Earlier text: Union With ChristThe Little Horn’s Territorial Acquisitions
Fifth mark. The territorial acquisitions of this power. Here is something marvelous! Three of the first horns (says Daniel, verse 8) were plucked up before the little horn! and these horns, John represents to us as each wearing a crown. Take now a map of Italy; look for the popes domains, and find how many of the ten kingdoms the pontifical territory now occupies. You will see that it has supplanted three, the Heruli, the Ostrogoths and the Lombards. And if you will then go to Rome, and see him there this very year, upon the banks of the Tiber, in his pontifical robes, trample upon the ashes of Romulus, or see him in the Church of St. Peter, or in his palace in the Vatican; you will see him bearing upon his Babylonish tiara (for he is the only king on the globe who places upon his head this prophetic covering)—you will see him, I say, bearing upon his Babylonish tiara three crowns of horns plucked up before him, the crowns of Odoacer, Theodoric and Alboin. Find me on earth another prince who covers his head with three crowns! And this prince is a priest-king; this prince is in Rome; this prince has grown great as a horn grows; this prince began about the sixth or seventh century; this prince still exists! It is written: “Three of the first horns were plucked up before it;” and “He shall subdue three kings!” Sixth mark. The extraordinary sagacity, consummate skill, incomparable policy, constant vigilance of this power. How admirably is this mark portrayed in the symbols of the vision! Whence, according to Daniel, the great power exercised by the little horn, to rule the whole Roman Catholic empire and to agitate the world for so many, many ages, since it comes after the other ten, and is also the least? Listen: it had eyes, Daniel tells us, like the eyes of a man! Its eyes, there is the secret of its power! A horn having eyes! strange conception truly, but admirable when we take the meaning! For 1200 years, what has given Rome her power, is that extraordinary sagacity, that worldly policy, of which the eye is emblematical; that vigilance which she exercises over every part of the earth by her religious orders, by her Jesuits, her apostolical prelates, and especially by her confessionals; it is that penetrating eye always open, and which never sleeps; it is that consummate knowledge which it has of human weaknesses, and of which the confessional has been the great school for 800 years; it is its tricks and profound subtleties, “those depths of Satan, as they speak,” says John. (Rev. 2:24) Seventh mark. Its deceivableness, its falsehoods and lying wonders. This is a striking mark, and without a parallel in history. I would have referred it to the preceding; but Paul has so well described it in his second Epistle to the Thessalonians, when he says, of “the Man of sin” that “his coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness” (2 Thess. 2:9, 10), that I thought I should give it a distinct place. To this head we must refer the false legends, false books, false relics, the wonder-working medals, false cures, and more especially the false decretals, that surprising falsehood, which has never had its like in the world for hardihood and success; for these false decretals deceived all Europe for 500 years, and availed alone to the success of the monstrous usurpations of the popes. Eighth mark. Its more than royal pomp. Daniel tells us (verse 20) that although this horn was “the least,” “his look was more stout than his fellows.” The pomp of Charlemagne, Charles V., Louis XIV., and Bonaparte were very great; but was it comparable to that of the Roman pontiff? The greatest kings must hold his stirrup, serve him at table (what do I say?), must prostrate themselves before him, and kiss his feet; or even put their necks under his proud foot! Go yet this year to view him in the Vatican, as I myself have done. You will see hanging in the “royal hall” where all the ambassadors of Europe pass, a picture representing the great Emperor Henry IV., uncovered before Gregory VII. You will see in another picture, the heroic and powerful Emperor Frederick Barbarossa upon his knees and elbows, before Pope Alexander III., in the public square of Venice; the foot of the pope rests on his shoulder; his sceptre cast to the ground; and under the picture, these words: “Frederick, a supplicant, adores, promising faith and obedience!” You must see with your own eyes this priest-king in his palaces and temples, to form an idea of his pomp, and to understand the full meaning of these words of Daniel: His look was more stout than his fellows. What eastern king was ever borne like him upon men’s shoulders, decked with the plumes of the peacock? Incense is burnt before him as before an idol; they kneel on both knees before him; they kiss the soles of his feet; they worship him! Venite adoremus! (Come let us adore) exclaim the cardinals when they go to him. The present pope caused to be sold in Rome, this year, among the numerous medals which the pontiffs have successively struck, to perpetuate in brass the exploits of their history, a medal which I had a few days ago in my hands, and where you read these words above the portrait of Adrian VI., crowned by his cardinals; “Quem creant, adorant.” (Whom they create, they adore). How often when viewing him with my eyes amidst his pomps, has this oracle of the Holy Spirit sounded in my ears: He, as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Ninth mark. Its LANGUAGE, his great swelling words. The little horn had a mouth (says Daniel), and this mouth spake very great things. It would seem that nothing in the vision struck more forcibly the prophet than the violence, the pride and malignity of this language. He expresses more than once his astonishment at it. Verse 11: “I beheld, then, because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake. . . . . I would know the truth (he adds, verses 19, 20,) touching this mouth that spake very great things.” Surely, gentlemen, this mark alone would be sufficient to designate the pontiff of Rome. Let the most superficial scholar in history in one of our schools, be asked to search in the whole course of the 900 years of the dark ages, and the 400 years of the modern history, for the power which has increasingly filled the world with the noise of his great swelling words, words of threatening, words of pride, words of command, words of cursing, and also words of fire, sending the nations obedient to him on remote expeditions and exterminating wars? Is there a scholar who does not at once reply: It is the pope; it can only be the pope? In this respect the pope is without his like in history. For 1,200 years the world has resounded with his great swelling words; words of threatening and anathema; he himself calls them “thunderbolts.” Gregory XVI., now reigning, speaking in his book “of the triumphs of the church,” borrows the language of Jupiter and says that he fulminates words of command and of violence; he opposes kings, he condemns them, he deposes them; words of hatred and murder; for two centuries he overturned in Asia, by the crusades, all the Western nations; he destroyed afterwards the Christian empire of the Greeks; he effected them, during 27 years, by crusades of Christians against Christians, the extermination of the south of France; words of pride; all historians, Christian or infidel alike, tell you that, for great words, the pontiff never had his equal on earth. How much reason had not Daniel than to say, “I considered because of the voice of the great words which this horn uttered? Tenth mark. The duration of this language. According to Daniel it must last till the coming of the Son of man in the clouds of heaven, and you see gentlemen, it lasts still! Who could have believed beforehand, that in Europe, after so much civilization, after the blessed Reformation, after twelve hundred years of scandals, a priest-king in Rome could continue with impunity such language among the nations. God is great! THE Church of Rome claims to be the church. Its pope is called the vicar of Christ, the representative of God on earth. Read the following description of one who is less than the pope in authority, and see how it compares with the account we have of Jesus, who was so poor that he had not where to lay his head. It is from the description of the dedication of a Catholic church in New York:— “Bishop O’Farrell, of Trenton, preached the dedicatory sermon. As he concluded, Cardinal McClosky entered the sanctuary from the sacristy. His trailing red silk soutane was covered with a lace surplice, bound about the waist with a heavily-fringed red silk sash. His mantle of red watered silk flowed many yards behind, and was upheld by tiny pages, in white cassocks and albs. The broad, half-opened hood of the mantle was lined with ermine. A jeweled pectoral cross shone upon the Cardinal’s breast, and his signet, a sapphire encircled with diamonds, flashed upon his left hand. His venerable head was covered with a red silk berretta. He ascended his throne,” etc. As we read this, these words of Christ come to mind: “How can ye believe, which receive honor one of another, and seek not the honor that cometh from God alone?” The Sovereign Pontiff, and the Church of Rome.
By Louis Gaussen
They Vindicate the Truth by Fulfilling the Prophecies.
A DISCOURSE DELIVERED BY PROF. GAUSSEN, AT THE RE-OPENING OF THE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT GENEVA, OCTOBER 3, 1843. The Day of the Lord Is Near
THERE's a hush before the tempest,
But that hush is the hush of fear,
And the heart of the world is troubled,
For the day of the Lord is near.
I hear the beat of the tide of time,
And resistless its throbbings be,
And its wavelets dash with a rythm sublime
On the shores of eternity. Household Duties and School Success
An observing teacher says those girls who break down in the public schools are not usually the ones who get up in the morning and make their own beds, dust their rooms and help wash dishes. Admiral Hope and the Swearer.
Admiral Hope's Christian firmness in rebuking swearing and improper language when uttered in his presence is familiar to many. Not many years back a gentleman in a London omnibus was using very violent language, swearing and taking the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in vain, when he was quietly rebuked and requested to desist by an elderly gentleman sitting opposite. The first named having resented the interference, the old officer added, "Well, sir, I am extremely sorry you resent my words, simply requesting you to forbear insulting a very dear and precious name which I honor and love; and I can only say that if you are dead to all feeling or consideration of common courtesy, and will persist in using the language you have used, you will compel me to do that which I shall be sorry to be obliged to do." Upon this the angry man broke out afresh and defied him, when the Admiral stopped the omnibus and got out, the other watching him, expecting he would call a policeman; but seeing him walk quietly away, he remarked to another passenger about his impertinence, when the person whom he addressed asked if he knew who it was that had been induced to remonstrate with him. He replied, "No; nor do I care, except he was very impertinent for threatening me in that way." The other remarked that he was mistaken, for there had been no threat, but a meek and courteous remonstrance; that the man was a most kind and benevolent man and a gallant officer, who was quite incapable of any mean act. "What right had he to threaten me? Did he not say he would do something if I did not desist?" said the other. "Yes," replied the gentleman; "but that was no idle threat, and he did what he said he would be obliged to do." "And what was that?" asked the angry man. "Why, get out and walk, which his age and infirmities would hardly allow him to do, for he spends a great part of his income in succoring the afflicted and the destitute, and he would not like to throw away even a six-pence." "You don't mean to say that was what he meant?" asked the angry man. "What is his name?" "I am quite positive it was all he meant," replied the other; "and his name is Admiral Hope—a true-hearted Christian man." The angry man looked puzzled, then thoughtful, and at last cried out, "God forgive me! What a fool I have been! Give me his address, in case I should miss him." He stopped the omnibus and jumped out to seek his faithful reprover, adding that he hoped it would make a new man of him, for he never should forget the lesson to the last day of his life. This anecdote was related by the gentleman himself, who became a humble follower of the Lord Jesus, but who has since gone to his rest, trusting only in that blessed name which he had so blasphemed and lightly spoken of.—S. S. Visitor. Notes on Lesson for December 30.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
JESUS APPEARS TO HIS DISCIPLES.
LATE in the afternoon of the day on which Christ rose, two disciples started to return to their home at Emmaus, about eight miles from Jerusalem. The crucifixion of Christ and the exciting news of the morning had destroyed their interest in the passover, and, confused and discouraged, they wished to leave the crowd, and be where no one could witness their humiliation. They did not credit the story that Christ had risen from the dead. They still believed that he was a mighty prophet, but thought he had been deceived in regard to his Messiahship. "AND it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near and went with them." These disciples were anxious to know the truth in regard to what had just happened; it filled their minds completely. And Jesus, knowing their perplexity and their honesty of purpose, drew near to enlighten them. In like manner he will ever guide those who candidly and seriously desire to know the truth. He will ever guide those who sincerely try to serve him. These disciples were talking about Jesus, and he came into their company; if Christians would make Christ and his truth the subject of conversation when they are together, they would not so often be in darkness. His presence would accompany them, and would fill their minds with light. This truth always holds good: "If any man will do his will he shall know of the doctrine." "But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel." Here is shown the condition of mind of the disciples. Their hope that Jesus was the Messiah was gone, and yet they had no word of unbelief in him and his work. They knew that he had been "a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and the people." The evidence of his miracles and teachings could not be denied; they unmistakably proved him to be more than a mere man. Both God and man had honored his work, and they would not detract from the honor due him. Indeed they had no idea of denying anything; their minds were simply confused, and they did not know how to properly connect the events that had transpired. "To-day is the third day since these things were done." The question has been asked, "How can the fact that Christ was in the tomb only a part of three days be harmonized with Matt. 12:40, where it is said that he would be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights?" In view of this seeming discrepancy, some have endeavored to show that Christ was crucified on Wednesday or Thursday, instead of Friday. But we think such a position is untenable; the crucifixion evidently took place on Friday, and the resurrection on Sunday. We think an explanation of the difficulty may be found in Christ's own words. In Matt. 12:40, as before quoted, he stated that the time would be three days and three nights. But in Mark 9:30 he said, "The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him, and after he is killed, he shall rise the third day." See also Matt. 16:21; 20:19; Mark 10:34; Luke 18:32, 33. To show how long a time is meant by the expression "the third day," see Luke 13:32: "Behold I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and to-morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." This corresponds exactly with the length of time Jesus lay in the grave, so that his words in Mark 9:30, and the other passages referred to, were exactly fulfilled; the disciple himself said "to-day is the third day since these things were done," thus agreeing with the predictions of Christ. We are then forced to the conclusion that among the Jews the expressions, "three days and nights," or, "three days and three nights," and the third day," are used to designate the same period of time. At any rate they were so used by Christ in reference to his burial. We find examples of this in the Old Testament. Esther told Mordecai to gather the Jews together that were in Shushan, and fast, neither eating nor drinking night or day, and she would do the same and then go in to the king. Esther 4:16. Here we have an expression equivalent to that in Matt. 12:40. Now mark the fulfillment of her promise. In chapter 5:1, we read that "on the third day" Esther put on her royal apparel, and went to the king. Again in Gen. 42:17-20 we read that Joseph put his brethren in ward three days, that he released them on the third day. From these examples it appears that, according to Jewish custom, it did not require three full days, or seventy-two hours, to meet the expression "three days and three nights;" but that it was applied to a period of time covering a part of one day, the whole of another, and a part of the third. For a full exposition of this subject, see Volume 7, No. 5, of the SIGNS, bearing date of Feb. 3, 1881. prophecies concerning Christ. If the disciples had read and understood these prophecies, they would not have been so confused. So Christ calls them fools (thoughtless persons) because they had not discerned the import of that with which they had all their lives been familiar. Take away the Old Testament, or destroy men's confidence in it, and you have destroyed the whole Christian system. The New Testament is of no value, if the Old be not true. We might notice here that men may have the Bible and be familiar with it, and yet fail to understand some of its plainest teachings. It was so with the Jews, and especially with those whose business it was to teach the people. It is often the case now. No one, however learned, or however much he has read the Bible, should hold himself aloof from receiving more light. WE should not fail to mark the way which Christ took to convince these disciples. It was not by revealing himself to them suddenly, and then teaching them. In that case the word and presence of Jesus would have convinced them, and his exposition of the Scriptures would have been lost. But first he caused them to understand the prophecies, so that afterwards they might be able to expound them to others; then when they fully comprehended them, and had an intelligent faith in them, he made himself known. COMPARE the account in Luke 24, especially verses 33-35, with Mark 16:12, 13. When the two disciples reached the house in Jerusalem where the eleven abode, they were met with the words, "The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon;" but when they told their story, "how he was known of them in breaking of bread," Mark says, "neither believed they them." Their minds were still so unsettled that they knew not what to believe. One moment they would feel assured that Christ had risen; the next moment they would doubt. This state of things causes the oft-repeated theory that the eleven were assembled in prayer-meeting to celebrate Christ's resurrection, to fall to the ground. Men do not celebrate that which they do not believe. Their condition was more nearly like that of children excited over some strange occurrence, than of men met together for worship. Besides we are not left to conjecture what they were doing. Luke goes on to say that while they were thus assembled Christ came into the room. Mark, in speaking of the same event, chapter 16:14, says that he appeared unto them "as they sat at meat." The occasion, then, was simply this: Christ made himself known to the two disciples at Emmaus, during the evening meal. Having done so, he disappeared, and the disciples immediately left their supper and hastened to Jerusalem, where they found the eleven also at supper. Then Christ came in, and ate with them to prove that he was a real, substantial being. E. J. W. Story of the Roman Guards.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
The story which the Roman guards were bribed to circulate, that the disciples came by night and stole the body of Jesus, was so absurd that it must have materially aided the spread of the truth that Jesus had really risen from the dead. Here are some of the absurdities: 1. That Roman soldiers should be found asleep, when Roman discipline was so strict. 2. That, even if they had fallen asleep, they should all sleep so soundly that the noise of the disciples removing the stone should not awaken them. 3. That they should acknowledge that they had been asleep, if such had been the case. 4. That they should be able to tell who stole the body of Jesus, if they had been asleep at the time. 5. Body-snatchers do not usually leave things in such good order as was the case with the things in which Jesus had been buried. If the disciples had stolen the body, they would not have taken the trouble to fold up the grave-clothes. 6. It is absurd to suppose that the disciples, few in number and timid, should dare attempt to face the Roman guards, especially as they had no reason to suppose that the guards would be asleep. 7. The fact that the Jews did not apprehend the disciples, and punish them for the offense, shows that they did not believe that the body had been stolen. The tomb had been sealed, and the breaking of this would have been an additional crime, but the action of the chief priests belied their testimony. E. J. W. To the Sabbath-school Officers and Teachers of California.
By G. D. Ballou
Regarding the Sabbath-school as an institution of primary importance to the spiritual interests of our churches and scattered brethren, we feel anxious to do all in our power toward securing the best possible results in this branch of our work. To this end we make the following suggestions. 1. Endeavor to secure the attendance and membership of all adults and children of every family in your vicinity who is in sympathy with the present truth, and as many beside as you can reasonably influence to attend. 2. Officers and teachers should, if possible, meet every week to examine the lessons and consider the general interests of the school. Thoroughness in the preparation and recitations of the lessons can be secured in no better way. 3. Look after the financial interest of your school. No organization can prosper without funds. You may now be in need of maps or other helps. We recommend that the Instructor and all other supplies be paid for by weekly contributions. Let us labor to secure uniformity. 4. Order all supplies, Instructor, lesson-books, maps, reward cards, etc., through your librarian. Scattered families and those companies which have no T. and M. organization should order of Alice Morrison, Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal. All contributions should be reported, and all tithes and donations to the State Association should be sent, with the quarterly report to the Secretary of the State Association, Mrs. G. D. Ballou, Pacific Press, Oakland, Cal. 6. Study carefully the directions and suggestions found in the record books. Secretaries should examine their quarterly reports after they are filled out to see that all is correct, and forward promptly to the State Secretary. 7. Remember that the great object of all Sabbath-school work is to secure growth in grace. The Sabbath-school, if properly conducted, is the school of Christ, and all, both teachers and scholars, should seek to have his Spirit to aid them in all their relations to the church. Do not be mechanical in your labor and teaching. Let a spirit of diligence and earnestness characterize all your work. Labor for the spiritual advancement of every one connected with the school, especially for the conversion of the youth and children. Unless teaching tends to refine and ennoble the minds and convert the hearts of the scholars, it will at last prove in vain. Kindness and courtesy growing out of love will make the Sabbath-school a cheerful place, to which every one connected with it will look with joyous expectation. Make prayerful and earnest preparation to labor, by example as well as precept, to encourage this most important means of grace and make it effective in converting souls to Christ. We earnestly recommend that all the scattered families of Sabbath-keepers that have not already done so, subscribe at once for the Youth's Instructor and send for "Bible Lessons for Little Ones," and start a family school with the new year. We shall be glad to hear from all such. Let the State Secretary know you have a school, and you will receive blanks for reporting. G. D. BALLOU,
Pres. of State Association. The Inspiration of the Old Testament
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." Here again we have divine authority as to the inspiration of the Old Testament. The Old Testament is filled with Right or Wrong? Information Wanted.
By Editor
"Christ's day in the tomb was the end of the Jewish Sabbath. After that the Lord's day gradually took its place as the Christian representative of the Sabbath, and a memorial of our Lord's resurrection."—Independent. And in this case we think more wrong than right. In the first place, the "Jewish Sabbath" is not the Jewish Sabbath at all, but "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," "the holy of the Lord." In the second place, the first day of the week is not the Lord's day, since that honor belongs alone to the seventh-day Sabbath. See Ex. 20:8–11; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28; Rev. 1:10. The first day is "the venerable day of the sun," which did indeed "gradually" take the place of the Sabbath of the Lord. And now, O Independent (or any one in whom the spirit of wisdom is found), deign to enlighten us on these few points:— 1. Are laws ever gradually enacted? Is a law placed on the statute books gradually, by the custom of the people, or is it by a single act of the law-making power? If the latter, is there any law for the observance of Sunday? At what time did laboring on Sunday become sin? 2. When did this custom commence? We know it was not immediately, for the following reasons: (1) The Sunday gradually took the place of the original Sabbath; this you admit. That means that first a few persons kept the day, then a few more, until gradually the custom became general. (2) But "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul;" this the Bible says. Then if one of the early disciples had kept Sunday, all would have done so; but in that case it would not have been gradually introduced. Therefore the beginning of Sunday observance was at a later period than the time of the apostles. We know, then, that the early disciples and apostles did not introduce Sunday observance. The question we ask is, Who did? 3. Since, as you say, the Sabbath ended at the death of Christ, what filled the interval between that event and the time when the Sunday had, by a gradual process, usurped its place? There was a day that was recognized as the Sabbath, for the writer of the book of Acts frequently speaks of services held on that day. Acts 13:27, 42, 44; 15:21; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4. What day was this? If we are to follow apostolic example, it seems absolutely necessary that we know. 4. We know that the seventh-day Sabbath was a part of the moral law. Ex. 20:8–11. Now since you affirm with such confidence that a part of the moral law ended at the death of Christ, are you certain that it was not all abolished at that time? We don't read anything about any part of the law being done away; indeed, we distinctly remember having read a positive statement of Christ that he did not come to do away the law, and that heaven and earth should pass before one jot or one tittle should pass from the law; but you doubtless have means of information of which we know nothing. Please refer us to the records, that we may read for ourselves. We do not believe that any part of the law was done away; but if one part did slip away so easily, there is not much use trying to hold on to the rest. And if the law really passed away then, were there any sinners after that time? "By the law is the knowledge of sin," and "where no law is there is no transgression." And does this state of things exist to-day? We really think that this is a vital question. 5. And lastly, of what use was the ordinance of baptism after the Sunday had finally come to be quite generally observed? Paul teaches that baptism is the memorial of Christ's death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3–6; Col. 2:12), but you say that the Sunday occupies that position. Paul, we remember, lived and died before Sunday observance was introduced into the church, so of course he could not be expected to know what office it would hold, or what would become of the ordinance of baptism; but, since he had the gift of prophecy, it is strange that a matter of so great importance was not revealed to him. Tell us where the information may be found. And we would add just one more question to the above. We are under the impression that while the Sunday was being gradually introduced to serve as a memorial of Christ's resurrection, the ordinance of baptism was gradually being changed from immersion—a fitting representation of Christ's burial and resurrection—to sprinkling, which has no significance whatever, and that thus the way was prepared for Sunday to take its place. There was a necessity for some memorial of our Lord's resurrection, and, since the divinely appointed memorial had been lost sight of, men seemed to be under the necessity of making one. Thus apostasy grows; negligence to perform one duty correctly leads to a neglect of other duties. Are we correct in our supposition? If not, may we be informed on this point also? And now we have done for the present. We confess to being inquisitive, and shall not resent the charge of ignorance. If our questions are satisfactorily answered, we may not be so ignorant as we are now. These questions are not confined to the Independent. That journal will probably not have time to answer them, but we are willing to receive information, from whatever source it comes. We have read the Bible carefully, and think we understand its teachings on these subjects; but if anybody has any later and better source of knowledge, we want to know it. Meanwhile we shall continue to read our Bible with just as much confidence as though Christ and Paul were accepted on all sides as good authority on religious matters. We shall not loose from our present moorings till we have found a better anchorage. English Sabbath-keepers.
By John Nevins Andrews
MR. UTTER mentions the next Sabbatarian minister as follows:- "Theophilus Brabourne, a learned minister of the gospel in the Established Church, wrote a book, which was printed at London in 1628, wherein he argued 'that the Lord's day is not the Sabbath day by divine institution,' but 'that the seventh-day Sabbath is now in force.' Mr. Brabourne published another book in 1632, entitled, 'A Defense of that most Ancient and Sacred Ordinance of God's, the Sabbath day.'" Brabourne dedicated his book to King Charles I., requesting him to use his royal authority for the restoration of the ancient Sabbath. But those who put their trust in princes are sure to be disappointed. Dr. F. White, bishop of Ely, thus states the occasion of his own work against the Sabbath:- "Now because this Brabourne's treatise of the Sabbath was dedicated to his Royal Majesty, and the principles upon which he grounded all his arguments (being commonly preached, printed, and believed throughout the kingdom), might have poisoned and infected many people either with this Sabbatarian error, or with some other of like quality; it was the king, our gracious master, his will and pleasure, that a treatise should be set forth, to prevent further mischief, and to settle his good subjects (who have long time been distracted about Sabbatarian questions) in the old and good way of the ancient and orthodoxal Catholic Church. Now that which his sacred Majesty commanded, I have by your Grace's direction [Archbishop Laud] obediently performed." The king not only wished by this appointment to overthrow those who kept the day enjoined in the commandment, but also those who by means of Dr. Bound's new theory pretended that Sunday was that day. He therefore joined Dr. Heylyn with Bishop White in this work:- "Which burden being held of too great weight for any one to undergo, and the necessity of the work requiring a quick dispatch, it was held fit to divide the employment betwixt two. The argumentative and scholastical part was referred to the right learned Dr. White, then bishop of Ely, who had given good proof of his ability in polemical matters in several books and disputations against the papists. The practical and historical [was to be written], by Heylyn of Westminster, who had gained some reputation for his studies in the ancient writers." The works of White and Heylyn were published simultaneously in 1635. Dr. White, in addressing himself to those who enforce Sunday observance by the fourth commandment, speaks thus of Brabourne's arguments, that not Sunday, but the ancient seventh day, is there enjoined:- "Maintaining your own principles that the fourth commandment is purely and simply moral and the law of nature, it will be impossible for you either in English or in Latin, to solve Theophilus Brabourne's objections." But the king had something besides argument for Brabourne. He was brought before Archbishop Laud and the Court of High Commission, and, moved by the fate of Mrs. Trask, he submitted for the time to the authority of the Church of England, but sometime afterward wrote other books in behalf of the seventh day. Dr. White's book has this pithy notice of the indefinite-time theory:- "Because an indefinite time must either bind to all moments of time, as a debt, when the day of payment is not expressly dated, is liable to payment every moment; or else it binds to no time at all." Mr. Utter, after the statement of Brabourne's case, continues thus:- "About this time Philip Tandy began to promulgate in the northern part of England the same doctrine concerning the Sabbath. He was educated in the Established Church, of which he became a minister. Having changed his views respecting the mode of baptism and the day of the Sabbath, he abandoned that church and 'became a mark for many shots.' He held several public disputes about his peculiar sentiments, and did much to propagate them. James Ockford was another early advocate in the claims of the seventh day as the Sabbath. He appears to have been well acquainted with the discussions in which Trask and Brabourne had been engaged. Being dissatisfied with the pretended conviction of Brabourne, he wrote a book in defense of Sabbatarian views, entitled, 'The Doctrine of the Fourth Commandment.' This book, published about the year 1642, was burnt by order of the authorities in the Established Church."571 The famous Stennett family furnished, for four generations, a succession of able Sabbatarian ministers. Mr. Edward Stennett, the first of these, was born about the beginning of the seventeenth century. His work entitled, "The Royal Law Contended For," was first published at London in 1658. "He was an able and devoted minister, but dissenting from the Established Church, he was deprived of the means of support." "He suffered much of the persecution which the Dissenters were exposed to at that time, and more especially for his faithful adherence to the cause of the Sabbath. For this truth he experienced tribulation, not only from those in power, by whom he was kept a long time in prison, but also much distress from unfriendly, dissenting brethren, who strove to destroy his influence, and ruin his cause." In 1664, he published a work entitled, "The Seventh Day is the Sabbath of the Lord." In 1671, Wm Sellers wrote a work in behalf of the seventh day in reply to Dr. Owen. Cox states its object thus:- "In opposition to the opinion that some one day in seven is all that the fourth commandment requires to be set apart, the writer maintains the obligation of the Saturday Sabbath on the ground that 'God himself directly in the letter of the text, calls the seventh day the Sabbath day, giving both the names to one and the self-same day, as all men know that ever read the commandments.'" J. N. A.