WHEN Justinian was about to commence the Vandal war, A. D. 533, an enterprise of no small magnitude and difficulty, he wished to secure the influence of the bishop of Rome, who had then attained a position in which his opinion had great weight throughout a large portion of Christendom. Justinian therefore took it upon himself to decide the contest which had long existed between the Sees of Rome and Constantinople, as to which should have the precedency, by giving the preference to Rome, and declaring, in the fullest and most unequivocal terms, that the bishop of that city should be chief of the whole ecclesiastical body of the empire. A work on the Apocalypse, by Rev. George Croly, of England, published in 1827, gives a detailed account of the events by which the supremacy of the pope of Rome was secured. He gives the following as the terms in which the decree of Justinian was expressed:--
"Justinian, pious, fortunate, renowned, triumphant, emperor, consul, etc., to John, the most holy archbishop of our city of Rome, patriarch.
"Rendering honor to the apostolic chair and to your holiness, as has been always, and is, our wish, and honoring your blessedness as a father; we have hastened to bring to the knowledge of your holiness all matters relating to the state of the churches; it having been at all times our great desire to preserve the unity of your apostolic chair, and the constitution of the holy churches of God, which has obtained hitherto, and still obtains.
"Therefore we have made no delay in subjecting and uniting to your holiness all the priests of the whole East. . . . We cannot suffer that anything which relates to the state of the church, however manifest and unquestionable, should be moved without the knowledge of your holiness, who is THE HEAD OF ALL THE HOLY CHURCHES; for in all things, as we have already declared, we are anxious to increase the honor and authority of your apostolic chair."--Croly, pp. 114, 115.
"The emperor's letter," continues Mr. Croly, "must have been sent before the 25th of March, 533. For in his letter of that date to Epiphanius, he speaks of its having been already dispatched, and repeats his decision, that all affairs touching the church shall be referred to the pope, 'head of all bishops and the true and effective corrector of heretics.'"
The pope, in his answer, returned the same month of the following year, 534, observes that among the virtues of Justinian, "one shines as a star, his reverence for the apostolic chair, to which he has subjected and united all the churches, it being truly the head of all."
The "Novellæ" of the Justinian code give unanswerable proof of the authenticity of the title. The preamble of the 9th states that "as the elder Rome was the founder of the laws, so was it not to be questioned that in her was the supremacy of the Pontificate." The 131st, on the ecclesiastical titles and privileges, chapter 2, states: "We therefore decree that the most holy pope of the elder Rome is the first of all the priesthood, and that the most blessed archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, shall hold the second rank after the holy apostolic chair of the elder Rome."
Toward the close of the sixth century, John of Constantinople denied the Roman supremacy, and assumed for himself the title of universal bishop; whereupon, Gregory the Great, indignant at the usurpation, denounced John, and declared, with unconscious truth, that he who would assume the title of universal bishop was Antichrist. Phocas, in 606, suppressed the claim of the bishop of Constantinople, and vindicated that of the bishop of Rome. But Phocas was not the founder of papal supremacy. Says Croly, "That Phocas repressed the claim of the bishop of Constantinople is beyond a doubt. But the highest authorities among the civilians and annalists of Rome, spurn the idea that Phocas was the founder of the supremacy of Rome; they ascend to Justinian as the only legitimate source, and rightly date the title from the memorable year 533." Again he says: "On reference to Baronius, the established authority among the Roman Catholic annalists, I found the whole detail of Justinian's grants of supremacy to the pope formally given. The entire transaction was of the most authentic and regular kind, and suitable to the importance of the transfer."
Such were the circumstances attending the decree of Justinian. But the provisions of this decree could not at once be carried into effect; for Rome and Italy were held by the Ostrogoths, who were Arians in faith, and strongly opposed to the religion of Justinian and the pope. It was therefore evident that the Ostrogoths must be rooted out of Rome before the pope could exercise the power with which he had been clothed. To accomplish this object, the Italian war was commenced in 534. The management of the campaign was intrusted to Belisarius. On his approach toward Rome, several cities forsook Vitijes, their Gothic and heretical sovereign, and joined the armies of the Catholic emperor. The Goths, deciding to delay offensive operations till spring, allowed Belisarius to enter Rome without opposition. "The deputies of the pope and clergy, of the senate and people, invited the lieutenant of Justinian to accept their voluntary allegiance."
Belisarius entered Rome Dec. 10, 536. But this was not an end of the struggle; for the Goths, rallying their forces, resolved to dispute his possession of the city by a regular siege. They commenced in March, 537. Belisarius feared despair and treachery on the part of the people. Several senators, and Pope Sylverius, on proof or suspicion of treason, were sent into exile. The emperor commanded the clergy to elect a new bishop. After solemnly invoking the Holy Ghost, says Gibbon, they elected the deacon Vigilius, who, by a bribe of two hundred pounds of gold, had purchased the honor.
The whole nation of the Ostrogoths had been assembled for the siege of Rome; but success did not attend their efforts. Their hosts melted away in frequent and bloody combats under the walls of the city; and the year and nine days, during which the siege lasted, witnessed almost the entire consumption of the whole nation. In the month of March, 538, dangers beginning to threaten them from other quarters, they raised the siege, burned their tents, and retired in tumult and confusion from the city, with numbers scarcely sufficient to preserve their existence as a nation, or their identity as a people.
Thus the Gothic horn, the last of the three, was plucked up before the little horn of Dan. 7. Nothing now stood in the way of the pope to prevent his exercising the power conferred upon him by Justinian, five years before. The saints, times, and laws, were now in his hands, not in purpose only, but in fact. And this must therefore be taken as the year when this abomination was placed, or set up, and as the point from which to date the predicted 1260 years of its supremacy.
VERSE 32. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries; but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
Those that forsake the covenant, the Holy Scriptures, and think more of the decrees of popes and the decisions of councils, than they do of the word of God,--these shall he, the pope, corrupt by flatteries; that is, lead them on in their partisan zeal for himself, by the bestowment of wealth, position, and honors.
At the same time, a people shall exist who know their God; and these shall be strong, and do exploits. These were those who kept pure religion alive in the earth during the dark ages of papal rule, and performed marvelous acts of self-sacrifice and religious heroism in behalf of their faith. Prominent among these, stand the Waldenses, Albigenses, Huguenots, etc.
VERSE 33. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many; yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.
The long period of papal persecution against those who were struggling to maintain the truth and instruct their fellow-men in ways of righteousness, is here brought to view. The number of the days during which they were thus to fall, is given in Dan. 7:25; 12:7; Rev. 12:6, 14; 13:5.
VERSE 34. Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help; but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.
In Rev. 12, where this same papal persecution is brought to view, we read that the earth helped the woman by opening her mouth and swallowing up the flood which the dragon cast out after her. The great Reformation by Luther and his co-workers furnished the help here foretold. The German States espoused the Protestant cause, and protected the reformers, and restrained the work of persecution so furiously carried on by the papal church. But when they should be helped, and the cause begin to become popular, many should cleave unto them with flatteries, or embrace the cause from unworthy motives, be insincere, hollow-hearted, and speak smooth and friendly words through a policy of self-interest.
VERSE 35. And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end; because it is yet for a time appointed.
Though restrained, the spirit of persecution was not destroyed. It broke out wherever there was opportunity. Especially was this the case in England. The religious state of that kingdom was fluctuating, it being sometimes under Protestant, and sometimes under papal, jurisdiction, according to the religion of the ruling house. The bloody queen Mary was a mortal enemy to the Protestant cause, and multitudes fell victims to her relentless persecutions. And this condition of affairs was to last more or less to the time of the end. The natural conclusion would be that when the time of the end should come, this power which the church of Rome had possessed to punish heretics, which had been the cause of so much persecution, and which had for a time been restrained, would now be taken entirely away; and the conclusion would be equally evident that this taking away of the papal supremacy would mark the commencement of the period here called the time of the end. If this application is correct, the time of the end commenced in 1798; for there, as already noticed, the papacy was overthrown by the French, and has never since been able to wield the power it before possessed.
VERSE 36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished; for that that is determined shall be done.
The king here introduced cannot denote the same power which was last noticed, namely, the papal power; for the specifications will not hold good, if applied to that power. Take a declaration in the next verse: "Nor regard any god." This has never been true of the papacy. God and Christ, though often placed in a false position, have never been set aside and rejected from that system of religion. The only difficulty in applying it to a new power, lies in the definite article "the;" for, it is urged, the expression "the king" would identify this as the one last spoken of. If it could be properly translated a king, there would be no difficulty; and it is said that some of the best Biblical critics give it this rendering, Mede, Wintle, Boothroyd, and others, translating the passage, "A certain king shall do according to his will," thus clearly introducing a new power upon the stage of action.
Three particulars must be shown in the power which fulfills this prophecy: 1. It must assume the character here delineated near the commencement of the time of the end, to which we were brought down in the preceding verse. 2. It must be a willful power. 3. It must be an atheistical power. Or perhaps the two latter might be united, by saying that its willfulness would be manifested in the direction of atheism. A revolution exactly answering to this description did take place in France at the time indicated in the prophecy. Voltaire had sown the seeds which bore their legitimate and baleful fruit. That godless infidel in his impious but impotent self-conceit had said: "I am weary of hearing people repeat that twelve men established the Christian religion. I will prove that one man may suffice to overthrow it." Associating with himself such men as Rousseau, De Alembert, Diderot, and others, he undertook the work. They sowed to the wind and reaped the whirlwind. Their efforts culminated in the revolution of 1793, when the Bible was discarded, and the existence of the Deity denied, as the voice of the nation.
Above the Fog
By Charles Haddon Spurgeon
Sometimes a fog will settle over a vessel's deck, and yet leave the topmast clear. Then a sailor goes up aloft, and gets a lookout which the helmsman on the deck cannot get. So prayer sends the soul aloft; lifts it above the clouds in which our selfishness and egotism befog us, and gives us a chance to see which way to steer.—Spurgeon.
The Basis of Great Lives
By James Martineau
Of all great souls, of all steadfast and heroic lives, the ultimate basis is simple trust in God, and a profound sense of the divine significance and relations of our being here.—James Martineau.
God as Our Last Resource
By George Macdonald
How often do we look upon God as our last and feeblest resource. We go to him because we have nowhere else to go.—George Macdonald.
The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Parable of the Talents.
This parable was given, as we are told by Luke, "because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." Under the figure of a nobleman going "into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return," Christ conveyed the information that he was to go to the Father and receive his kingdom, which would be set up at his second coming. The disciples did not at once grasp the full meaning of this and similar parables. They still continued to look for a temporal kingdom. They thought that Christ was going to help the Jews to throw off the Roman yoke, and to give to them the sovereignty of the world. On the day of the resurrection, we hear two of the disciples saying, in their despondency, "But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel;" and at the ascension they asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" Christ did not expect them to fully comprehend at once all that he taught them, but he knew that it would afterward be brought to their minds by the Holy Spirit, and they would understand it. See John 14:26.
"And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every one according to his several ability." A different amount was given to each one; no two have the same degree of talent. But no one can complain, for what he receives is not his by right—not as wages earned—but as a gift. The master delivered unto them his goods. He had a right to do as he pleased with his own. Moreover, one has no right to boast over another, for it was not through their own exertion that they received their talents. Paul says, "That no one of you be puffed up for one against another. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" 1 Cor. 4:6, 7.
Here also is a reproof for those who wish that they were in another's position. Some think that if they had another's wealth, they would do a great amount of good. Others wish that they could speak or write as some other one can, or that they had his influence. Now the probability is that if they had these greater talents that they wish for, they would misuse them. Not willfully, perhaps, from inability to handle them properly. There are men in an army, who make excellent officers as captains, but who would fail utterly as division commanders. They can serve their country in a low position better than in a higher one; and if they fill that low position well, they are entitled to their full measure of credit. Let no one complain, then, of the lowliness of his station, for the Master knows exactly what we are able to do, and has given "to every man according to his several ability."
"After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them." A day of reckoning will surely come. God has "appointed a day in the which he will judge the world." Because it is put off for a "long time," many flatter themselves that it will never come. See Eccl. 8:11. This is a fatal mistake. "Every man's work shall be made manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." 1 Cor. 3:13.
Notice the impartiality of the commendation. The one to whom five talents had been given had gained five talents beside them. The one who had received two talents had also doubled them. To each the lord said: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." The reward does not depend on the absolute amount accomplished, but on the faithfulness. The first had done more than the second, but only because he had been given more to work with. If the man with the one talent has been as faithful, he would have received the same commendation.
In the fate of the unfaithful servant, lies the great lesson of the parable. After telling him that he ought to have put his talent to the exchangers, that it might have increased, the lord said: "Take, therefore, the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents. For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not, shall be taken away even that which he hath."
The servant was not accused of robbing his master. He gave back all that was entrusted to him. But this was not enough; he should have added to his store. The lesson is that God requires every individual to add to the talents that have been given to him. These talents are of various kinds, and may be very small, yet the requirement is the same. Some people do not understand how it can be that, "from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." In Luke 8:18, the passage reads, "And whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have." The talents did not belong to the servants. They were their capital in business, and were loaned to them. They had them, but they were not theirs in fact. They only seemed to be their own. The unfaithful servant acknowledged this when he said, "Lo, there thou hast that is thine." When he had given back that which had been originally given to him, he had absolutely nothing.
A great responsibility, then, rests upon every one of us. We are not at liberty to do as we please with our talents, whether they are money, education, or influence. Let us so use them, that, instead of having them taken from us at the last, more may be given to us. "Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."
E. J. W.
The Anointing of Jesus.
By Mrs. E. G. White
A HASTY council of the priests and Pharisees was called to determine how to proceed with regard to Jesus, in view of the excitement and enthusiasm of the people on his account. They decided that it would be dangerous to seize upon him openly on any pretext, for since the raising of Lazarus, the sympathies of the people were greatly in favor of Jesus. So they determined to use craft and take him secretly, avoiding all uproar or interference, carry on the mockery of a trial as quietly as possible, and trust to the fickle tide or public opinion to set in their favor when it was known that Jesus was condemned to death.
But another consideration came up: If they should execute Jesus, and Lazarus should remain as a witness of his miraculous power to raise from the dead, the very fact that a man existed who had been four days in the grave, and whose body had begun to decay, yet had been called to life and health by a word from Jesus, would sooner or later create a reaction and bring disaster upon themselves for sacrificing the life of Him who could perform such a miracle for the benefit of humanity. They therefore decided that Lazarus must also die. They felt that if the people were to lose confidence in their rulers, the national power would be destroyed.
To such lengths do envy and bitter prejudice lead their slaves. In rejecting Christ, the Pharisees placed themselves where darkness and superstition closed around them, until, continually increasing in hatred and unbelief, they were ready to imbrue their hands in blood, to accomplish their unholy ends, and would even take the life of one whom Infinite power had rescued from the grave. They placed themselves where no power, human or divine, could reach them; they sinned against the Holy Spirit, and God had no reserve power to meet their case. Their rebellion against Christ was settled and determined; he was a stumbling-block and a rock of offense to them; they would not have this man Jesus to reign over them. While all this plotting was going on at Jerusalem, Jesus was quietly resting from his labors at the house of Lazarus. Simon of Bethany, whom Jesus had healed of leprosy, wishing to show his Master special honor, made a supper and invited him and his friends as guests. The Saviour sat at the table, with Simon, whom he had cured of a loathsome disease, on one side, and Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, on the other. Martha served at the table, but Mary was earnestly listening to every word that fell from the lips of Jesus. She saw that he was sad; she knew that immediately after raising her brother from the dead, he was obliged to seclude himself in order to escape the persecution of the leading Jews. As she looked upon her brother in the strength of perfect health, her heart went out in gratitude to Jesus who had restored him to the grave.
At great personal sacrifice Mary had purchased an alabaster box of precious ointment with which to anoint the body of Jesus at his death: But she now heard many express an opinion that he would be elevated to kingly authority when he went to Jerusalem, and she was only too ready to believe that it would be so. She rejoiced that her Saviour would no longer be despised and rejected, and obliged to flee for his life. In her love and gratitude she wished to be the first to do him honor, and, seeking to avoid observation, anointed his head and feet with the precious ointment, and then wiped his feet with her long, flowing hair.
Her movements had been unobserved by the others, but the odor filled the house with its fragrance and published her act to all present. Some of the disciples manifested displeasure at this act, and Judas boldly expressed his disapprobation at such a wasteful extravagance. He was a stranger to the deep devotion and homage which actuated Mary to her deed of love. He had been appointed treasurer of the united funds of the disciples, and had dishonestly appropriated to himself the means which were designed for the service of God.
He had indulged a spirit of avarice until it had overpowered every good trait in his character. This act of Mary was in such marked contrast with his selfishness that he was ashamed of his avarice, and sought to attribute his objection to her gift, to a worthier motive. Turning to the disciples he asked, "Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?" Thus he sought to hide his covetousness under apparent sympathy for the poor, when, in reality, he cared nothing for them.
He longed to have the avails of the expensive ointment in his own hands to apply to his own selfish purposes. By his professed sympathy for the poor he deceived his fellow-disciples, and by his artful insinuations caused them to look distrustfully upon the devoted Mary. Whispered hints of prodigality passed round the table: "To what purpose is this waste? for this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor."
Mary had offered her gift in the grateful homage of her heart, and Jesus explained her motive and vindicated her deed. "Let her alone," he said. "Why," he asked, "trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me." He justified her work to all present, as evincing her gratitude to him for lifting her from a life of shame to one of purity, and teaching her to believe in him. Said he, "Against the day of my burying hath she kept this." The ointment so sacredly kept to anoint the dead body of her Lord she had poured upon his head in the belief that he was about to be lifted to a throne in Jerusalem.
Had the disciples rightly appreciated the exalted character of their Master, they would have considered no sacrifice too costly to offer to the Son of God. The wise men of the East understood more definitely his true position, and the honor due him, than his own followers, who had received his instruction and beheld his mighty miracles. They brought precious gifts to the Saviour, and bent in homage before him, while he was but a babe, and cradled in a manger.
The look which Jesus cast upon the selfish Judas convinced him that the Master penetrated his hypocrisy and read his base, contemptible character. He was stirred with resentment. His heart burned with envy that Jesus should be the recipient of an offering suitable to the monarchs of earth. He went directly from that supper to the chief priests, and agreed to betray him into their hands.
In the case of Judas we see the fearful result of covetousness and unholy anger. He begrudged the offering made to Jesus, and although not personally rebuked, he was irritated to combine revenge with his avarice, and sell his Lord for a few pieces of silver. Mary showed how highly she prized the Saviour when she accounted the most precious gift none too costly for him; but Judas valued Jesus at the price for which he sold the Son of God against a paltry sum of money. The same cold, calculating spirit is manifested by many who profess Christ to-day. Their offerings to his cause are grudgingly bestowed or withheld altogether under various plausible excuses. A pretense of wide philanthropy, unlimited by church or creed, is not unfrequently one of them, and they plead, like Judas, it is better to give to the poor. But the true Christian shows his faith by investing in the cause of truth; he is known by his works, for "faith without works is dead."—Life of Christ, by Mrs. E. G. White.
Sunday in the Fourth Commandment.
LOYALTY to the law of God we highly respect, wherever we find it. Of all the dangerous isms of the age, antinomianism holds the lowest place in our estimation. And we think deservedly so, because the law of God is fundamental; it is of the very first importance. All other relations in life grow out of our relation to the law of our Creator and Supreme Governor. Therefore disloyalty to that law is the strongest evidence of treasonable feelings against the divine government.
With regret we have noticed, during the last quarter of a century, a growing disregard for the claims of the decalogue as a code of morals, even among those whose professions would lead us to expect better things. One of the most distinctive features of Methodism, in its early rise, was its repudiation of antinomianism. Wesley and Fletcher battled manfully against this heresy which was largely prevailing in the established church. But how is it with their successors? Dr. Benson, late editor of the California Christian Advocate, published a pamphlet which was indorsed by denominational action, which, in its method of argument, and in its treatment of the fourth commandment, struck at the very life of the decalogue as a moral and perpetual rule of life. And Mr. Armstrong, of one of the eastern Conferences, wrote a pamphlet which, with an introduction by a Methodist D.D., was published by the Methodist Publishing Concern, which directly undermines the fourth commandment. But the wise men of that great and influential denomination surely know that it is impossible to destroy reverence and respect for that commandment and still maintain reverence for the other nine of the code. When they repudiate that, calling the seventh day, which is the only subject of the commandment, “the Jewish Sabbath,” they are strengthening the hands of those who repudiate the decalogue as a rule of Christian life, or the basis of Christianity. The gospel system is remedial—it is for “the remission of sins.” But “sin is the transgression of the law.” And he who invalidates the law nullifies the gospel as a means of remission.
The commandment says, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” not the Sabbath of the Jews. Why will Methodists and Presbyterians perpetuate and spread the error of calling the seventh day the Jewish Sabbath, against the plain terms of the commandment? We have tried, and tried in vain, to get the authorities of the Methodist church, to defend Mr. Armstrong's position in regard to the Sabbath, especially his argument on Ex. 16 and 20. We are forced to the conclusion that they will not repudiate his argument, and that they cannot defend it. We are willing to stand corrected in any and every point wherein we erred, if we did err, in our review of Armstrong's argument. And if we did err, why do they not point it out, on our repeatedly requesting it? If we did not err, if Mr. Armstrong perverted the testimony of the Scriptures, why do they continue to indorse and to circulate the perversion? These are serious matters. On the authority of his commandments “God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. 12:13, 14.
We observe that the recent State Sunday-school Convention at Stockton, upheld the authority of the fourth commandment. We are glad of it; only we wish they were consistent, and would not try to throw the authority of the commandment over the first day of the week. Some years ago a Mr. Baird, a Congregationalist minister, made this application of the law in a labored argument. By request we reviewed the argument at the time; and as the same position is taken almost every day by some religionists, we copy the following paragraphs from that review:—
In presenting the reason of Sabbath obligation God never refers to Adam, nor to the day of his creation, but to the creation of the world in six days and to his own rest on the seventh day. The work of creation in six days, dating from “the beginning,” and the seventh day of rest, cover the first week of time, and here only is the origin of the week of seven days. Yet Mr. Baird gravely asserts that the fact that the seventh day rest was not the seventh day of Adam's life is sufficient to entirely disprove the position of Seventh-day Adventists! Every Bible reader knows, or may know, that the day of Adam's creation has nothing whatever to do with the time selected and consecrated as the Sabbath.
The word Sabbath means rest. And we inquire, Whose rest-day was man to observe? It was God's rest-day. “The seventh day is the Sabbath [rest-day] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” How came the seventh day to be God's rest-day? “In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” These are the words of Jehovah himself. And they show, inasmuch as Sabbath means rest, and the Lord's Sabbath day is the Lord's rest-day, that no day can be the Lord's Sabbath, or rest, but that day on which the Lord sabbatized or rested. The Lord said, “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep,” not our own, nor any one that we may choose. The following points should be carefully considered, as they are beyond dispute, and cover the whole question: 1. The resting of God on the seventh day is the only reason given in the Bible for the institution of the Sabbath. And, 2. The day on which God rested is the only day which, in the Bible, is required to be kept as the Sabbath. Thus the record in Gen. 2:3, reads: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work.” The fourth commandment literally translated reads: “Remember the rest-day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work. But the seventh day is the rest of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” From “the beginning” God ordained that “the seventh day”—his own rest—should be set apart to a sacred use; and this, not to make it a rest-day, but because it was his rest-day; not dependent at all on our action, as Mr. Baird says, but to make our action conform to his example, both in his work and his rest.
The fourth commandment of the decalogue is the only precept of Sabbath obligation in the Bible. Let this be borne in mind. This precept is based expressly on the events of the first week of time; and it covers the entire week. When God created the heavens and earth, just six days were employed. But in establishing the week, another day was added to the six days of his work, and thus the week became seven days in length; and so it has continued to this present time. But as his work was finished in six days, the remaining day was God's rest-day of the week. Because he rested upon it, he blessed it; that is, he put honor upon it. And he sanctified it; that is, he separated it from the other days, and set it apart to sacred observance. Because it was his rest-day he blessed it; and because it bore the divine benediction he commanded man to keep it holy.
Now we appeal to every reader if it is not contrary to both reason and Scripture to apply these facts, or any of them, to any day but the seventh day. Why did God number off just seven days, if not to establish a week of seven days? All know that the cycle of seven days, or the week, had no other origin. And God's providence and his word has preserved, always and everywhere, this reckoning of seven days to the week. He said that in the first day he created the elements of which all things were formed, and caused the light to shine upon them. But he did not, therefore, set apart the first day to a sacred use. For that he chose the seventh day, because that, and that only, would be a memorial of all his work. A rest supposes a work performed. Inasmuch as each of the first six days was employed in work, and a different work was done in each, no one of them could possibly be a memorial of “all his work, which God created and made.”
The cycle of seven days to the week was plainly pointed out at creation, and no one can point to any thing else as its origin. And we have seen that no fact recorded in connection with the institution of the Sabbath will apply to any day but to the seventh day of that first week of time. Therefore, to assert, as Mr. Baird repeatedly does, that the commandment does not refer to the seventh day of the week, is an evasion and a perversion of the law of God. It is only folly to assert that the phrase, “the seventh day,” means a seventh day, or any seventh day after any six days. If that is the meaning of the language, then the phrase, “the sixth day,” in Ex. 16, would mean any sixth day after an interval of five days. That is, if “the seventh day” is a term of proportion, and marks indefinitely a seventh of a cycle of seven, then also “the sixth day” marks merely a sixth part of a cycle of six. From this, it is easy to see that the order to gather manna on the sixth day, that is, on a day of a cycle of six, would soon come in conflict with the order to gather none on the seventh day; for the end of the sixth cycle of seven would coincide with the end of the seventh cycle of six. So absurd is this indefinite seventh-day theory.
Dr. Edwards leads the way in which Mr. Baird has followed, saying, in his (so-called) Sabbath Manual, that the words six and seven in the commandment denote proportion, and not order. But the falsity of this assertion is too evident to require much argument for its refutation. For the word “seven” is not in the commandment, but the word “seventh,” which is an ordinal number. Order, and not proportion, is the idea of the law. To justify this perversion, Mr. Baird says the commandment does not say the seventh day of the week. This is a very weak evasion. It refers to no seventh day but that of the week. When God rested, and blessed the seventh day, only one week had elapsed; hence it was of necessity the seventh day of that week. No other computation but that of the week was, at that time, possible. At the falling of the manna the seventh-day Sabbath immediately succeeded “the sixth day.” Now this sixth day was either the sixth day of the week, or it was a sixth part of a cycle of six, after Mr. Baird's favorite method of computing cycles. But it could not have been a part of a cycle of six, for in seven such cycles it would coincide with the seventh day of a cycle of seven; and therefore the requirement to gather a double portion of manna, and that not to gather any, would have fallen on the same day. Hence it was the sixth day of the week and the seventh day following it was the seventh day of the week. Again, while the Saviour lay in the grave, his disciples “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” And the day following was “the first day of the week.” As every week has seven days and no more, the seventh day of one week must immediately precede the first day of the next week. Therefore it was the seventh day of the week which was then kept “according to the commandment.” Nor could they have kept any other day of the week and kept the commandment. For the commandment is based entirely on the fact that God wrought six days and rested the seventh day of the first week of time. No other cycle but that of the week then existed, and the weekly cycle originated there, and there only.
We will illustrate the folly of Mr. Baird's method of identifying the seventh day. Say a man has seven sons; the first-born is named John; the youngest, Robert. The father makes a will, bequeathing to each of his sons one thousand dollars, but having a customary fondness for his youngest, bequeathes to his seventh son ten thousand dollars. John determines to gain the ten thousand dollars for himself; therefore he calls the family together, and places them in a circle; commencing just next to himself he counts around, and of course reckons himself the seventh, and on that enumeration claims the ten thousand dollars. Now John has thoroughly instructed them that “the seventh son” means one son after six others, no matter where you begin to count! And while Robert fully believes in the correctness of this method in regard to the claims of God and of his commandments, he is not so ready to admit it when his own rights are involved; and therefore he throws the matter into court where John's method of determining “the seventh son” is condemned on short hearing. And so, when God shall bring every work into judgment in the light of his own commandments, will be condemned all the petty evasions by which men seek to escape God's requirement to keep the seventh day.