Earlier text: The Teaching Is WrongWHAT HAS BECOME OF THE JESUITS?
By G. D. Ballou
LET the following from "Historical Studies," pages 140-142, answer:— At last came the final blow that was to shatter into pieces the great army of Loyola. For more than two centuries the Jesuits had been fighting the battle of Rome. To exalt the supremacy of the pope they had died by thousands in English jails and Indian solitudes, had pierced land and sea to carry the strange story of the primacy to heathen millions, and to build anew the medieval church in the heart of oriental idolatry. And now it was the pope and Rome that were to complete their destruction. By a cruel ingratitude the deity on earth, whom they worshiped with a fidelity unequal among men, was to hurl his anathemas against his most faithful disciples. France and Spain elected Pope Clement XIV. upon his pledge that he would dissolve the order. He issued his bull July 21, 1773, directing that, for the welfare of the church and the good of mankind, the institution of Loyola should be abolished. The Jesuits protested in vain. Ricci, the general, threw himself at the feet of the cardinals, wept, entreated, recalled the memories of Trent, the exploits of Loyola, and suggested in a whisper that Clement, like Judas, had betrayed the Lord. The pope not long after died in fearful torments; the Jesuits were allowed to preserve a secret unity; but it was reported once more that the horrid custom of the Middle Ages had been revived; that the pope had been carried off by poison. Driven from their almost ancestral homes in Spain, Italy, Austria, and France, the Jesuits found a liberal welcome in the heart of Protestantism itself. Persecuted like heretics by the Church of Rome, they now sought shelter in the free lands, against which they had once aimed its spiritual and temporal arm. And it is curious to reflect that had the Jesuits succeeded in their early design of subjugating the North, they would have left themselves no place of refuge in their hour of need. To their enemies of the sixteenth century, they came in the close of the eighteenth asking hospitality; and the disciples of Loyola were scattered over every part of Protestant Europe as teachers, professors, men of letters and science, and were everywhere received with friendly consideration. England, charitably overlooking the past, saw Jesuit colleges and schools flourish in her midst without alarm. Frederick the Great opened for them an asylum in Silicia. Catherine II. welcomed them to St. Petersburg, and Greek bishops were often seen mingling in friendly intercourse with the once hostile company. Many Jesuits crossed the sea to the New World. Expelled from Lima and persecuted in Brazil, they founded their schools freely in Louisville and New York, and flourished with vigor under institutions and laws which owed their birth to the teachings of Luther and Calvin. The doctrine of universal toleration alone saved the Jesuits from complete destruction; and we may reasonably trust that, as the army of Loyola recruits its shattered strength in the bosom of Protestantism and freedom, it will show its gratitude by abstaining from all hostile attempts against the institutions by which it is nurtured; that the Jesuit will never suffer his promise of obedience to an Italian potentate to interfere with his obligation to free thought, free schools, and a free press. Thus fostered by the descendants of Ridley and Cranmer, and sheltered by the arm of schismatic Russia, the fallen society prolonged its existence. At length in 1814 the Bourbons were restored to France, and Pope Pius VII. revived the order of the Jesuits. Their college at Rome was given back to them in nearly the same condition they had left it nearly forty years before; but their magnificent837 library and their revenues were cut off. A scanty band of eighty-six Fathers, worn with toil and wandering, made, it is said, a triumphant entry into Rome amidst the acclamations of its people. Yet it can scarcely be doubted that the followers of Loyola are as unpopular with the citizens of the holy city as they seem ever to have been with the people of all Catholic lands. Isolated by their fatal vow of obedience, they are followed everywhere by suspicion and dislike. Russia, which had received them in their hour of need, expelled them again in 1816; France drove them out in 1845; the people of Madrid in 1835 massacred their Jesuits; the pope again exiled them from Rome, and it is only England and America that even in the present day afford a safe asylum to the fallen company. This was written in 1869. Nearly twenty-five years have passed, and what do we see as to the fruits of their sojourn in America? In every city and town of any note they have flourishing schools, churches, hospitals, and orphan asylums; and thousands of beguiled Protestants and non-professors are sending their children to these schools, where, in the most subtle manner, the principles of the Papacy are instilled into the minds of the youth. Their hospitals and asylums increase their church membership by hundreds and thousands annually, while immigration has filled cities and towns until their political and financial influence is such that they can control legislation and abstract money from the public treasury, both State and national, for the support of their sectarian schools. They build their charitable institutions by extorting money from leading tradesmen under threat of the boycott. This I know from direct testimony. They hold the balance of power in several of our most important cities, and control legislation in our most populous States. So well disciplined are they that their vote is a unit, controlled by the prisoner of the Vatican. Their followers hold the police and many other offices in all our leading cities, and perform most of the labor on the public works. The thirst for political power is still strong in the Papacy, and growing stronger every year. Pope Leo XIII., seeing the grand opening in America, has not been slow to fill it with a man after his own heart. The new American pope, Satolli, has come to manipulate the affairs of the government, and, by unifying the papal element in America, present an influence in politics and religion which will be little less than irresistible. New and startling developments are constantly being made. But American Protestantism no longer protests. Her feeble energies are spent in adulations and compliments for the growing papal hierarchy. H. W. Beecher could preach Pius XI. into heaven, and other popular preachers speak in glowing terms of the "mother church." The National Reformers seek alliance with Rome to enforce the papal sabbath by national enactments, while the man who brings up the past history of the Papacy and the Jesuits, and would let their true character appear, is frowned upon as a feeble-minded cynic or a misguided crank. Their famous university in our national capital is designed to polish and mould young men after the model of American statesmen, and thus give them an influence with the masses wherever they may go. The bonds of union between the Church of Rome and her wayward daughters of America are being strengthened each month that passes. The little commotion between the A. P. A. element and the "mother church" is only like chemical elements when uniting to form a new compound. Indeed, the union in principle is already complete, for the masses of professed Protestants have fully adopted every fundamental principle of Rome. Infallibility is assumed by nearly all in their clamors for religious legislation. The union of Church and State, and the right to control the conscience, is proclaimed in the same manner. And Jesuit and priestly and popish intrigue are smoothing the way by soft speeches for the daughters to return, and strengthening the cords with which to bind the American republic to the chariot wheels of Rome. Soon, all too soon, we shall see the image of the beast and hear its dragon voice. Blind indeed are the men who cannot discern the undercurrent everywhere setting Romeward. For those who do see, is it not about time for the loud cry of the Third Angel's Message to begin to sound forth? Yea, do I not already hear it sounding; and what means it that men everywhere are ready to heed the cry? Jesuit intrigue has had a moulding influence on the religions and customs of English-speaking peoples, and the Spirit of God too has been working as in days of old. Happy the men and women who now, in these closing years of earth's dark history, can hear the voice of God, and clearly discern his hand in the message that is going to the earth to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. Such will not fall under the influence of the mystery of iniquity, but will stand like the pillars of heaven and shine with the light of God, and his jewels everywhere will reflect the light, and Jesus will come and gather them to beautify his kingdom of glory. O Lord Jesus, hasten that glad day! THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE SANCTUARY.
By M. H. Brown
In the patriarchal age the husband and father was the priest of his own household. He erected his altar and brought offerings for himself and his family, and prayer and praise ascended to God every morning and evening. This form of service and worship was customary with God's true people until the erection of the tabernacle in the wilderness in the days of Moses. The Priesthood of Melchizedek.
The priesthood of Melchizedek stood forth by itself, separate and apart from any other. He had no predecessor or successor as priest, that is, there was no priest before or after him in that line. He was "made like unto the Son of God," and thus "abideth a priest continually." Heb. 7:3. In other words, Christ's work as priest is complete and sufficient in itself, needing no other priest to begin or close the service, because he "ever liveth." Heb. 7:25. He differed from the priests under the Levitical priesthood, "because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death" (verse 23), hence Christ is declared to be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, because, like him, Christ "continueth forever," and "hath an unchangeable priesthood" (verse 24). We are not, however, to understand that the priesthood of Christ will never end, that it will always continue, but that it will continue without interruption from death or any other cause till his work as our advocate is finished. Christ could not be a priest after the order of Aaron, because he did not belong to the tribe of Levi. Heb. 7:11-17. He belonged to the kingly line, the tribe of Judah, and descended from David, of whose throne and kingdom he is the rightful heir; hence he will be given the throne of his father David. Luke 1:31-33. The kingship and the priesthood were united in the person of Melchizedek, for he was king of Salem and priest of the most high God. Heb. 7:1. Hence, as Christ is a priest after the order of Melchizedek, he unites in himself the kingship and priesthood. We therefore learn concerning the nature of Christ's priesthood by studying the priesthood of Melchizedek, for he was a priest after the order of Melchizedek. We may learn concerning Christ's priestly service by studying the service of the priests belonging to the Levitical priesthood, because they "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." Heb. 8:5. Hence, these things that "were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." Rom. 15:4. The Levitical Priesthood.
When the tabernacle was made, the Lord took the tribe of Levi as his own, in place of all the firstborn of the children of Israel. The Lord had claimed all the firstborn of Israel, because he spared them from destruction when he slew all the firstborn of Egypt, just before the exodus. Num. 3:12, 13. "In the days of Abraham the priesthood was regarded as the birthright of the eldest son. Now, instead of the firstborn of all Israel, the Lord accepted the tribe of Levi for the work of the sanctuary. . . . The priesthood, however, was restricted to the family of Aaron. Aaron and his sons alone were permitted to minister before the Lord; the rest of the tribe were intrusted with the charge of the tabernacle and its furniture, and they were to attend upon the priests in their ministration, but they were not to sacrifice, to burn incense, or to see the holy things till they were covered."—Patriarchs and Prophets. In Ex. 2:1-10 and 4:14 we learn that Moses and Aaron were of the house of Levi, and hence their descendants were Levites. Aaron and Moses were chosen as priests to minister in the sanctuary. Ex. 28:1. THE GARMENTS OF THE PRIESTS.
In Exodus 28 we have a description of the garments prepared for the priests, and in the next chapter we have an account of the services connected with their consecration. These should be carefully studied. In accordance with their office a special dress was appointed for the priests. . . . The robe of the common priest was of white linen, and woven in one piece. It extended nearly to the feet, and was confined about the waist by a white linen girdle, embroidered in blue, purple, and red. A linen turban, or miter, completed his outward costume. Moses at the burning bush was directed to put off his sandals, for the ground whereon he stood was holy. So the priests were not to enter the sanctuary with shoes upon their feet. Particles of dust cleaving to them would desecrate the holy place. They were to leave their shoes in the court before entering the sanctuary, and also to wash both their hands and their feet before ministering in the tabernacle or at the altar of burnt offering. Thus was constantly taught the lesson that all defilement must be put away from those who would approach into the presence of God.6 The garments of the high priest were of costly material and beautiful workmanship, befitting his exalted station. In addition to the linen dress of the common priest he wore a robe of blue, also woven in one piece. Around the skirt it was ornamented with golden bells and pomegranates of blue, purple, and scarlet. Outside of this was the ephod, a shorter garment of gold, blue, purple, scarlet, and white. It was confined by a girdle of the same colors, beautifully wrought. The ephod was sleeveless, and on its gold-embroidered shoulder pieces were set two onyx stones, bearing the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. Over the ephod was the breastplate, the most sacred of the priestly vestments. This was of the same material as the ephod. It was in the form of a square, measuring a span, and was suspended from the shoulders by a cord of blue from golden rings. The border was formed of a variety of precious stones, the same that form the twelve foundations of the city of God. Within the border were twelve stones set in gold arranged in rows of four, and, like those in the shoulder pieces, engraved with the names of the tribes. The Lord's direction was, "Aaron shall bear the names of the children of Israel in the breastplate of judgment upon his heart, when he goeth in unto the holy place, for a memorial before the Lord continually." So Christ, the great High Priest, pleading his blood before the Father in the sinner's behalf, bears upon his heart the name of every repentant, believing soul. Says the Psalmist, "I am poor and needy, yet the Lord thinketh upon me." At the right and left of the breastplate were two large stones of great brilliancy. These were known as the Urim and Thummim. By them the will of God was made known through the high priest. When questions were brought for decision before the Lord, a halo of light encircling the precious stone at the right was a token of the divine consent or approval, while a cloud shadowing the stone at the left was an evidence of denial or disapproval. The miter of the high priest consisted of the white linen turban, having attached to it by a lace of blue a gold plate bearing the inscription, "Holiness to Jehovah." Everything connected with the apparel and deportment of the priests was to be such as to impress the beholder with a sense of the holiness of God, the sacredness of his worship, and the purity required of those who came into his presence.—Patriarchs and Prophets. THE FALL OF BABYLON.
By Elder William Covert
A STRIKING likeness of ancient Babylon is given in the book of Revelation. As the prophets in ancient times proclaimed the fall of old Babylon previous to her utter destruction, so does John announce the fall of modern Babylon in advance of her final overthrow. The fall of the Apocalyptic Babylon is, however, more descriptive of her moral degeneracy than prophetic of her destruction, while the fall announced of the Chaldean metropolis was more prophetic of her overthrow by the Medes and Persians than descriptive of her departure from virtue. Yet in each case both points are revealed. In each instance it is her persecution of God's children and the idolatry of her worship which cause her destruction. It will be instructive to note a few of these points of resemblance. The fall of both is made emphatic by a double announcement,—"Is fallen, is fallen." Isa. 21:9; Rev. 14:8. Both have made the nations drunk with their wine. Rev. 14:8; Jer. 51:7. Each dwelt alike upon many waters. Jer. 51:12, 13; Rev. 17:1, 15. With each her sins have reached unto heaven. Jer. 51:9; Rev. 18:5. As the prophet symbolized the destruction of ancient Babylon by throwing a stone into the Euphrates, so the angel emphasized the overthrow and extinction of the modern harlot Babylon, by throwing a mighty stone violently into the sea. Jer. 51:64; Rev. 18:21. Against each is charged the blood of the saints. Jer. 51:49; Rev. 18:24. In both ancient and modern times Babylon has boasted of her ladyship, because she has ruled and reveled with the kings of the earth. Isa. 47:5, 7; Rev. 18:7. With both the loss of this boasted connection and the sorrow of widowhood were to take place in one day. Isa. 47:9; Rev. 18:8. In both cases she led the civil rulers to commit these things by her sorceries. Isa. 47:9, 10; Rev. 18:23. It has been through this iniquitous connection, in all the ages, that Baalism and devil or demon worship have befouled the church and persecuted the people of God. The church has been cursed with this idolatrous union under the rule of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Grecia, Rome,—all polytheistical; and now she is entering the same union for a short space (Rev. 17:10), under the leadership of professed Protestantism. This is being done by a union of Church and State in this country. It will certainly result in giving the civil rule again to the Papacy among the leading nations, for a very short time. Rev. 17:11, 12, 17. Babylon will then rule in three parts. Rev. 16:19. She will be the mother of the Spiritualism which is honeycombing Protestantism, of Mariolatry, saint worship, and popery, which rules in Catholicism, and of all the demoniac devices of the pagan world. Satan will through these agencies make all nations one municipality (Rev. 17:18; 16:19), and proceed to make war with the followers of the Lamb (Rev. 17:13), who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ (Rev. 12:17). Much has been done, and much more will yet be done, to warn all of the impending danger, before the last steps in this great drama have been taken. But enough has already been accomplished to call forth the loud cry of the mighty messenger of Rev. 18:1-3. Whatever agencies the Lord shall use in this proclamation, must announce to all the world, and in all the world, the facts as to what has taken place in both Church and State, and show where the danger is, and how it all came about. Not only so, but they must also call upon God's people to get out of Babylon, because she has become the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird. The church, which was once a chaste virgin espoused to her Redeemer, has deserted him and committed fornication with the kings and civil rulers of the earth. To receive their power and guidance, she has had to corrupt some by flatteries, and others by threats. She has not refrained from any of these things when she has seen that she could accomplish the desire of her heart by these means. To bring about her unholy object she has even caused some to violate their official oath, and plead with many more to do the same thing. She has counted them good and pure according to the fervor and the degrees of their union with her. She has been playing the part of Potiphar's wife toward them, while the rulers have not possessed the virtue of Joseph; therefore, the church and they have fallen together in their mutual shame. As Israel was holiness to the Lord when God had separated her from every unholy alliance, and had taken her unto himself, so was the Protestant Church espoused unto the Lord, when she sought his love direct, without the intervention of the State, the pope, the priest, the Virgin Mary, the invocation of saints, demons, or spirits. As Israel left her Lord, and committed lewdness with Baal, and was carried into Babylon, so it is with the Protestant Church. She has been sliding backward until she stands upon the same Babylonian principles that were rejected by the Christian princes in the days of Luther. Her lamentable condition is described in the following scripture:— "Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be ye horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord. For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the Fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." "And now what hast thou to do in the way of Egypt, to drink the waters of Sihor? or what hast thou to do in the way of Assyria, to drink the waters of the river? Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee; know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord." Jer. 2:12, 13, 18, 19. As the church has, by appealing to Congress and State legislative bodies to enforce the Sunday of Baal, formally rejected both the Lord and his law, she has prepared the way by which every foul spirit can and will come in to override the truth and bear testimony against the Lord, and persecute those who will keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. As ancient Babylon in her desolation became the playground and lodging place of wild beasts and a court for owls and a dancing place for satyrs, the deities of fable (Isa. 13:21, 22), so shall modern Babylon, when forsaken of the abiding presence of the Lord, become the sporting ground of Satan, a hold for every foul or unclean spirit, and a cage for everything hateful and loathsome. Rev. 18:2. It is in this condition that all departments of great Babylon will send forth unclean spirits, which will work miracles in the interest of her idolatrous practices, and by these things the whole world will be deceived (Rev. 16:13, 14), except those whose names are in the book of life (Rev. 13:8). The greatest of these miracles will be seen in the two-horned beast power. Rev. 19:20; 13:8. The Saviour says that these manifestations shall be so great that if it were possible they shall deceive the very elect. Matt. 24:24. These wonders will immediately precede the second coming of Christ, for the apostle writes that the Lord's coming is "after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved." 2 Thess. 2:8, 9. Satan has in all ages and places worked in that way which his cunning has thought would best accomplish his purposes. With the lower grades of fallen humanity in the great city of Babylon, fetichism, with its allied demonology, serves his purpose the best. The next department is better satisfied with the invocation of saints, and the worship of the Virgin Mary, led and directed by the priesthood of Catholicism. But nothing less than the sly cunning and the oily smoothness of the latest phases of Modern Spiritualism can be passed upon those who have once professed to believe that the word of God, received by faith in Christ alone, had within it the divine power. This Protestantism will certainly accept. Satan seems to have had in training during the last half of the present century a host of evil angels, who have been studying and practicing the art of spectral photography and spectro-peopling seance839 rooms and darkened chambers, till many have been deceived into believing in the living, tangible existence of those whom God in his word declares to be unconscious in death. But the substance of all this is incorporated in their creeds already, and will they reject it? In all these theories and appliances it is but the working of Satan and fallen angels. Not one manifestation from the death of Abel to the present moment, in any place, at any time, has been from the soul or spirit of any dead man, woman, or child. Anything that claims to be such a thing is from the same source that drew our first parents into disobedience. Rejecting the word of God, and through the same rejection denying the Spirit of God and the power of God, leaves a desolated church, and desolated hearts. Such cannot help becoming the habitation of devils and the hold or dwelling place of every foul spirit. It was to be expected that when Babylon of old was rejected as a habitation for man, wild beasts and hateful birds would take possession of its courts. Just so it must be with modern Babylon when deserted by the Spirit of the Lord; the spirit of Satan will take full possession of her. God's people will have to flee from her, that they may escape the plagues that are to be the agents of her destruction. It is when great Babylon is thus divided into three parts (Rev. 16:19) that God is to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath. The third division has come in the rejection of the commandments of God and the formal substitution of Baalism, in legislation superintended by the Protestant clergy in behalf of Sunday. They have in doing this placed the State above God. They propose to compel the people to render unto Caesar the things which belong to God. This is putting Caesar in the place of God. It is practically making of Caesar a god. But as Caesar in this instance puts the Babylonian Sunday in the place of the Sabbath of Jehovah, it is to all intents and purposes Baal worship, demanded and enforced by law. If in the past the Lord rejected both Israel and Judah because of their rejection of his commandments and the worshiping of Baal instead of God, what can those people expect from him now who do practically the same thing? But they are not satisfied with rejecting the Sabbath of the Lord, and the substitution of an idolatrous institution in its stead. They propose to prevent the obedience to God's law which the loyal desire to render to their Creator and Redeemer. They are actually making war upon those who in the remnant church keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ. Rev. 12:17. Many in different parts of the country have already been put in jail, and some have been compelled to work as criminals in the chain gang because of the incorporation of Baal's Sunday in the laws of our States. Not only so, but in every place there has arisen a spirit from beneath, which proposes to make universal and more stringent laws and then enforce them in a more fiendish manner than has yet been done. Should not Zion now put on her beautiful garments, and let the glory of God shine forth in clear beams of righteousness, and fearlessly proclaim the message for the judgment hour which shall call God's people out of Babylon? SABBATH UNIFORMITY.
By Lee S. Wheeler
Who Is Lord of the Sabbath?
If any day in seven is all that is required by the commandment, then the one to whom it was given must have been authorized to appoint his own day. Then God must have waited for man to do this before he blessed any day for that purpose. Otherwise man's day might not be the blessed one; or else the blessing must be transferable at the will of man, so that the day could be changed at the resurrection. In fact, if the Sabbath is to be God's rest day (for that is all it means), but under man's authority, then God must wait until the day is appointed by man, and man has fixed upon, or separated, a day for this purpose; for when God has rested, sabbatized, it is done forever, and choice and change are cut off, as the Lord's Sabbath day cannot be any other than the Lord's rest day. Then man must have determined the Lord's rest day, instead of God himself. And this again would be to place man above God. But the Lord avoided all this by himself appointing the day; for that is what the word "sanctify" means in Gen. 2:3. "Sanctify, from the Hebrew kadash, to pronounce holy, to appoint."—Gesenius. "To separate, set apart."—Clarke. "It is by this term that positive appointment of the Sabbath as a day of rest to man is expressed."—Professor Bush, Notes on Gen. 2:3. By this act God restricted mankind to that particular day, which now contained a blessing, and holy rest, not transferable, and compelled man to begin the week where he did or come into conflict with the divine arrangement.840 But if God had not made such appointment, to whom would it be left, the Jews? They did not exist till twenty-four hundred years later. Did he leave the institution unfinished over two millenniums of the time of its obligation, waiting for the Jews? It is absurd. No appointment of the day was granted the Jews; but the weekly Sabbath upon the seventh day of the week was from the first spoken of as a present, existing institution; thus: "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Ex. 16:23. "For today is a Sabbath." Verse 25. "The seventh day, which is the Sabbath." Verse 26. All this was before the giving of the law, and the same is noticeable when the ten commandments were written—"The seventh day is the Sabbath" (Ex. 20:10, 11), yet enjoined with reference to future time: "Remember . . . to keep it holy." "Six days shalt thou labor," but then not—and the seventh shall be a Sabbath unto you—"but the seventh day is the Sabbath." But the sabbaths and holy days peculiar to the Jews, even at the giving of those laws, are spoken of in the future tense: "It shall be unto you a Sabbath." Lev. 23:32. "On the first day [of the feast] shall be a Sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a Sabbath." Verse 39. "In the seventh year shall be a Sabbath." Lev. 25:4. These distinctions are made in the same chapter, showing that the one was a day of past appointment, while the other was a new institution. The authority to appoint the day of the Sabbath could not be given to nations, for no nation was in existence when it was instituted; nor would there ever have been any had sin not entered. They are the results of the disunion, of the curse; but all flesh would have been one people, as it will finally be. Zech. 14:9; John 10:16. If it were left to them, it would be left to the results of sin to determine and appoint holy Sabbaths; for civil powers are to protect society, and without sin society would have no more need of them than the heavenly society. Whatever was done was done then, when the Sabbath was made, and if nations do not get it from thence, then they can of right have nothing to do with it. The church has no such authority; for it did not rise in time to get it. At that time there was no church nor need of one any more than in heaven among the angels. Without the fall man would not have needed salvation in the way he now obtains it. Consequently there would have been no church and no creeds, and dogmas of ecclesiasticism would have bound discordant factions, but innocence and immaculate power would have held them to one head, one King, even Christ. If neither national power nor churches could have existed in that primeval state, in which and for which the Sabbath was made, then if the one to whom it was given were left to appoint the day for observance, it would fall to the lot of man, not as nations or churches but as individuals, for there was only one man at that time, and to him it was given, because it was made for mankind, and he was a man; Τὸ σάββατον δια τον ανθρωπον ἐγενετο—"The Sabbath was made for the man." Mark 2:27. Then it is not the property of any combination or body of men. They have no exclusive right to its regulation. It was given to Adam, and hence to his descendants, in the same way that life was, namely, to each individual. If left to anyone to appoint the day, it would be the individual, each individual. Then there would be universal disorder and confusion; the God of order would become the god of confusion. No church could expect all its members to be alike in practice. Every man would be left to his convenience, and no one but a tyrant could think of requiring the stranger within his gates to keep a day just because he did. There would be no concord of Christian worship. It would destroy Christian fellowship, and produce religious anarchy, which is antichristian. "The intent of the lawmaker is the law," and this intent must have been uniformity, and God's glory in uniformity, which brings us to the fact so many try to evade, viz., that THE COMMANDMENT DEMANDS A PARTICULAR DAY,
otherwise there could be no uniformity. If there is no particular day meant by it, there can be no uniformity of rest enforced by it. The one depends upon the other, and if the Sabbath precept does not limit the day, it is defective and imperfect,—a serious charge against God's law, which he himself declares is perfect (Ps. 19:7; James 1:25); yet it is the only conclusion, if the commandment does not restrict us to the particular day, because it is indispensable to a uniformity of practice to have the command restrictive. Men have tried to patch up the law of the Lord, by putting his command into their church books, and incorporating the particular day. But if God's law is sufficient without it, why not their catechisms? If he did not put it in, why dare they, when in the first organization of the church it was strictly forbidden to "add to" or "diminish" from the commandments of the Lord? Deut. 4:2. Again, if it were not the intent of the Law-giver, why should the particular day be given? And if God stated his restrictive requirement, how dare they remove it to another day? "Who hath known the mind of the Lord" when it is not revealed? and if it is revealed, who will disregard it? For four thousand years the people of God saw only one meaning in the commandment, and were united in supposing it to explicitly require a particular day, but after the falling away of the church, and its mixture with paganism, they discovered (?) that the commandment is not explicit (?) in requiring a particular day, and proceed to insert the only one they have,—Sunday,—long venerated by Mother Rome, a kind of teraphim hidden away among the stuff when they came out from her,—behold Rachel hath stolen her father's gods, and is sitting upon them. It is placed in the doctrinal church books under the fourth commandment, but it belongs to Rome. Did not God know the necessity of uniformity, and that mankind must be restricted to some particular day to insure it? and knowing it did he not provide for it? "Behold the children of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light;" for what king would make a Sabbath law, and leave the people to the day of their own choice, a law that did not demand "any day in particular," that was "not particular about the day," etc., and then attempt to enforce it on the theory of "any one day in seven"? What would be thought of one accused of desecrating the first day of the week, who would plead not guilty on the ground that the law did not require any particular first day, but only one first day in seven, and that he held Monday to be the first day of the week? Yet men will so misconstrue the law of the God of heaven and earth. Any power that should appoint a day of the week to be remembered and kept, in its numerical order, must also fix the beginning of the week, without which there could be no numerical order. And no man, nor church, nor nation has the right to change God's arrangement to make the first day the seventh. To do so would be to "put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter," and, instead of keeping his rest day (Sabbath), make another of our own; instead of keeping his, render ours in its stead. Reader, have you disposed of God's rest day for your own, or one made by the Catholic Church? God will require it of you again.