Earlier text: General ArticlesHistory of Sunday-Keeping.
By John Nevins Andrews
SYLVESTER was the bishop of Rome while Constantine was emperor. How faithfully he acted his part in transforming the festival of the sun into a Christian institution is seen in that, by his apostolic authority, he changed the name of the day, giving it the imposing title of Lord's day. To Constantine and to Sylvester, therefore, the advocates of first-day observance are greatly indebted. The one elevated it as a heathen festival to the throne of the empire, making it a day of rest from most kinds of business; the other changed it into a Christian institution, giving it the dignified appellation of Lord's day. It is not a sufficient reason for denying that Pope Sylvester, not far from A. D. 325, authoritatively conferred on Sunday the name of Lord's day, to say that one of the fathers as early as A. D. 200, calls the day by that name, and that some seven different writers, between A. D. 200 and A. D. 325, viz., Tertulian, Origen, Cyprian, Anatolius, Commodianus, Victorinus, and Peter of Alexandria, can be adduced, who give this name to Sunday. No one of these fathers ever claims for this title any apostolic authority; and it has been already shown that they could not have believed the day to be the Lord's day by divine appointment. So far, therefore, is the use of this term by these persons as a name for Sunday from conflicting with the statement that Sylvester, by his apostolic authority, established this name as the rightful title of that day, that it shows the act of Sylvester to be exactly suited to the circumstances of the case. Indeed, Nicephorus asserts that Constantine, who considered himself quite as much the head of the church as was the pope, "directed that the day which the Jews considered the first day of the week, and which the Greeks dedicated to the sun, should be called the Lord's day." The circumstances of the case render the statement of Lucius and Nicephorus in the highest degree probable. They certainly do not indicate that the pope would deem such act on his part unnecessary. Take a recent event in papal history as an illustration of this case. Only a few years since, Pius IX. decreed that the virgin Mary was born without sin. This had long been asserted by many distinguished writers in the papal church, but it lacked authority as a dogma of that church until the pope, A. D. 1854, gave it his official sanction. It was the work of Constantine and of Sylvester in the early part of the fourth century to establish the festival of the sun, to be a day of rest, by the authority of the empire, and to render it a Christian institution by the authority of St. Peter. The following from Dr. Heylyn, a distinguished member of the Church of England, is worthy of particular attention. In most forcible language, he traces the steps by which the Sunday festival arose to power, contrasting it in this respect with the ancient Sabbath of the Lord; and then, with equal truth and candor, he acknowledges that, as the festival of Sunday was set up by the emperor and the church, the same power can take it down whenever it sees fit. Thus he says:— "Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord's day stands; on custom first, and voluntary consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom, countenanced by the authority of church of God, which tacitly approved the same; and finally confirmed and ratified by Christian princes throughout their empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after, from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them. "I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had spoken the word, that there would have one day in seven, precisely the seventh day from the world's creation, to be a day of rest unto all his people; which said there was no more to do but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure. . . But thus it was not done in our present business. The Lord's day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to God's people to pitch on this, or any other, for the public use. And being taken up amongst them and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercises; yet for three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it. "And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing fathers of God's church, to lay restraints upon their people, yet at the first they were not general; but only thus that certan men in certain places should lay aside their ordinary and daily works, to attend God's service in the church; those whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors because most necessary to the commonwealth. "And in the following times, when as the prince and prelate, in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day; it was not brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ's ascension, before the Lord's day had attained that state in which now it standeth. . . And being brought into that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away as unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems best." Constantine's edict marks a signal change in the history of the Sunday festival. Dr. Heylyn thus testifies:— "Hitherto have we spoken of the Lord's day as taken up by the common consent of the church; not instituted or established by any text of Scripture, or edict of emperor, or decree of council. . . In that which followeth, we shall find both emperors and councils very frequent in ordering things about this day and the service of it." After his professed conversion to Christianity, Constantine still further exerted his power in behalf of the venerable day of the sun, now happily transformed into the Lord's day, by the apostolic authority of the Roman bishop. Heylyn thus testifies:— "So natural a power it is in a Christian prince to order things about religion, that he not only took upon him to command the day, but also to prescribe the service." The influence of Constantine powerfully contributed to the aid of those church leaders who were intent upon bringing the forms of pagan worship into the Christian church. Gibbon thus places upon record the motives of these men, and the result of their action:— "The most respectable bishops had persuaded themselves that the ignorant rusties would more cheerfully renounce the superstition of paganism, if they found some resemblance, some compensation, in the bosom of Christianity. The religion of Constantine achieved in less than a century, the final conquest of the Roman Empire; but the victors themselves were insensibly subdued by the arts of their vanquished rivals." The body of nominal Christians, which resulted from this strange union of pagan rites with Christian worship, arrogated to itself the title of Catholic church, while the true people of God, who resisted these dangerous innovations, were branded as heretics. It is not strange that the Sabbath should lose ground in such a body, in its struggle with its rival, the festival of the sun. Indeed, after a brief period, the history of the Sabbath will be found only in the almost obliterated records of those whom the Catholic church cast out and stigmatized as heretics. Of the Sabbath in Constantine's time, Heylyn says:— "As for the Saturday, that retained its wonted credit in the eastern churches, little inferior to the Lord's day, if not plainly equal; not as a Sabbath, think not so; but as a day designed unto sacred meetings." There is no doubt that, after the great flood of worldliness which entered the church at the time of Constantine's pretended conversion, and after all that was done by himself and by Sylvester in behalf of Sunday, the observance of the Sabbath became, with many, only a nominal thing. But the action of the council of Laodicea, to which we shall presently come, proves conclusively that the Sabbath was still observed, not simply as a festival, as Heylyn would have it, but as a day of abstinence from labor, as enjoined in the commandment. The work of Constantine, however, marks an epoch in the history of the Sabbath and of Sunday. Constantine was hostile to the Sabbath, and his influence told powerfully against it with all those who sought worldly advancement. The historian Eusebius was the special friend and eulogist of Constantine. This fact should not be overlooked in weighing his testimony concerning the Sabbath. He speaks of it as follows:— "They [the patriarchs] did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we; neither do we abstain from certain foods, nor regard other injunctions, which Moses subsequently delivered to be observed in types and symbols, because such things as these do not belong to Christians." This testimony shows precisely the views of Constantine and the imperial party relative to the Sabbath. But it does not give the views of Christians as a whole; for we have seen that the Sabbath had been extensively retained up to this point, and we shall soon have occasion to quote other historians, the cotemporaries and successors of Eusebius, who record its continued observance. Constantine exerted a controlling influence in the church, and was determined to "have nothing in common with that most hostile rabble of the Jews." Happy would it have been had his aversion been directed against the festivals of the heathen rather than against the Sabbath of the Lord. Before Constantine's time, there is no trace of the doctrine of the change of the Sabbath. On the contrary, we have decisive evidence that Sunday was a day on which ordinary labor was considered lawful and proper. But Constantine, while yet a heathen, commanded that every kind of business excepting agriculture should be laid aside on that day. His law designated the day as a heathen festival, which it actually was. But within four years after its enactment, Constantine had become, not merely a professed convert to the Christian religion, but, in many respects, practically the head of the church, as the course of things at the council of Nice plainly showed. His heathen Sunday law, being unrevoked, was thenceforward enforced in behalf of that day as a Christian festival. This law gave to the Sunday festival, for the first time, something of a Sabbatic character. It was now a rest-day from most kinds of business by the law of the Roman Empire. God's rest-day was thenceforward more in the way than ever before. But now we come to a fact of remarkable interest. The way having been prepared, as we have just seen, for the doctrine of the change of the Sabbath, and the circumstances of the case demanding its production, it was at this very point brought forward for the first time. Eusebius, the special friend and flatterer of Constantine, was the man who first put forth this doctrine. In his "Commentary on the Psalms," he makes the following statement on Psalm 92 respecting the change of the Sabbath:— "Wherefore as they [the Jews] rejected it [the Sabbath law] the Word [Christ], by the new covenant, TRANSLATED AND TRANSFERRED the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest, viz., the saving Lord's day, the first [day] of the light, in which the Saviour of the world, after all his labors among men, obtained the victory over death, and passed the portals of heaven, having achieved a work superior to the six-days' creation." "On this day, which is the first [day] of light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even all nations redeemed by them throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual law, which were decreed for the priests to do on the Sabbath." "And all things whatsoever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath."—J. N. A., in Sabbath History. Rest not in a mere rational conviction of the truth of the gospel, but reduce your faith to practice. Embrace the gospel as well as assent to its truth. If Christianity is true, it is the most important concern in the world. Avail yourselves of its precious invitations. Obey its salutary precepts and escape from the dangers of which it gives you warning.—Ladies’ Repository. The Sabbath Not Jewish.
By Uriah Smith
SINCE then the sacred institution stands,
Old as the world and broad as all its lands,
Since made when Time's great circuit first begun,
'Twill last, of course, as long as time shall run.
Since made for him, the Father of mankind,
For all his offspring, 'twas, of course, designed.
Absurd to think such institution given--
Link most divine, connecting earth with heaven,
A sacred chain, joining, in due degree,
Man with his God, time with eternity;
Given for the good of all who dwell below,
Designed o'er all its blessings to bestow--
Absurd to think that it was destined, then,
For but a portion of the race of men;
Or to be pinioned by the bounds of space,
Or reverenced only by a single race!
Say, you who claim, and speak as though you knew,
That it was given only for the Jew,
Were our first parents Jews? If so, then how
Are not all earth's great nations Jewish now?
Or if long years successive rolled away,
Ere national divisions held their sway,
And ere the Jews arose, who were to know
What blessings from the holy Sabbath flow,
For whom alone it was designed, you say--
Why made so long before 'twas needed, pray? THE question asked through Ezekiel the prophet, "Watchman, what of the night?" has so often been used that all are familiar with the sound; but there has never been a time when it posessed more interest than at the present. This generation has been assiduously taught to expect a time of universal peace; and religious teachers are mainly responsible for the expectation, because they have professed to forecast such a future for the nations, from the prophecies of the Scriptures. We firmly believe they have misapprehended the Scriptures; but it is not our purpose to review this field at present. What is the prospect, viewing it from the position of the nations of the earth? The Berlin Conference was held in the interest of peace. We have no assurance, judging from subsequent actions, that peace was the primary object of those who took part in that conference. For a long time there has been preparations made, on a most extensive scale, of a war, which all expected, and to which all looked forward with fear. But during the sessions of the conference, England was taking steps to strengthen herself on the territory upon which they were deliberating, and Russia, taking liberty from this action on the part of her rival in the acquisition of territory, has abated very little of her efforts to maintain all the advantage which she has gained in the war with Turkey. The conference at Berlin was quickly followed by a declaration of war by England against Afghanistan. There was no sufficient cause for this war; no reason can be assigned for it except that which is found in the restless ambition of England's Premier. It was heartily denounced by the best men in the nation, and was likely to be condemned by Parliament. But before action could be taken her puny adversary was overwhelmed, and the people were silenced by the boasts of "a glorious victory." No one could think of resigning what was gained in fighting, and so the oppressive spirit of power goes unrebuked. But forebodings of evil will not be quieted by this triumph over a weak nation which had not provoked the assault. The Methodist Recorder, of London, says :— "The war between England and Afghanistan, already begun, is one involving questions which Russia can hardly fail to make the pretext for hostile attitude toward Great Britain. The British possessions in India have hitherto been protected by natural lines, the mountain ranges; the subjects of the Empress have been measurably loyal, with a disposition to accept the western civilization. The conflict with Afghanistan, while in itself of minor importance, will probably disturb the peace of the Indies, expose the frontier to foreign invasions, and ultimately bring into the controversy the Czar and his mighty armies of the North. This in turn would make new complications with other nations, supposed to have been quieted by the Berlin treaty, and lead to a general disturbance in the East." The Queen shares in the apprehension expressed in the above extract. The Whitehall Review, speaking of the failing health of her Majesty, attributes it largely to the prospect of a terrible war into which England is like to be soon plunged. It says :— "It is not many days since her Majesty expressed her despair as to the possibility of our avoiding a conflict with Russia, and the bare probability of so colossal a calamity to England and to Europe filled her with horror and apprehension. The lady who guides the destinies of this vast empire is not one of those morally-facile people who can contemplate the awful responsibility of warfare with a light heart. On the contrary, ever since this interminable Eastern problem began to perplex the statesmanship of Europe she has labored in season and out of season for peace. The likelihood of her noble effort being foiled has caused this illustrious personage poignant regret." Hers is not merely the fear of an overwrought imagination. The most prudent statesmen regard it much in the same light, if they are not equally sensitive and depressed with the prospect. The London Standard, speaking of the revolutionary spirit in Europe, says :— "We invite our readers to take a candid survey of the political condition and social opinions of continental Europe, and we are convinced that if they do so they will be satisfied that the allusion made to the period of 1848 by Herr Sonnemann in his reply to Prince de Bismarck in the German reichstag was far from irrelevant or inopportune. We are divided from that memorable date by thirty years, a period which is usually considered equivalent to a generation in the history of men and communities. Yet will any one have the courage to assert that the opinions, aspirations, and projects, which for a time emptied Europe of half its thrones, and seemed likely to revolutionize the organizations of society, have been abandoned, or that the horizon, is free from the threatening theories which then gathered to a head and burst upon governments unprepared to withstand them? No doubt the ruling powers are better armed than they were then to resist insurrection against their authority. They remember what occurred at that date, and they are not likely to trust themselves a second time to the chapter of accidents. But opinions that do not change, and ambitions that are not abandoned, never fail to find at length opportunities for their assertion, and we hold it to be morally certain that, if what are generally known as revolutionary opinions are not extirpated by conviction, all the precaution in life will not prevent them from being translated into action, even if only as a passing experiment. Europe, it is idle to deny, is more completely permeated with the doctrines of discontent than at any former period, and one of the worst and most alarming of the phenomena it produces is to be seen in the fact that statesmen of so much experience, penetration, and resource as Prince de Bismarck can discover no better expedient for remedying it than repression and defiance. Prince de Bismarck says that more victims may yet fall before the barrel of the assassin, but that they will fall martyrs for God and fatherland. Herr Sonnemann retorts upon him, with perfect propriety, that he is personally averse from appeals to violence; but if it needs must come to fighting he and his will know how to fight, and that he will esteem it an honor to perish on the battlefield." It is idle to look for safety in the organization of the armies. The uprising in 1848 was by parties almost entirely unorganized, and they have profited by experience and the preparations on the part of the governments, and are now organized and armed; while, as the Standard says, the spirit of discontent is more wide spread than it was at that time. Even in Russia, where obedience to authority has always been implicit and unquestioning, the same spirit of revolution is manifesting itself. In the same article the Standard says :— "The ancient reverence for the occupant of the throne, which was the one conspicuous feature of Russian society is on the wane. 'It is to the czardom,' the people of Russia are told by one of these secretly circulated prints, 'that we owe all our misfortunes. It has made us slaves, depriving us of all moral dignity, and degrading us to the condition of an enervated people, without individuality or liberal aspirations. If we wish to recover our rights we must expel the Romanoffs, and exterminate root and branch the system they have introduced.' No doubt these are the phrases of exceedingly raw revolutionists, but they indicate that precise condition of mind which leads to desperate action." Russia's intentions on India have been hardly concealed. A lengthy article in a St. Petersburg paper, the Golos, foreshadowed her policy; but the article was promptly seized by the police, and suppressed. In that article the Golos said :— "It is thus made manifest that, under such circumstances, our movements cannot end with our acquisitions and present aggrandizements, even though it displease the English. We have not yet arrived at the natural limits of our power in Asia. We have not yet subordinated to our influence all those conflicting elements of populations whose independence has been so damaging to the interests of Russia." The Golos disclaims the idea of mere ambition on the part of Russia in her designs on the East, but what besides ambition can so coolly menace feeble nations, because their independence is damaging to Russian interests? It also cites the words of English statesmen, showing that they are awake to the danger of her interests in Asia; and further says :— "These facts, we believe, are sufficient to show that the safety of the East Indian Empire is by no means guaranteed. The discontent of the inhabitants of the continent might easily be spread by a new revolution." When we consider that this article was written several years before the late war between Russia and Turkey, and that it pointed out Afghanistan as the most probable point at which England's Indian interests might be menaced, we are at no loss to find a reason for the recent movements of England. While the governments of Europe are troubled so greatly with the Communists, it is significant that the Pope has sent proposals and recommended a plan for them to unite in suppressing the dangerous element. It would be no small honor, and might be productive of no mean results, to the Pontiff, if he could take the lead in a united movement of those governments. It would give him a prestige which he has not enjoyed for years past. When we come to the subject of Communism, we approach the interests and dangers of our country also. A writer in the Banner of Light, speaking of the effort to establish the Christian religion by legal enforcements, says :— "Modern infidels have active brains, persuasive tongues, educated pens; they have long and full purses, often; they have proud spirits; they have a sense of justice; they have immense and increasing numbers; millions of them have the ballot; hundreds of thousands of them understand the use of arms, the tactics of armies. Let Christian Statesmen beware! before they allow themselves to be further put in the wrong by the machinations of sanctimonious hypocrites, or the violence of ignorant zealots. Tens of thousands of firm hands will, if driven to it to save freedom, seize their arms and give Christian politics such a universal overthrow and awful burial as will abolish the greatest and last obstacle to genuine Republicanism and pure Democracy forever." This is not merely the raving or idle threat of an enthusiast. It was written more than two years before the late outbreak which so suddenly stopped travel and traffic, and destroyed so much property. The spirit of lawlessness is loose in the land. Prof. Hitchcock, of Union Theological Seminary, in a lecture on Communism, recently said :— "Communism is in the air. Section is poisoned against section, class against class, interest against interest. The poorer West and South are incited to despoil the richer East. Farmer, manufacturer, and merchant, natural friends, are being told that they are natural enemies. Long continued commercial distress, instead of being recognized as a common calamity in Europe as well as here, with special reasons for it on our side in the great war that saved the Union, is fiercely denounced as the crime of a class." Every reader knows that it is impossible, within reasonable limits, to give even a tithe of the evidence existing that the nations are on the eve of a mighty struggle. And what is to follow? Is it a time of peace for those same nations? Not at all. This dispensation closes up in war,—even "the battle of the great day." Rev. 16. The stone which becomes a great mountain and fills the whole earth, utterly destroys all the kingdoms before it. Dan. 2. All the kingdoms which are upon the face of the whole earth shall fall and rise no more, because of the sword which is sent among them. Jer. 25. The nations are angry, and the wrath of God is ready to fall upon a wicked world, when the kingdoms of the world are given to Christ. Rev. 11 and Psa. 2. The future of the nations, lying in wickedness—yes, increasing in wickedness—is only gloomy. The "little flock" who watch "the signs of the times" in the light of the "sure word of prophecy," will receive the kingdom. "Blessed is he that watcheth." Without Excuse.
By Uriah Smith
WE are drawing near to the day of God. The decisions of eternity are upon us. The Master standeth at the door. The day of the Lord is not an uncertain object in the dim and distant future; but it is, to him who reads aright the page of prophecy and history, a vivid reality, even now throwing the beams of its approaching glory and the light of its consuming fires upon a slumbering world. It comes not without a numerous array of precursors and heralds; yet it will come to many suddenly and unexpectedly. With what real and unfeigned surprise will multitudes awake to their condition, as the terrible realities of this coming day burst upon them. So different from what they expected! So contrary to all their plans! So fatal to all that they had hoped for or believed! What astonishment, what amazement, what terror, will seize them! At once they find themselves in the unrelaxing grasp of eternity, its irrevocable decisions upon them, and they among the lost! And how many, in the agony of their despair, will put the question to their own souls, Why should I be found in this condition? And what would be their reply to such a question? Should the Judge of all meet them with the solemn inquiry why they had not made preparation for that day, what answer would they return? What excuse would they render?
Would they say, Lord, this day of all days, this day which forever concludes all human history, this decisive day for all the human race, should have been clearly set forth in thy holy word? The answer would be, It was thus set forth. From Genesis to Revelation, that word was full of it. That solemn moment which should close probation and bring its terrible retribution to the ungodly, and its glorious reward to the righteous, was everywhere kept in view, with warnings and exhortations to all the race to prepare for its solemn scenes. Bibles were in your hands, and you could have read them for yourselves. Would they not thus stand speechless and condemned?
Would they say that signs should have been given of so momentous an event, some strange phenomena in nature to mark the approach of the end? The answer would be, Such signs were given. The sun was to be darkened, the moon withdraw her shining, the stars fall from heaven, and strange sights appear above, and strange convulsions be felt below. And ere probation closed, while yet you could have escaped the coming wrath, the land was full of Bibles containing these predictions, and full of histories recording their fulfillment. Did you care to trouble yourselves to compare the two? And again they would stand speechless and condemned.
Would they say that the state of the world, moral and political, which was to mark the last days, should have been clearly described? The answer would come, It was so described. It was declared in the word of God that iniquity would abound, that evil men and seducers would wax worse and worse, that the nations would be angry, that there would be wars and rumors of wars, and that there would be distress of nations, with perplexity. And in your own days every paper groaned with a record of these things, and all the land was startled at the fearful spectacle which the world presented. Did you not see it, and wonder? And why did you not read its import aright? Would they not again stand speechless and condemned?
Would they say again that the history of nations, and the course of empire, in consecutive order, down to the end, should have been given, that the world might know when the last nations were on the stage of action, at the end of whose history the kingdom of God should be set up? Again the answer would be, Such information was given in the prophetic word. Beginning six hundred years before Christ, step by step, kingdom by kingdom, event by event, the student of prophecy is brought down even to the closing scenes of trouble, the dashing of all the nations to pieces, and the standing up of Michael for the deliverance of his people. And you saw the last kingdoms of earth in a condition such that even human foresight scarcely failed to discern the very day of their dissolution. Did you take the trouble to inquire what was to follow? And again they would stand without answer and without excuse.
Would they say further that messengers, divinely sent, should have given warning of the approach of the great and dreadful day? that the proclamation should have been made through all the land when that day was near? The answer would be again, Such proclamation was made. The world heard; the honest, humble seekers after truth believed; and scoffers everywhere raised the inquiry, Where is the promise of his coming?
Thus their last excuse fails them; for what could they say more? Speechless and condemned they stand throughout.
And, reader, so far as the evidences of the near coming of Christ are concerned, they stand to-day just as set forth above. The declarations of God's word, the signs in the natural world, the state of the nations, the moral condition of mankind, and the proclamation of the coming of the day of wrath, the last message of mercy, are all before us. And the eyes of all the world are now watching for the final destruction of those powers at the termination of whose career the Bible places the opening of the day of God. Look at the papacy and the Ottoman power. The prophet declared that as we reached the last days, the dominion of the little horn, the papacy, should be consumed and destroyed unto the end. And what has been the leading feature of its history for the past fifty years? An-29swer: The falling away, one after another, of its strong supports. And what has recently been witnessed? The most sudden and tremendous revolution in Europe that has perhaps ever transpired in the world's history, the overthrow of France, the last prop of the pope's temporal power. And now his temporal dominion is taken entirely away, nevermore, says the king of Italy, to be restored to him again. This is an event which takes place in close connection with the end. At the same time we hear him uttering those great words (papal infallibility), of which the prophet speaks, words which he utters in close connection with his destruction by devouring fire, that the prophet says that both the utterance of the great words and the destruction in the burning flame were to occur almost at one and the same time.
Equally startling is the aspect of affairs in the Ottoman Empire. That power we understand to be symbolized by the great river Euphrates, in Rev. 9:14, and 16:12. When it meets its final overthrow, the sixth of the seven last plagues will be falling upon the world; for it is at that time, according to the last of the references just given, that that river is to be clean dried up. But the Ottoman or Turkish Empire is tottering to its fall. Its speedy overthrow is on all hands expected. Russia first announced her intention to disregard the stipulations of the treaty of 1856. That treaty restricted, among other things, the warlike operations of Russia in the Black Sea. Her announcement was therefore simply a declaration that she was about to restore her armaments in those waters and on their shores; and this was regarded as tantamount to a declaration of war with Turkey; for it was evidently for the purpose of making a conquest of Turkish possessions in Europe, long coveted by Russia, that this move was made. Full soon the war came, and found Turkey in no condition to resist her powerful foe of the North. It is well known that, ever since the summer of 1840, when the Ottoman Empire fell, that power has been sustained by the influence and arms of other nations. She had not resources of her own to meet the emergency. And the nations which she hoped and expected would, from inclination or obligation, come to her rescue, were either crippled by recents wars, or in fear of those to come. Turkey therefore, was left of them to be despoiled of her possessions and hopelessly crippled in her resources, ready to fall whenever her overthrow can best serve the purposes of her stronger neighbors.
Such is the present condition of two great powers, to say nothing of others, the history of which brings us to the end of all things. No observer can fail to see their doom approaching. But who takes the trouble to acquaint himself with what the word of God declares is to follow these events?
And to the thoughtful reader, we put the questions, What more evidence could God have given of these things than he has given? What other kinds of evidence could be given, or in what respect could that which is given be more full? And if these things are so, and you come to the Judgment unconcerned and unprepared, will you not be without excuse? U. S.