This is found, not in the Bible, but in a French letter which a Protestant French lady of Serena, Illinois, handed me a short time since. This letter claims to have been written by “God, the Almighty, the Lord of Heaven and earth.” It purports to have been communicated to man in a wonderful manner. It claims to have been first seen suspended in the air and magnificently written in gold letters, before the city of Magdenburg, Prussia, June 2, 1816. It opens with a curse against those who labor on Sunday, and reads thus:—
“Whosoever worketh on Sunday, or the Lord’s day, is cursed. I, Jesus Christ, ordain that you should not work on Sunday, but that you should spend that day in going to church with that devotion which is requisite. . . . . Thou shalt labor six days, but shalt sanctify the seventh, which is the Lord’s day. Consider that I created heaven and earth in six days, and that it is in my power to destroy them. If thou dost not sanctify the Lord’s day, I shall send you war and pestilence, or I shall send you incendiaries, inundations, and famine. I shall poison your fields and chasten you with swellings as I chastened the Egyptians. If you do not repent, but continue to sin before the Lord, the Eternal, I shall punish you in the abyss of hell as I punished Sodom and Gomorrah.”
“I, Jesus Christ, command you to not work late Saturday night, but to rest, that you may be able to get to church early Sunday to confess your sins, repent sincerely and reform, that you may be forgiven. Labor not for gold and silver, or for great riches which lead to perdition. Abstain from fornication, which is abhorred by Heaven, and will be punished in time and in eternity. Cease to swear and to speak evil of others. Keep your children under strict discipline. A slack discipline will prove their ruin. And you who fail in your duty shall be punished in body and in soul. Thou rich man, cause the poor to rejoice. Thou virtuous poor shalt be recompensed by my blessings. . . . Children, honor your parents by your piety, and you will receive the crown.”
“I, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have written this letter with my own hand. Whosoever shall contradict it shall be excluded from my power and favor, and shall be cut off from the Christian church. He who shall have this letter in his house and shall not communicate it to the children of men, shall be cursed with his house. But if your sins are as numerous as the sand of the sea or as the blades of grass in all the earth, they shall be forgiven you, if you repent sincerely and reform. I shall call you to a strict account in the day of Judgment if you have had this letter in your house and have not communicated it to others. If you have committed this error, you shall not be protected against inundations, against incendiaries, or against the lightning; but he who shall communicate this letter to his neighbor and shall keep it constantly on his person through love for me, to keep my ordinances, such a one shall be recompensed publicly.
“Communication made by an angel, June 2, 1816.”
I was surprised to learn that even some Protestants in France as well as in this country respect this letter and preserve it as a choice relic. But I do not know as this is a greater error than to reject such documents and yet receive Sunday for the Sabbath on the authority of the Roman Catholic church. The curses that are here threatened are calculated to frighten the timid, who are kept in darkness, while the blessings that are promised, being associated with some good instructions, will lead some truly conscientious, but uninformed, souls to render implicit obedience to all that is here enjoined.
But if the Bible is not a sufficient rule of faith and practice, and if the Catholic church is the only authority for the first-day Sabbath, why is not the letter before us as good an argument in favor of Sunday-keeping as any that can be produced? Here is a letter claiming to have been written by God, the Father, and by the very hand of Jesus Christ! At the same time, it is a “communication made by an angel!” It also presents curses and blessings which relate to this life and to that which is to come. If you obey it strictly you will have the privilege of going early to a Roman Catholic church every Sunday morning, and of confessing your sins to a Catholic priest. And you may derive as much virtue in carrying this letter on your person as you would in wearing any other relic of the Catholic church. Why should not those Protestants who so scrupulously observe the first day, knowing that they have no other authority than the Church of Rome for their practice, receive this document, and turn Catholic?
The first lesson I ever learned on the authority of the change of the Sabbath was in an interview with a Roman Catholic priest eighteen years ago this winter. I claimed that as a true Protestant I took the Bible and the Bible alone as my rule of faith and practice, and promised that if he could show me that I did not follow the Bible, I would correct my faith and practice. The priest replied: “We, the Catholic church, take the Bible and tradition. We have changed the Sabbath to the first day by our tradition, and not by the Bible, which says not a word in favor of a change of the Sabbath. You Protestants are very glad to adopt this relic of our tradition. Why not come wholly over to the mother church?”
Thank God for this lesson, and that I was disposed to correct myself by the Bible on the Sabbath question.
D. T. BOURDEAU.
The Breath of Lives.
By J. H. Waggoner
Not long since, I heard a funeral sermon preached by a minister of the M. E. church, who mentioned that in Gen 2:7, “the breath of lives” (plural) is said to have been given to man, and he affirmed that a two-fold life was given to him, or, rather, two lives, one of the body and one of the soul or spirit. And then he challenged the world to prove that it did not mean that man was possessed of immortality or an immortal soul! But “the world” probably thought it was unbecoming to accept a challenge at a funeral, as it certainly was to give one, and therefore it very properly held its peace.
It may be worth while to look at this point to see if any conclusion can be rightfully drawn from this text in favor of natural immortality.
1. The man who became a living soul, not to whom an immortal soul was imparted, was made of the dust of the ground. It was into this man, made of dust, that the breath of lives was breathed;
2. That nothing can be claimed on the term “living soul” is proved in that the same term is applied to the creeping things of the earth, in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. That the plural—lives—is not decisive of man's immortality is shown in Gen. 6:17, and 7:21, 22, wherein the same form of expression is used in reference to the lower animals. The last cited text is very strong—“the breath of the spirit of lives,” applied both to man and to other animals.
4. It must be admitted that man was deprived of access to the tree of life in order to the execution of the sentence that he should die; that is, he was deprived of the means of perpetuating his life. Said the Lord, “Lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever; therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden.”
5. It is clearly shown by this that if man had been permitted to eat of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, or have been immortal; and that he could not continue to live because not permitted to eat of that tree.
6. But the word life in the phrase, “tree of life,” is always in the Hebrew in the plural; literally, tree of lives; and therefore if the plural in the breath of lives proves that two lives were given to man, the plural in the tree of lives proves that the continuance of these lives was suspended on his partaking of the tree. If he had a plurality of lives, yet when he was shut out from the tree of lives lest he should live forever, evidently both or all his lives were involved in the loss.
7. Therefore it is seen that it is not enough for the advocates of natural immortality to merely show that lives, plural, is found in Gen. 2:7, nor to assert that immortal life was imparted; but it must be proved that one of his lives was immortal or eternal, and that it could not be affected by his being deprived of the tree of lives, which is contrary to the obvious meaning of Gen. 3:22-24.
8. It is neither frank nor honorable to draw a conclusion from an expression or a word in the original which a harmony of the original plainly contradicts. But if they who put forth the claim referred to, do not know what the harmony of the original is, it does not increase our respect for their frankness or ability to hear them “challenge the world” to meet them on a point on which they are so evidently ignorant.
9. The more this subject is examined the more evident it appears that man is a weak, perishing mortal, entirely dependent on Jesus Christ for eternal life, which will be given to the righteous in the first resurrection, over which “the second death hath no power;” and that men, instead of exalting themselves and boasting of their strength and glory, would do well to acknowledge that they are vanity, and of the dust, and pray as one of old, “Lord, make me to know mine end, and the measure of my days, what it is, that I may know how frail I am.” May a sense of our frailty lead us to seek “eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
J. H. WAGGONER.
Experience and Character of the Living Christians at the Second Advent.
By R. F. Cottrell
We often hear it asserted that it is of no importance to us to know when the advent is near, if we are only prepared for it; as if one could live in the day of God’s preparation, amidst the fulfillment of signs in heaven and on earth, and pass the last conflict between truth and error, and the last persecution of the church in the time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation upon the earth, from which all of God’s people are to be delivered in connection with the resurrection from the dead, Dan. 12:1, 2, and not be aware that the end is at hand, and yet be a believer in Christ and the Bible! and hence perfectly prepared for what is coming, prepared for the last trial and the final deliverance!
For the benefit of those who entertain such a view, we call their attention to the fact that the experience of the last of the church is clearly foretold in prophecy. In the first place, from the fulfillment of signs in the sun, moon, and stars, they will know that the advent is near, even at the doors. Matt. 24:29–35. Then, the prophetic numbers being unsealed, which were sealed up to the time of the end, a message is heard to the ends of the earth, “Fear God, and give glory to him, for the hour of his judgment is come;” the fall of Babylon is announced, and the final warning is given against the worship of the beast and his image, and the impending day of wrath proclaimed. Rev. 14:6–12. The order of events is foretold, the programme is laid down, the experience of the church is clearly foreshown. What believer in God and his word can pass through all this, and still not be aware that the end is at hand? Who, without the benefit of hearing and heeding the last warning, will be all prepared to be delivered in the day of wrath? The living church, at the second advent, will have passed this, their foretold experience. Can they be believers who can pass all this and not know it?
Again, the character of the church at the second advent is foretold. They will be distinguished from merely nominal Christians from the fact that they “keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” The fact that under a terrific warning a people are tested out from nominal Christianity that keep the commandments of God is proof positive that the others are not keeping them. This separation, effected by the last message, will lead to the last persecution. This persecution will come upon them because they “keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” Rev. 12:17; 13:15. From this they will be delivered, and they will stand with the Lamb upon Mount Zion, because they have his Father’s name written in their foreheads, and not the mark of the name of the beast. Rev. 14:1. Here are two distinguishing characteristics.
1. They keep the commandments of God. If any desire to know what commandments are here referred to, the answer is, The very ones on which the Christian world is divided—the ones which are now in agitation among the people. Nothing can be plainer than this. Let those who would obey God keep those commandments of God which are in dispute. There is no dispute about the ceremonial or Jewish law. The contention is on the moral law or ten commandments. These, then, are the commandments. The Sabbath of this law is especially the bone of contention. This, then, is of special importance at the present time. And what is the only safe course? Keep the commandments.
2. The remnant of the church are distinguished from the others by having “the testimony of Jesus Christ.” This is defined to be “the spirit of prophecy.” Rev. 19:10. Compare Rev. 22:9. This is their second characteristic, and the second ground of the final war upon them. Amid the false spirit manifestation of these days, where will the true be found? The answer is, With those who keep the commandments of God. They will certainly be found with the last of the true church.
R. F. COTTRELL.
The Dark Day.
THE testimony of a living witness of the dark day, May 19, 1780.
The venerable centenarian, Miss Hannah Worster of Berwick was one hundred and one years old on Saturday, and appears to be in the enjoyment of perfect health. She has never been troubled with sickness of any consequence, has never taken snuff or used tobacco in any form, and believes it to be “poor business for any one.” She has a remarkably clear voice, articulates every word distinctly, and has sound front teeth. She seems to take pleasure in telling of things that happened five and ninety years ago, and remembers well how she watched at the window for the return of her father from the Revolutionary war. She remembers, though she was only eight years of age at the time, the dark day, May 19, 1780, and said it commenced to grow dark in the middle of the forenoon. Candles were lighted, hens went to roost, and all day long the darkness continued. She has seen the cars, but never rode in them. She has a good appetite. She sits up usually from ten in the morning until after dark, and sometimes does not retire until nine o’clock.
—Boston Transcript, 1874.
The Resilience of Truth
Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day, like a foot-ball, and it will be round and full at evening. Does not Mr. Bryant say that truth gets well if she is run over by a locomotive, while error dies of lockjaw if she scratches her finger?
The Atonement.—No. 8.
By Joseph Harvey Waggoner
As an atonement is designed to repair the honor of the law which has been dishonored by rebellion, and to vindicate the authority of government which has been trampled down, it is necessary to inquire what will meet these objects so as at once to honor the government and open a way of salvation for the condemned; or, What are the demands of the law?
The first claim or requirement of the law is obedience. Where this is not rendered, the next demand is that the penalty be enforced or inflicted. But the universal infliction of the penalty upon man would result in universal destruction or death, for, “All have sinned,” and, “The wages of sin is death.” Therefore all are condemned, and deserve to die. Herein is found the necessity of atonement.
It has been noticed in our investigation of the principles of government that, to pardon the offender, and still to honor the demands of the law, it is necessary that a voluntary substitute should bear the penalty in his behalf. Then to ascertain how an atonement is to be made we must ascertain what is the penalty of the law, or, what the substitute must suffer to vindicate the honor of the violated law.
The idea of substitution requires that the penalty and nothing less than the penalty be inflicted. It cannot be reconciled with justice nor with Scripture that which is so often advanced, that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, to which the sinner was subject. If the law be just, if its penalty is but the demand of justice, then justice is robbed of its due if the penalty be not inflicted. Many systems of theology have had that error incorporated into them to avoid other apparent difficulties; but it is evidence of defects in the systems that demand a conclusion at variance with reason, with justice, and with Scripture.
Dr. Barnes says: “It will be impossible for a substitute to endure the same sufferings which the sinner himself will endure in the future world for his sin. There are sufferings caused by sin which belong only to the consciousness of guilt, and these sufferings cannot be transferred to another. The sin itself cannot be transferred; and as it is impossible to detach the suffering from the consciousness of guilt, it follows that a substitute cannot endure the same kind of sufferings which the sinner would himself endure. Remorse of conscience, for example—one of the keenest sources of suffering to the guilty, and which will be a most fearful part of the penalty of the law in the future world—cannot be transferred.”—Atonement, p. 228.
And again: Remorse of conscience is manifestly a part of the penalty of the law; that is, it is a portion of what the law inflicts as expressing the sense which the law-giver entertains of the value of the law and of the evil of its violation.”—Id., p. 235.
Remorse of conscience is no part of the penalty of the law. That view, which is indeed the corner-stone of Universalism, is as contrary to reason as to Scripture, and grows out of the error before noticed of making no distinction between the penalty of the law and mere consequences. “The penalty is a judicial infliction, prescribed by the statute, administered by authority, and its infliction must be subsequent to the judgment. Consequences are various according to circumstances, and not according to desert, and may flow immediately out of the action without any relation to the penalty. The wicked all suffer more or less remorse in this present state, but the Bible informs us that they are reserved “unto the day of Judgment to be punished.” 2 Pet. 2:9.
There are two kinds of sorrow for sin: a “godly sorrow,” and a “sorrow of the world.” 2 Cor. 7:10. The first is that of the penitent, sorrowing that he has violated a holy law and grieved a holy God. The other is that of the worldling, sorry that he is detected in crime, or in danger of punishment. No one doubts that the sorrow of the God-fearing penitent is deepest; that his remorse is the keenest. Yet the nearer he is to God, the finer his sensibilities, and the deeper his hatred of sin, the stronger will be his remorse for his sin. Therefore, if this be part of the penalty of the law, it is evident that this part is inflicted more severely on the penitent than on the impenitent and incorrigible.
Again, Paul speaks of those whose conscience is seared with a hot iron. 1 Tim. 4:2. That is, they run to such lengths in sin that their sensibilities are blunted, and they feel little or no remorse of conscience. Now, both reason and revelation teach us that the punishment must be proportioned to the guilt; but if remorse of conscience be a penalty, it is executed by inverse proportion; that is, the punishment decreases according to the increase of crime.
But we are led to inquire, Where did Dr. Barnes (or any other person) learn that remorse of conscience is a part of the penalty of the law? As it is the duty and sole prerogative of the governor to reveal his law, so he alone can define the penalty. This he has done in his word; “The wages of sin is death.” Any effort to evade this plain truth, or to make it anything but a plain truth, involves difficulties and contradictions. For it will not obviate the difficulty to spiritualize the term death, so as to make it embrace remorse of conscience; for if that be included in death, whatever will remove the remorse will remove so much of the penalty, or of death, and bring a proportionate degree of life. But sin does this, as the apostle shows; therefore, according to that theory, sin removes a portion of its own penalty; which is absurd.
Dr. Barnes asserts that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, but something substituted for the penalty. There is no cause for such a declaration, except it be found in his theory.
In the teachings of the Bible there is no uncertainty in this matter. They plainly inform us that “the wages of sin is death,” and that “Christ died for our sins.” Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 15:3. As sin is the transgression of the law, death, the wages of sin, is its penalty; and as Christ died for our sin, the penalty was laid upon him for our sake. Now that “Christ died” is not only plainly declared in the Scriptures, but it is a fundamental truth in the gospel system; for it is easy to show that, if Christ did not die, there can be no atonement and no redemption. It appears evident, then, that those who assert that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, do not so assert because the fact is not revealed in the Bible; but as before intimated, because of certain difficulties supposed to lie in the way of that fact. These difficulties are concerning the nature of the penalty, death.
It is assumed that death, the penalty of transgression, is three-fold in its nature, consisting of temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. If this assumption were true, we must at once give up the atonement as a thing impossible. Yet it has been advanced by men of eminence, and incorporated into works recognized as standard. Let us examine it.
1. The death of man is temporal only by reason of a resurrection. But the resurrection belongs to the work of Christ, and as his work was not necessary or a subject of promise till after the transgression, it cannot have any place in the announcement of the penalty. When death was threatened to Adam, he was not told that he should die temporally, spiritually, and eternally; nor that he should die a first or second death; nor the death that never dies; but that he should surely die. It was death—simply death. Had not a promise been given afterward, of “the seed” to bruise the serpent’s head, it would necessarily have been eternal death. But Christ, introducing a resurrection for Adam and his race, causes it to be temporal. But since this time, this death, temporal, has not been the penalty for personal transgression. This is evident from two reasons: (1.) Infants die who never have transgressed; and (2.) In the Judgment, we stand to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for personal sin. But on those who are holy, “the second death hath no power;” the penalty does not reach them. So it appears that the death we now die is occasioned by Adam’s transgression, and is rendered temporal by the second Adam, and comes indiscriminately upon all classes and ages, thus precluding the idea that it is now a penalty, except as connected with that first transgression, in which we are involved only by representation.
2. Spiritual death cannot be a penalty at all. A penalty is an infliction to meet the ends of justice. But spiritual death is a state of sin, or absence of holiness; and to say that God inflicts unholiness upon man is not only absurd, but monstrous. That is confounding the crime with its punishment. God does not make man wicked or sinful as an infliction; but man makes himself wicked by his own actions, and God punishes him with death for his wickedness.
Again, there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now if the penalty upon Adam included spiritual death, the resurrection through the second Adam would be to spiritual life, or holiness; and if all were restored to spiritual life through Christ, there would be none to fall under the second death; for it falls not on the “blessed and holy.”
3. The wages of sin is death; and as the death of Adam became temporal by reason of a resurrection, so we may say, that the infliction for personal sins, the second death, is eternal, because no resurrection will succeed it. Thus, it appears plain, that from the beginning, death was the penalty of the law of God, circumstances determining the duration of it. This view, which is in strict harmony with the Bible, really removes all difficulty in regard to Christ’s having suffered the penalty due to sin.
J. H. WAGGONER.
Temporal Power of the Papacy.
By John Norton Loughborough
ITALIAN AND OTHER TESTIMONY.
I promised to call attention to the speech of the Italian, Spivalo, on the occasion of the celebration of “Italian Unity.” As I said before, this speech presents another phase of this subject. I would that I had room to insert the entire speech, but I shall have to content myself with a few of its plain statements. In speaking of the temporal power of the pope, he says, “I am a Catholic, and I shall treat the question as a Catholic. . . . There is nothing in the Catholic religion that banishes a man from the pale of the church because opposed to the temporal power of the popes. . . . In this country such principles as those embodied in the Roman question, in that unnatural and unholy amalgamation of church and State, are unknown anomalies.”
Referring to the celebration in San Francisco, held a month before in honor of the twenty-fifth year of the pontificate of Pius IX., he says: “You are marched out in a solemn procession to perform, as you think, a religious duty; but read the words of your orator, full of venom and bitterness, insult and calumnies; ponder over the resolutions passed, and carefully examine the spirit of the occasion, and answer me frankly, Was it not a rabid political demonstration? . . . The pomp and glory of this world was the sole object and only purpose of that procession.”
The existence of the Roman government in the nineteenth century was an anomaly, the blending of the temporal and spiritual power, producing of necessity intolerance and opposition to the liberal ideas of progress.
“The religious pontiff could not as such give support, aid, or abet in any way, any form of religion but the Catholic; were he only head of his church, Protestant, Jewish, and other chapels and synagogues could be opened in Rome, without his interfering pro or con, but being spiritual and temporal, in an inseparable manner, the king could not allow what would be impossible for the pontiff to even tolerate, or he must separate the two powers, and then he would of consequence fall into what we contend, that the two powers are separate and distinct.”
“The Italians are not opposed to the august head of the Catholic church; but they were, and with reason, bitter enemies of the political ruler of the Roman States, who for a thousand years was the cause of war and discord among the people of Italy, who hired mercenaries and called foreign powers to support the phantom throne which at last has crumbled to pieces.”
“We are told that ‘Rome belongs to the Catholics.’ . . . Any man who would undertake to say to an American citizen that the Catholic clergy are the rulers of the people in temporal matters, and that he owes political allegiance to the court of Rome, would be speaking in open rebellion to the law of the land, which says that all powers emanate from the people, and are vested in those legally chosen by them. “No, gentleman, no free and enlightened citizen of any nationality acknowledges the pope as political superior, nor Rome his capital, nor the Romans his slaves. A costly independence, indeed, obtained at the price of over four thousand Romans, who, to please the rest of Catholicity, should sacrifice their rights and their freedom.
“And here I must say that, as an American citizen, I cannot close my eyes and ears to a new opinion that seems full of danger, and contrary to all our principles, and that is the opinion entertained by many as to the power of the pope over the citizens in non-religious matters. . . . It is high time to look around us when we have in our midst a class ready to ignore order and commit open riot, and seem only obedient to the voice of their ministers, while deaf to the mandates of the law.”
Spivalo gave some very interesting facts, to a few of which only we call attention. He says: “After the fall of the Roman Empire and the transfer of the seat of government to Byzantium (Constantinople), Italy became a prey to the many barbarian invaders, who divided it among themselves to suit their fancies and tastes. The Lombards, after their irruption over the northern portion, settled themselves permanently on the conquered soil and embraced Christianity.
The most beautiful provinces were divided among their leaders, who, among themselves, elected their kings. As children of the church, they respected Rome and the country around, which, while under the temporal power of a Greek exarch, received also that spiritual protection which the pope willingly gave it. The exarch resided at Ravenna, and extended his sway over the marshes of Romagna, Ferrara, Ancona, and Rimini, and in all things represented the emperor.”
“The weakness of the exarch, continually exposed to the powerful attacks of the Lombards, the distance and neglect of the Byzantine Court, the strife between the Greeks and Romans, all tended to lessen the ties between Rome and Byzantium. . . .”
“The many convents, monasteries, and landed estates belonging to the church throughout Europe made the pope one of the richest landed lords; and at that time, when landed property was the prime motive of power, these immense estates began to give the pontiff certain temporalities unknown before to the successors of St. Peter, and to the representatives of Him whose kingdom is not of this world.”
With this state of things, he says: “The imperial authority was but a shadow, and the exarchate a nonentity, and the pontiff, who had now assumed all the paraphernalia and rich pomp of earthly sovereignty, were gradually becoming the real masters.”
He states that in this move of the papacy in obtaining civil power “we have a vassal, although a pope, rising in open rebellion against his liege lord, and taking advantage of his weakness, conspiring to wrench from his grasp his dominion. . . . It was treason. . . . A principle engendered in treason and robbery could not but produce the dark results which have followed it till its fall.”
He gives many interesting facts concerning Italy’s struggle for her liberty, claiming that, in the act of Victor Immanuel’s taking Rome as the capital of united Italy, he is only taking what belongs to the Italians. My space will allow no further quotations from Spivalo, but I will proceed to consider facts from other sources concerning the rise and overthrow of the papacy, as predicted by Daniel in chapter 7, and by John in Revelation 13.
In Daniel we read of the little horn, that “saints, times, and laws” were “given into his hand until a time, times, and the dividing of time.” In Revelation the same work is spoken of in these terms: “Power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.” This period of symbolic time (1260 days, Rev. 12), on the rule of a day for a year (Ezek. 4:5, 6), is 1260 years; not that the pope was to be recognized among the nations of the earth for 1260 years as a temporal king, even Catholic writers themselves, you see, as quoted above, call that dominion about one thousand years. These prophecies above take cognizance of that dominion, and the taking of it away at the expiration of the 1260 years. But the event to which they seem to call our attention for the commencement of that period is the giving of the saints, times, and laws, into the hands of the blasphemous usurper.
The events of A. D. 538 seem to clearly mark the commencement of this work and period. I will first quote from Gavazzi’s New York lectures, delivered in 1853. He says, “The celebrated letter of Justinian to the pope in the year 538, not only recognized all previous privileges, but enlarged them, and entitled the pope and his church to many immunities and rights, which afterward gave origin to the pretensions displayed in the canon law.” That is the real point. We have already quoted from the canon law on the power of the pope. If this decree of Justinian gave rise to these claims, then119this decree is the point for the date of the 1260 days.
This decree was not effective till 538; for in 533 Rome was controlled by those opposed to the decree. From 536 to 538, Silverius was pope, and he opened Rome to Belisarius, the Greek general. Vigilius was pope from 538 to 555, and in the first year of his reign the Ostrogoths left Rome, and Justinian’s decree took effect. It was Vigilius that began at that time to assume authority over the church, in matters which belonged really to the emperor to control.
Concerning the course of Vigilius, I will quote from a Catholic history of the popes, De Cormenin. “He says, Theodore Asidas, bishop of Cesarea, appeared before Justinian to plead against the arrogance of Vigilius. Theodore says of Vigilius: “Under pretext of reserving them for the judgment of a council, he dares, on his own authority, to reverse the edicts of the emperor, and to impose his belief even on Constantinople. The whole world knows your great piety; your edicts have been received by all the churches! And now, what will people think, when they see a stranger reverse, by a single word, acts so solemn in your own presence, in contempt of four patriarchs and a great number of bishops, who have come together at your bidding to cause the edicts to be executed? What has become of your authority, great prince, if you cannot command your subjects until they have received the permission of Vigilius? What would the empress, that virtuous princess, whose recent loss we mourn, say, if she saw Justinian so far abase his royal dignity as publicly to be contradicted by a proud priest?”
The Emperor Justinian had denounced the three chapters of Theodorus of Mopsuesta. “The edicts of the emperor were received by all the bishops in the east, and Vigilius alone, ruled by the Roman clergy, opposed the propagation of his principles in the west.”
Justinian called a council in Constantinople to consider the matter of the three chapters. Vigilius struck against the emperor and excluded persons from the council that favored Justinian’s views of the subject. “The Pontiff then protested against the violence which had been used toward him, and refused to make any determination without the consent of the Latin bishops. On his side, the emperor preserved no restraint toward the holy father. . . . Said Vigilius, Recollect that Peter, whose place I occupy, has lost none of his liberty. I thought I was coming to the court of a Christian emperor, and I find myself in that of a Diocletian, the most cruel of tyrants. . . . Seventy prelates then assembled, when the pope declared the council dissolved, before they had arrived at any decision.”
Here are daring feats, surely, and although the emperor did not submit to all Vigilius’ usurpation, yet, as he had got possession of Rome through the help of Belisarius, his successor soon carried out to its fullest extent the powers he had usurped. Even Vigilius himself obtained laws from the emperor enforcing some of his religious tenets: “He obtained also from Justinian a decree in favor of Italy, in which the prince confirmed all the donations made to the Romans by Athalaric, Almasontus, and Theodatus, and revoked those of Totila. He also declared that the marriage of ecclesiastics with virgins consecrated to God, were null in the eyes of the law.”
As we thus ascertain by facts the clear date for the commencement of the 1260 years, we will inquire at once about their termination. Adding the 1260 years of the papal usurpation to 538 A. D., the point of the commencement, we have 1798 as the period of the termination of this work. 1798 is the time of Pius VI., who, in the month of February of that very year, was taken a captive to France, where he died in captivity in 1799.||
De Cormenin says of Pius VI. in his captivity: “He addressed a brief to all Christian bishops, to announce that the time was near in which the papacy would sally forth, radiant from the dungeons in which it had been crucified in his person.” In Rev. 13, John says of this power, “I saw one of its heads wounded to death.” Above is the acknowledgment, that, at the end of the forty-two months, it was crucified in its head—the pope.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
GIVE ME SOME WORK TO DO.
By M. A. Davis
In the wide harvest field, O Heavenly Father,
Give me some work to do for thee, I pray;
Although I may not stand among the reapers,
I'd glean the handfuls scattered by the way,
Or e'en a cup of cooling water bear
To cheer some fainting, weary toiler here.
I know thou needest not my humble service,
Before thy throne myriads of angels bow;
But Jesus died for me and all unworthy,
I come to thee; O Lord, accept me now.
The day is spent; the evening shadows fall;
Some tribute I would offer howe'er small.
For how shall I behold in glory shining
That form that once was agonized for me,
Once crowned with thorns and marred with cruel
scourging?
How, in his hands and feet the nail-prints see?
I cannot, by a life of selfish ease,
Share blessings won through sufferings like these.
O eager spirit, thou hast passed unheeded
The work thy Father did to thee confide,
Go, feed the hungry, cheer the heart of sorrow,
And lead the wanderer to the Crucified.
Behold, these wait for thee on every side;
Delay no longer; for the field is wide.
To scatter seeds of truth be thy endeavor,
Sow them in prayer and water with thy tears;
Falter thou not, for in the bright forever,
The ripened sheaves shall crown the toiler's years.
Work on in faith until the Master come,
And thou shalt share the joyful harvest-home.
The time is short; already does the dawning
Light up the hill-tops with its golden ray—
The eventide of earth, the glorious morning
Which ushers in the glad, eternal day.
Press on with courage then, the end is nigh;
Ye weary ones, “there’s resting by-and-by.”