rest on the Sabbath, and that they should not work on the Sunday, is it a wonder that, under the canons of councils, the decisions of Popes, given under penalty of being accursed from Christ, and enforced by the edicts of emperors, under such penalties as were rigorously inflicted by Justinian,—is it a wonder that the observance of Sunday became so prevalent throughout the empire? Is it not rather a wonder that so many clung to the Sabbath of the Lord, even in those perilous times, as history attests there did, in spite of the terrible persecutions to which they were subjected? And is it not still more wonderful that Protestant ministers, with all these facts of history within their reach, will gravely point to this prevalence of Sunday-keeping as evidence of the united faith of the Christian church in favor of the first-day Sabbath? While I have fully proved my proposition, I have presented but a tithe of the evidence that is ready at my hand. In "Ancient Christianity Exemplified," p. 531, Coleman says, in reference to the decrees of the Council of Laodicea:— "Christian emperors confirmed and extended these decrees. All public shows, theatrical exhibitions, dancing, and amusements, were strictly prohibited. Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and a strict observance of the day, by solemn suspension of all secular pursuits, and abstinence from amusements and vain recreations. The Council of Laodicea, canon 29, about the same time forbade the observance of the Jewish Sabbath." Coleman is an ardent advocate of Sunday, but he has presented the most incontestable proof of the truthfulness of our position. And in these statements he has only spoken in harmony with all history. Let us mark well the words of Coleman. Speaking of the imperial decrees, he adds: "Similar decrees were also passed by various councils, requiring a faithful attendance upon public worship, and a strict observance of the day," etc. These were church laws, compelling the strict observance of Sunday, and faithful attendance upon public worship on that day, and holding an ecclesiastical curse over those who kept the Sabbath; and this action was taken by various councils.
J. H. W.
(To be continued.)