At the time of the formation of the Federal Council of Churches the statement was made that its practical workings were to be made applicable "in every relation of human life.:
At the Philadelphia meeting of the Council itself this was more fully stated thus:--
"The time has come when the churches may and must know every individual in the entire community as accurately as they now know their own membership.
"The churches have as great an opportunity as ever today, if they will combine to meet the real needs of each community, from building roads and organizing industry ... to swinging the thought of a whole great metropolis to religious things by concerted evangelism . . . and make possible what we have never had before, a systematic campaign to Christianize every phase of the life of the entire commonwealth.
"It thus becomes possible, as in two States already, to announce the watchword: 'Some church responsible for each square mile.' Responsible, i. e., to know and seek in some way every individual therein.
"The Federation should emphasize the importance of the 'responsibility districts' which it establishes. When these cover the State, and the churches so appreciate their opportunity and responsibility that each church will know the position of every voter on moral issues and tirelessly work to place every one upon the right side, moral reforms will come swiftly and permanently.
"Knowledge of men alone gives power over men.:
How now is this "power over men" to be used, that is obtained through such intimate knowledge of "every individual" and "every voter?" Answer:--
"The enforcement and improvement of law often becomes the imperative duty of Local and State Federations.:
"Civic action on the part of the churches, i. e., in law enforcement must proceed on lines of township.
"There has already been worked out a practical program of activities as definite and comprehensive as has ever been proposed for any religious or civic campaign.
"We have planned the work; let us work the plan.:
Now note in that plan which is thus to be "worked," just what is embraced in the jurisdiction and included in the activities of this "combine" of the churches:
1. All of the territory: "each square mile," and in the discussion it was expressed as "each square foot.:
2. All of the people: "every voter" and "every individual in the entire community.:
3. All of these individuals and voters to be known "as accurately" as is the very church-membership itself; and every voter to be "tirelessly" worked for" the right side.:
4. "All the moral issues of the community.:
5. "All the real needs of each community, from building roads to evangelizing the metropolis.:
6. "Every phase of the life of the entire community.:
7. "Power over men.: And this power exercised in
8. "Law-enactment," which is included in
9. "Law-improvement.:
10. "Law-enforcement.:
That most certainly is a very "definite and comprehensive" program.
And upon that the question arises, When that plan and program shall be actually in operation, and just so far as it shall be operated, where will be the State? Where indeed will be any room for the State?
Under that program as in their own very words where will there be any real difference between this order of things, and that against which The Reformation was raised up in Protest?
Under that program, the State as a body distinct from the church will be gone. As a distinct system and order of things in law and government the State will have been utterly supplanted by the church, and its machinery will exist only as the tool of the church to accomplish by force her arbitrary will and to make effective the ecclesiastical decrees.
In principle and in practice that will be only the order of things of "the Holy Roman Empire" over again.
When the whole "combine" of the Federal Council of the denominations in its exercise of "power over men" shall be actively engaged over every "square foot" of the territory of the United States, inquiring into "every relation of life" of "every individual" to know the position of every voter" and "tirelessly working to have every one to vote on 'the right side' on all questions" of this assumed ecclesiastical jurisdiction; to pry into and to dominate "every phase of the life of the entire commonwealth"; what will that be but simply a federated system of universal ecclesiastical meddling that will differ from the very Inquisition itself only in degree, and not at all in spirit nor in kind.
Then the central head of this Federation can say of this Nation as Pope Boniface VIII said of the King of France, "I know all the secrets of his kingdom.:
Note that the Federation's purpose is to "know and seek in some way every individual.: In the winter of 1911-12 the Men and Religion Movement made plain one way in which this will be done: divide a designated territory into so many districts that every individual can be found and recorded within three hours on a certain Sunday afternoon by agents with such printed instructions as the following:--
"Do not miss a single house. If the people are absent call again.
"Remind them that every house in the community is being visited today.
"If they will not receive you take their name and number, and write across the card 'Refused information.'
"Nevertheless get all the information you can concerning them next door.:
That is, people's record as to religion will be taken, and that record will be used and those people counted, used, or dealt with, on information given by somebody else; and the persons themselves know nothing about it.
Did the Inquisition ever surpass that, except in using more forcible means to get the information? Yet even then all that the Inquisition did was to "know and seek in some way every individual" and the desired "information.":
All that the Inquisition ever was, was a lot of ecclesiastics circulating everywhere as agents of the church asking questions as to people's attitude toward religion and the church; and making it uncomfortable for those who were not "on the right side.":
And the Federal Council of Churches co-operated with the Men and Religion Movement. And when that "Movement" went out of existence as a distinct body, all of its "information," statistics, etc., was turned over to the Federal Council.
Of the Federation of churches in the fourth century, that developed the papacy in all that it ever was, it has been written:--
"As the acknowledged teachers and guardians of Christianity the clergy continued to draw within their sphere every part of human life in which man is actuated by moral or religious motives.
"The moral authority, therefore, of the religion, and consequently of the clergy, might appear legitimately to extend over every transaction of life: from the legislation of the sovereign, which ought, in a Christian king, to be guided by Christian motive, to the domestic duties of the peasant which ought to be fulfilled on the principle of Christian love.:
Those words were written by Dean Milman more than seventy years ago with sole reference to that church-combine and its clergy of the fourth century, in their assumption, encroachment, usurpation, and domination. Yet it is as closely descriptive of this present combine of the churches in the Federal Council as if it had been written only today and with sole reference to this.
Indeed there never was a closer resemblance to the papacy than is in every feature of this Federation of churches today. The "program" herewith given in their own words, and the "plan" that is to be so universally, so intricately, and so "tirelessly worked" is in its very details, as well as in its spirit and purpose, identical with that of the Federation of churches in the fourth century in the Roman empire.
And when this one of today in its beginnings is so altogether like that one, how can it be any less like the former one as it proceeds and grows?
With direct reference to such a combine, the Congress of the United States in 1829 and 1831 said: "Extensive religious combinations to effect a political purpose are always dangerous.: That is the truth. And here is now the most extensive religious combination that could be in this Nation, and for political purposes. How much further will it have to go before the people of the United States will awake to the danger?
Already the Federal Council is following to the letter the former one in urging National legislation that is both religious and ecclesiastical, and nothing else.
Against the National Constitution, against vital American principle, against every Reformation principle, and against every Christian principle, the Federal Council urges upon Congress and everywhere in the United States legislation in recognition of "the Christian Sabbath" "the Lord's Day" as the Day of rest and worship, and enforcing upon all its observance as the Day of rest for worship.
Whatever is Christian is religious; for Christianity is nothing but a religion. Therefore legislation in behalf of "the Christian Sabbath" is nothing but religious legislation. And legislation in recognition of "the Christian Sabbath" is nothing but recognition of the Christian religion. And that means the "Christian" religion by force; which is not Christian at all, nor is it of The Reformation at all, but is only papal.
Whatever pertains or belongs to the Lord is religious; for religion is "the duty which we owe to the Lord.: Therefore legislation recognizing and establishing "the Lord's Day" is nothing but religious legislation; because it distinctly recognizes and establishes a religious institution.
And that means the "Christian" religion by force: which is not Christian nor The Reformation at all, but is only papal.
No person who is of the Federal Council can deny that the "Sabbath" legislation intended is religious; because--
By the terms "Christian Sabbath" and "Lord's Day" the Federal Council means Sunday.
The very first of all things named in the grand scheme of the Federal Council for "law-enactment," "law-improvement," and "law-enforcement," as "the imperative duty of Local or State Federations," is "especially in regard to Sundayrest.:
The Council urges the passage of the chief Sunday bill that for the past five years has been and is now before Congress.
That bill is openly based on "the Fourth Commandment of an all-wise God" and the Fourth Commandment is nothing but religious and wholly spiritual.
In the United States Senate, Senator Johnson of Alabama is the author and promoter of the bill. It is a "Bill for the Observance of Sunday in the District of Columbia.: And in "Senate Report No. 33, Sixty-Second Congress, first session, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, Senator Johnson referred to this bill as--
"an attempt to enact into law the injunction of the Fourth Commandment of an all-wise God and Loving Father.:
In his Haverford lecturers on "The United States, a Christian nation," the late Justice Brewer, of the national Supreme Court, said that "through a large majority" of the court decisions on Sunday laws "there runs the thought of its being a religious day, consecrated by the commandment . . . 'The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.'"
Thus by Congress and courts Sunday legislation is positively based on the Fourth Commandment.
And thus by Congress and courts and the Federal Council of Churches there is definitely raised and openly forced upon the people of the United States the religious issue of the enforced observance of "the Fourth Commandment of an allwise God and Loving Father.:
This being so, it is incumbent on every person who has any respect for "the Fourth Commandment" or for "an all-wise God and Loving Father, the author of the commandment," just as openly and just as distinctly, to meet the issue thus raised and forced upon us.
First of all, let there be made perfectly clear and plain just what the issue is not and just what it is.
The issue is not whether or not God is "an all-wise God and Loving Father.: The issue is only whether God has committed to the Congress and the courts of the United States the work of making His wisdom and love effective upon all the people by governmental force.
The issue is not whether or not the "all-wise God and Loving Father" is "the author of the Fourth Commandment.: The issue is only whether He has commissioned the Congress and courts of the United States to be to the people of the United States the authoritative and infallible interpreters and expositors of His commandments.
The issue is not whether or not the people of the United States shall be religious. The issue is whether we shall be compelled to be religious, or, at least, to act as if we were.
The issue is not whether or not there shall be religion. The issue is solely whether there shall be enforced religion.
The issue is not whether or not there shall be Sabbath observance. The issue is solely whether there shall be enforced Sabbath observance.
In meeting the issue thus forced upon us, of the enforced observance or recognition of "the Fourth Commandment" of "an all-wise God," the very first thing that arrests the attention is:
How is it that in enforcing "the Fourth Commandment" Congress and the courts and the Federal Council would enforce the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath of that commandment?
The Fourth Commandment, as the "all-wise God and Loving Father" spoke it and twice wrote it, says "the seventh day is the Sabbath.: But Congress and the courts and the Federal Council propose to enforce that commandment by compelling the recognition of "the first day.:
This very Sunday bill that is proposed by its author as the expression in law of "the Fourth Commandment," plainly designates "the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.:
How is it, then, that Congress and the courts and the Federal Council will secure the observance or recognition of the commandment of God that requires rest on the seventh day of the week, by compelling the people to obey a law of man that requires rest on "the first day of the week?"
In short, how did Sunday, the first day of the week, become the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, which is the seventh day of the week? This is the pivot of this whole issue.
It is the purpose here to answer that pivotal question so fully and so plainly that there shall be no room for any misunderstanding of the question or the issue, either by Congress or courts, or even by the plain citizen.
From the beginning to the end of the Bible, the first day of the week and the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment are distinct as are any other two things anywhere.
On The Reformation principle of "nothing but the Word of God," there is no evidence at all that the Lord's Day is Sunday. The expression is used in the Bible just the one single time of Rev. 1:10.
Therefore unless the Bible in some other place tells what day is the Lord's nobody ever can certainly know what day of the week it is.
But there is an obligation implied. The phrase is possessive--the Lord's Day. And Jesus has told us to "render to God the things which are God's.:
The Word of God then must tell us what day is the Lord's Day, or else in this we never can render to God that which is His. Then the Bible would not be a complete guide. The guide would have to be the Bible and something else. And that would be no guide at all; we should be all at sea, subject to every wind.
And the Bible does tell, in the word of God, what day is His, thus: "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day.: Isa. 58:13.
There is the day that is the Lord's. And it is the Sabbath: the seventh day of the Fourth Commandment.
And no man can find the Lord's Day to be anything else than the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, without abandoning The Reformation and Christian ground of "nothing but the Word of God," and standing on the papal ground of the Bible and tradition.
As in the Bible the Sabbath and the first day of the week are two separate and distinct things, so it continued for nearly fifteen hundred years this side of the Bible time.
The first use of the term Lord's Day as applied to the first day of the week is by Ignatius, who lived not long after the death of John the apostle. And these are the words:--
"Let every one of you keep the Sabbath after a spiritual manner, rejoicing in meditation on the law, not in relaxation of the body, admiring the workmanship of God.
"And after the observance of the Sabbath, let every friend of Christ keep the Lord's day as a festival, the resurrection day, the queen and chief of all the days.: [1]
Thus when Sunday came in as the Lord's Day it was not with any suggestion of its being the Sabbath, nor even a Sabbath; but only as "a festival" in addition to the Sabbath, and to be celebrated "after the observance of the Sabbath.:
The period from the time of Ignatius to the fourth century is covered in what is called the "Apostolic Constitutions," which for the use of the clergy is a collection representing usages in the churches.
In these "Constitutions" throughout there is plain distinction made, both as to fact and to principle, between the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment and the first day of the week. Thus:
"Keep the Sabbath and the Lord's day festival, because the former is the memorial of creation and the latter of the resurrection.:
There are not less than a dozen other statements on the same subjects, all equally explicit, and all keeping up the same distinction.
Thus the Sunday was set up along with the Sabbath without any Sabbatic character at all, but only as a day of festivity.
The first suggestion of the idea of any abstaining from work on Sunday was by the Bishop of Orleans, in A. D. 305, when, in a dissertation on the term, "Lord's day," applied to Sunday, he set forth that "Christians should abstain from work" on that day, since "the apostles wished this day to be no less honored than the Jewish Sabbath.:
Such was the view and the practice in the church before there ever was any Sunday law. And all the records of that time demonstrate that the setting up of Sunday as a festival day was wholly of the church, and all the directions for the celebration of it were wholly from the same source. It was a church institution absolutely.
That period also marks the exaltation of the bishops into an episcopal dominating hierarchy, "only anxious," says Eusebius, "to assert the government as a kind of sovereignty for themselves.:
It is not necessary to inquire on this whether it was "the government" of the church or the government of the State that they were anxious to assert, for it was both.
For, says Neander, "There had, in fact, arisen in the church a false theocratical theory . . . which might easily result in the formation of a sacerdotal State, subordinating the secular to itself in a false and outward way.
"This theocratical theory was already the prevailing one in the time of Constantine, and . . . the bishops voluntarily made themselves dependent on him by their disputes and by their determination to make use of the power of the State for the furtherance of their aims.:
And the Sunday laws were the means by which those bishops made effectual "their determination to make use of the power of the State" for the furtherance of their theocratical aims.
This can be verified by any one who will but trace the facts in Neander's history of the time. He first tells of that "determination" of the falsely theocratical bishops, as above stated. Then he tells the story of the Sunday laws from the first one by Constantine in 314 down to the one by Theodosius the Younger in 425. And then, without a break, and with direct reference to these Sunday laws, he says: "In this way the church received help from the State for the furtherance of her ends.:
She started out with the "determination" to do it; she did it; and "in this way" she did it.
Just what that way was will now be traced. The first Sunday law in the world was in an edict of Constantine, about the year 314, which, according to Neander's paraphrase, provided and ordered that on Friday and on Sunday "there should be a suspension of business at the courts and in other civil offices, so that the day might be devoted with less interruption to the purposes of devotion.:
And Sozomen says that Constantine--
"Commanded that no judicial or other business should be transacted on these days, but that God should be served with prayers and supplications.:
That puts it beyond all question that the express intent of the first legislation in behalf of Sunday as a day of cessation from common occupation was religious only. And the intent of the lawgiver being the law, that first Sunday law was religious only.
The second step in Sunday legislation was in the edict of Constantine, A. D. 321. The scope of the law was now extended to include not only the courts and other State offices, but also "the people residing in cities," and "such as work at trades.:
And still the intent was unqualifiedly the same, for Eusebius, the historian of the time, and one of the bishops who had most to do with the legislation, says of it that Constantine--
"Commanded, too, that one day should be regarded as a special occasion for religious worship.:
In positive expression of the continued religious intent in the law, Constantine, as the interpreter of his own law, caused to be drawn up a prayer to be repeated in concert every Sunday by the imperial troops at a given signal, as they were paraded for the purpose.
It is, therefore, impossible fairly to deny or to ignore that this law was definitely religious. And in addition to this, there is the evidence that it was exclusively religious.
This evidence is again in the words of Bishop Eusebius, saying that Constantine--
"Commanded the nations inhabiting the continents and islands of this mighty globe to assemble weekly on the Lord's day and to observe it as a festival, not indeed, for the pampering of the body, for the comfort and invigoration of the soul by instruction in divine truth.:
That statement not only shows that Sunday law to be religious, but it shows that it was religious to the exclusion of every temporal, civil, or physical consideration.
In confirmation of all this, there is the further fact that it was by his office and authority as Pontifex Maximus--the head of religion, and not as Emperor--the head of the State, that Constantine issued his Sunday edicts.
For, says Duruy--
"In determining what days should be regarded as holy, and in the composition of a prayer for national use, Constantine exercised one of the rights belonging to him as Pontifex Maximus, and it caused no surprise that he should do this.:
Yet, beyond all this is the fact that it was the church federation of the time that was the secret spring, the inspiration and the initiative, by which it was all brought about. It was all only in the furtherance of the grand scheme of the bishops and their church-combine to establish the State as "the Kingdom of God.:
And when they had accomplished their design, they proclaimed that "The kingdom of God had come," that "the saints of the Most High had taken the kingdom," That is the true story, as it is the only story, of the origin of Sunday legislation. That is the sole and exclusive character of Sunday legislation in its origin. That character is solely and exclusively religious. It has no hint nor savor of any other character than religious. And to the end of the world that character never can be separated from Sunday legislation.
The Sunday institution and all that was attached to it was wholly of the church. And when from the federated church the State accepted and embodied in the law this exclusively church institution, this, in the very fact of the doing of it, was the union of the church and the State.
Yet, though the Sunday was now embodied in the imperial law and enforced upon all the people, it was neither held by the church nor adopted nor enforced by the State as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment; but still only as another day of rest along with the Sabbath. And both days were still observed, and in most instances by the same persons, in that church and State system.
The status of both days as rest days at that time is indicated by Bishop Eusebius thus:--
"All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day.:--Comment on Ps. 92.
The first definite step that was ever taken to establish Sunday observance to the exclusion of the Sabbath was by the Council of Laodicea, about A. D. 364. In cannon 29 of that council Christians were forbidden to "be idle" and were commanded to "work on the Sabbath" and "if possible, do no work" on the Sunday.
That Council being not a general council, this canon was an index of what was wanted, more than an act of real force. This is shown by the fact that the council itself adopted three other canons recognizing the observance of the Sabbath. [2]
In A. D. 416 Pope Innocent I recognized the fact of the Sabbath still being observed in the church equally with the Sunday. In a letter he commanded that "the Sabbath should be observed as a fast day," because "it shares the sadness and the joy of Sunday, and the apostles were in great affliction on that day"; and that Sunday ought to be observed as "a most festive day" on account of the joy that it brought to the disciples.
Socrates, whose ecclesiastical history reaches down to A. D. 439, says:--
"Almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath of every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome have ceased to do this.:
And he specified what he calls "the festal days" of his time:--
"I mean Saturday and Lord's day in each week, on which assemblies are usually held in the churches.:--Book V, chap. xxii; Book VI, chap. viii, [3]
Sozomen, whose ecclesiastical history is carried down to A. D. 460, says:--
"The people of Constantinople and almost everywhere assemble together on the Sabbath, as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria.:--Book VII, chap. xix. [4]
In A. D. 538 a council at Orleans declared that what should be lawful or unlawful on Sunday was a question "exclusively of ecclesiastical jurisdiction.:
In A. D. 585, in a council at Macon, in Gaul, another step was taken to make Sunday a Sabbath in the place of the Sabbath. This council declared that Sunday is "the day of perpetual rest" (referred to in Hebrews 4), of which "the seventh day in the law and the prophets is the type.: And any disregarding it would incur the cumulative penalty of, first, "the wrath of God"; and secondly, "the unappeasable anger of the clergy.:
In A. D. 596 Augustine wrote to Pope Gregory "the Great" from Britain that the Briton Christians were "given to Judaizing" and "were ignorant of the holy sacraments and festivals of the church.:
That is to say, they observed the Sabbath and were ignorant of Sunday observance.
In A. D. 602 Pope Gregory took another step toward making Sunday a Sabbath to the exclusion of the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. In a letter he said:--
"It has come to my ears that certain men of perverse spirit have sown among you some things that are wrong and opposed to the holy faith, so as to forbid any work being done on the Sabbath day. What else can I call these but preachers of anti-Christ, who when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord's day to be kept free from all work.:
He said that such teaching "would Judaize the people"; that "Christ is our Sabbath," and that we ought to abstain from worldly labor and be diligent in prayer on Sunday, "that we may expiate the shortcomings of the other six days.:
In A. D. 664 Oswald, King of Northumberland, ordered Sunday observance. And the Sabbath keepers, "rather than to submit to it," withdrew to the Isle of Iona and to Ireland.
In the time between A. D. 732 and 769 another step was taken in the making of Sunday a Sabbath to the exclusion of the Sabbath. The Archbishop of York made a compilation of "Selections from the Canons," in which it is taught that "the Sabbath was sanctified because of its reference to the suffering of Christ and His rest in the grave"; and that "we should keep a spiritual Sabbath on Sunday, which has been sanctified by His resurrection.:
Still, however, the Sabbath was observed by some in the church. For in A. D. 791 the Council of Friuli, in Italy, spoke of "the Sabbath" as the day "observed by the Jews and our rustics.: Not simply rustics, nor the rustics, but "our rustics": which shows that the Sabbath was still observed even in the Roman church.
This same council took the widest stride yet made toward the exaltation of Sunday as the Sabbath. The council commanded that "the observance of Sunday should begin at the hour of the Sabbath evening office: not for the honor of the Sabbath, but for that of the Lord's day," and declared that Sunday is "the Sabbath of the Lord," to which reference is made in Exodus 35:2, in the words, "Whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.:
That is the first place and time in all the history of the world where Sunday is called "the Sabbath of the Lord," or even "the Sabbath" at all.
And yet, even then Sunday was not held as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, but as "the Sabbath of the Lord," to the exclusion of the Sabbath of the Lord.
Twenty-two years afterward, however, nearer approach was made to having Sunday to be the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment; but not yet quite in positive assertion. In A. D. 813 the Council of Rheims decreed that, "according to the Lord's commandment," no one should "do any servile work" on Sunday.
In A. D. 829 the sixth Council of Paris set forth that "the pagans set apart certain days for the honor of their gods"; that "the Jews, whose manners were of a worldly sort, kept the Sabbath in a worldly fashion," and that--
"a custom had grown up among Christians, as a matter of religious observance, based upon an accredited apostolic tradition, and certainly on the authority of the church, to honor Sunday: (1) in memory of the Lord's resurrection; (2) it was in that day that God gave light to the world; (3) the Holy Spirit descended upon the apostles; (4) 'as some doctors hold,' the manna fell from heaven;" that these and other things of similar character plainly show that "this day is more to be respected than others.:
Pope Nicholas I, A. D. 858 to 867, declared that Sabbath rest "is the doctrine of anti-Christ"; but that Sunday rest "is obligatory.:
In 1069 the Christians of Scotland were still keeping the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment "literally upon the seventh day of the week.:
In that year Princess Margaret of England became the wife of the King of Scotland. "Her religion was of the newest Roman type.: She wrought changes in the Church of Scotland from "the primitive type which down to her time it had exhibited.:
And among these changes was "the abolition of the old practice of observing Saturday (Sabbath), not Sunday, as the day of rest from labor," and "the prohibition of labor on the Lord's day.:
In the sixteenth century The Reformation prevailed so mightily that the General Council of Trent had to be called by the Church of Rome to consider her situation.
The strongest ground of the Protestants was their insistence that "the Bible, and the Bible alone, is the only true standard of faith and morals," as against Rome's claim of "the Bible and tradition" as such standard.
When the council assembled it was found that in the council itself, as the Pope's legates wrote to him, there was "a strong tendency to set aside tradition altogether and to make Scripture the sole standard of appeal.:
This was dangerous to Rome, for with her "tradition" means not merely antiquity, but "continuing inspiration," which is but another form of expressing "infallibility.: Something must be done to save the day for Rome.
And this is what was done: At the opening of the last session, Jan. 18, 1562, "the Archbishop of Rheggio made a speech, in which he openly declared that tradition stood higher than the Bible.:
And the proof of it is thus given by him:--
"This very authority of the church is most of all glorified by the Holy Scriptures. . . . By the same authority, the church, the legal precepts of the Lord contained in the Holy Scriptures have ceased. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been merged in the Lord's day . . . This day and similar institutions have not ceased in consequence of the preaching of Christ (for He says that He did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it), but yet they have been changed, and that solely by the authority of the church.:
There was no escape from this by the Protestants. For their own confession of faith--the Augsburg Confession, 1530--had clearly admitted that "the observation of the Lord's day" had been appointed by "the church" only. And in this the Protestants plainly held, not "the Bible, and the Bible alone," but "the Bible and tradition," with the tradition above the Bible. And this was but Rome's own ground--and so Rome's cause was saved.
Note that in the council the archbishop said: "The Sabbath . . . has been merged in the Lord's day.:
Then the catechism of the Council of Trent, A. D. 1567, completes the story thus:--
"When the ceremonies of the law were removed, the Sabbath also, as a ceremonial, was removed. The sanctification of the Sabbath is cessation from bodily labor and business. The Sabbath we observe fully and perfectly when we afford to God the duties of piety and religion. The proper meaning of the Fourth Commandment tends to this: That a man give himself up at some fixed time, so that, disengaged from bodily labor and business, he may piously worship and adore God.:
And as the church has made Sunday that "fixed time" for worship, and has made that "the proper meaning of the Fourth Commandment," there you have it.
And thus Sunday was made "the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.:
All of the foregoing system of decrees of councils and popes, of papal kings and emperors, in behalf of Sunday, pervaded England. Indeed no small part of it was directly of England; because England was a part of the papacy.
And after England was separated from the Pope, the same thing was continued; because, though England was divorced from the Pope, in more ways than one she was not divorced from the essential papacy.
In 1533 Henry VIII cut loose England from the dominion of the Pope, and himself became "supreme head on earth of the church of England": and so all his successors to this day. With the exception of the king as a pope in the place of the Pope, nothing was changed.
In 1554 and onward was the rise and reign of the Puritans. They maintained that the church of England "retained many human inventions and popish superstitions," and insisted that all these should be abandoned and "the Word of God alone" be followed.
Their special contention was against the "habits, ceremonies, and discipline of the church" of England: whether the clergy should wear vestments; whether the church should be governed by bishops; whether there should be cathedrals, with their arch-deacons, deans, canons, and other officials; whether there should be church festivals and holy-days, the sign of the cross, god-fathers, godmothers, etc.
The church of England held that:--
"Though the Holy Scriptures are a perfect standard of doctrine, they are not a rule of discipline and government: nor is the practice of the apostles an invariable rule or law to the church in succeeding ages; because they acted according to the circumstances of the church in its infant and persecuted state. Neither are the Scriptures a rule of human actions so far as that whatsoever we do in matters of religion without their express direction is sin; but many things are left indifferent.:
Summarized, the respective positions were--
Church of England: Whatever the Scriptures do not plainly forbid in matters of church discipline, order, and government, may be commanded by the church and practiced by believers, without sin.
The Puritans: In all church discipline, order, and government, as well as doctrine, the Scriptures are the perfect and only rule of human actions. Therefore in all things pertaining to religion, whatever is not commanded is vanity and cannot be practiced without sin.
Accordingly the Puritans denounced as popery all church festivals, holy-days, habits, and ceremonies; and charged the Episcopalians with "popish leaven and superstition, and subjection to the ordinances of men" in their practice of such things.
As evidence that ought to convince the Puritans that the church has liberty and authority in things not commanded, the Episcopalians held up the fact that the observance of Sunday is only an ordinance of the church and rests only upon the authority of the church.
They urged that the Puritans were inconsistent, selfcontradictory, and arbitrary, in continuing the observance of Sunday while denouncing the authority of the church, the only authority upon which rests that day and its observance as a religious day.
This put the Puritans in a box. They were keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. The only authority that they could produce for it from all the ages, was church authority: and the papal church at that.
What could they do?!
Any authority of the church they would not allow: for that would be to recognize popery.
Scripture command or authority for Sunday observance they could not find: for there the only command or authority for a day of weekly rest or worship is the Fourth Commandment, which specifically designates the seventh day and not the first day of the week.
Obey the plain and simple command of God they would not: for that would be confession that they had been wrong, and this would be to confess that they were not infallible, did not know everything, and could actually learn something.
To continue to observe the Sunday only on the authority which they most of all denounced, while pressing upon the Episcopalians that there must be a plain command of God for everything that should be done in religion, was to take the whole ground from under their own feet and leave themselves no standing at all.
There was great perplexity. There were great searchings-- not of heart, but for something, anything, to save them in palpable error, not from it.
At last in 1594 "Rev. Nicholas Bownde (or Bound), D. D., of Norton in the county of Suffolk," England, found their way out. He wrote a book setting forth the following curious invention:--
It is not the definite seventh day, but "a seventh part of time" that is required by the Fourth Commandment to be kept as the Sabbath.
It is "not the seventh day from creation; but the day of Christ's resurrection, and the seventh day from that.:
"The seventh day is genus" in the Fourth Commandment, so that "the seventh day from creation, and the day of Christ's resurrection and the seventh day from that" are "both of them comprehended in the Commandment even as genus comprehendeth both his species.:
Thus the Fourth Commandment was made to require the observance of the seventh day from creation until the resurrection of Christ, and the first day from that time onward!
That book of Dr. Bownde's "had a wonderful spread among the people. All the Puritans fell in with this doctrine, and distinguished themselves" in their devotion to Sunday observance.
And thus the papal Sunday as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, became the Puritan Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment. For the use of the word "Sabbath" as applying to Sunday "became in that age a distinctive mark of the Puritan.:
In 1584 the Puritan influence in Parliament caused the passage of "a bill for the better and more reverent observation of the Sabbath"--Sunday. But Queen Elizabeth "refused to pass it" because she would not consent that Parliament should "meddle with matters of religion, which was her prerogative" as head of the church.
In 1603 King James VI of Scotland became James I of England. In his progress through England he saw the people restricted to narrow and listless limits by the Sunday laws pressed upon them by the narrower clergy.
Upon complaint of the people of Lancashire, King James as "supreme head on earth of the church of England," with the advice of his prelates, issued May 24, 1618, "The King's Majesties Declaration to his Subjects concerning Lawful Sports to be used" on Sundays after evening prayers.
This "Declaration" was called the "Book of Sports.: The provisions of it were drawn up by Bishop Morton, and it was issued, not by Parliament, but solely by James as "head of the church.: It allowed dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, may-games, church-ales, [5] morrice dances, setting up of may-poles, and "other sports therewith used.:
James was not particularly notable for kindness of heart. The "Book of Sports" was issued to rasp the Puritans. For at his very council-table James had declared that "his mother and he from their cradles had been haunted with a Puritan devil which he feared would not leave him to his grave.:
The Puritan opposition to the "Book of Sports" was intense. A great controversy arose. On all sides the Puritan application of the word "Sabbath" to Sunday was disputed and ridiculed.
For instance: A bill having been introduced in Parliament "for the better observance of the Sabbath, usually called Sunday.: One of the members, a Mr. Shepherd, remarked upon it, "As Saturday is dies Sabbati, this might be entitled 'A Bill for the observance of Saturday, commonly called Sunday.'"
Mr. Shepherd's remark was so pointedly pertinent that it was held to be contemptuously impertinent, and "He was reprimanded on his knees and expelled from the House of Commons.:
In the House of Lords the words "the Lord's day" were substituted for the word "Sabbath," and the bill was sent down with the remark that "People do now much incline to the words of Judaism.:
However James asked Parliament not to pass the bill, because "it was so directly against" his "Declaration," and the matter as in the Parliament stopped there for the time.
In the reign of Charles I, "at the request of the justices of the peace," the lord chief justice and another judge jointly issued an order for the suppression of the excesses indulged in the "sports.: But they were reproved by the archbishop who was sustained by the king, and were required to revoke their order; because of their "invading and usurping the episcopal jurisdiction.:
Oct. 18, 1633, at the instance of the archbishop, Charles I reissued the "Book of Sports.: "The court had its balls, masquerades, and plays," on Sunday evenings, "while the people in the country enjoyed their morrice-dances, maygames, church-ales, and other diversions.:
All this time there went steadily on the controversy over the Puritan application of the word "Sabbath" to Sunday. In 1628 Theophilus Bradbourne, a clergyman, published a book pleading for the acceptance and observance of the Lord's Sabbath as it is given in the Commandment--"the seventh day"--as "the Christian Sabbath.: But all who recognized the real Sabbath of the Lord and of the Fourth Commandment "suffered great persecution" from all sides.
April 6, 1644, the Long Parliament enacted that "all persons should apply themselves to the sanctification of the Lord's day by exercising themselves in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and that no person should publicly cry, show forth or expose to sale, any wares or merchandise, etc.; or, without reasonable cause, travel, carry burdens, or do any worldly labor or work"; the provisions of the "Book of Sports" were abolished, the "Book" itself was commanded to be burnt by the common hangman; also that there should be burnt "all other books and pamphlets against the morality of the Fourth Commandment or of the Lord's day.:
In the reign of Charles II the church of England again came into power. And the bishops used their power to the fullest.
By the "Act of Uniformity," 1662, "the crowning measure of ecclesiastical polity"--Knight; by the "Conventicle Act," 1664, "devised for the extirpation of all public worship not within the walls of a church,"--Brooks; the "Oxford Five-Mile Act," 1666, intensified in 1670; all religious preaching and teaching, and all worship and assembly for worship, was confined only to that "allowed by the liturgy and practice of the church of England.:
And this was in order "that every person within this realm may certainly know the rule to which he is to conform in public worship.:
The effect of that legislation was to exclude all dissenters in the realm from all places or assemblies of worship: for they would not go to the places of worship of those who were making such laws as these.
But that was not what those acts were for. The one purpose of them all was to make the worship of the church of England the only worship in the realm, and this worship to be attended by every person in the realm.
Then and therefore, in 1676 there was enacted the Sunday law of Charles II requiring everybody to "repair to the church" on Sunday. This statute commands:--
"For the better observation and keeping holy the Lord's day, commonly called Sunday: be it enacted . . . that all the laws enacted and in force concerning the observation of the day, and repairing to the church thereon, be carefully put in execution; and that all and every person and persons whatsoever shall upon every Lord's day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves in the duties of piety and true religion, publicly and privately; and that no tradesman, artificer, workman, or other person whatsoever, shall do or exercise any worldly labor or business or work of their ordinary callings upon the Lord's day, or any part thereof (works of necessity and charity only excepted)," &c.
In England that statute compelled everybody to go to the places of worship of the church of England. The clause "repairing to the church" meant only the church of England; for all other places had been prohibited by the preceding acts.
In the colonies in America it was used to compel the people to go to their respective places of worship. And as it embodied the principal provisions word for word of the Puritan statute of 1644 in England and enforced them all, the Puritans in America came into their own again.
That Statute of Charles II is the original and the model of all the Sunday laws in all the States of the United States since the original thirteen. And it is confessedly "the model" of the Senate Sunday bill that is now before Congress: and that is urged by the Federal Council of churches.
Here then is the genealogy of all the Sunday laws in all the States of the United States: The Sunday laws of the later States are only the extension or repetition of the Sunday laws of the original States, which were the identical Sunday laws of the colonies, which were the Sunday laws of England, which were the Sunday laws of papal Rome.
And from their original in Rome to their final in these latest States, in every generation they have been nothing else than exclusively religious and ecclesiastical both in origin and intent.
And in completion of the story the Federal Council of churches in its Philadelphia meeting, Dec. 2-8, 1908, officially repeated and confirmed the action of both the Puritan and the papal theocracies in making Sunday the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.
In that meeting of the Federal Council the Committee on "Sunday Observance" said:--
"We have no objection to reading the Commandment: 'Remember that you keep holy one day in seven. Consecrate this day unto the Lord as the Lord's. Let it be unlike other days. Sanctify it.:
When the report was under discussion a member of the Council offered this resolution:--
"It is not our intention that anything shall be done to interfere with the convictions of those brethren represented with us in this Council who conscientiously observe the seventh instead of the first day of the week as a day of rest and worship.:
That resolution was overwhelmingly rejected with loud and prolonged "No-o-o-o!!"
That shows unmistakably that the statement of the Council that they have no objection to their own proposed reading of the Commandment "that you keep holy one day in seven" is not true--except as that "one day in seven" is and shall be Sunday.
Also it is thus demonstrated that they will not allow anybody but themselves to read the Commandment the way that they have said: and that they themselves will read it in that way, only with reference strictly and specifically to Sunday.
And that is how by the Federal Council Sunday, the first day of the week, became the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment which says that it is the seventh day of the week.
There, then, by the indisputable evidence of history, fact, and law, is the true story of just how Sunday, the first day of the week, became, to the Congress and courts of the United States, the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment of "an all-wise God," who Himself said that it is the seventh day of the week.
And from the beginning to the end of it the conception, the invention, the process, and the whole procedure were absolutely of the church, by the church, and for the church.
However, let no one think for a moment that what has here been presented is all the evidence that there is in the case. Not at all. This narrative has been purposely limited to the one pivotal feature of the subject--the Sunday and the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment.
Around, between, and along with, the facts herein set forth there were scores upon scores of acts and decrees promoting the observance of Sunday itself as such-- fretting, fretting, fretting, for more than sixteen hundred years, like the single but continual dropping of water that melts stone, wearing down both mind and spirit to dull and enslaved submission or conformity to the ecclesiastical tyranny that was the inspiration and impetus of it all.
And such a thing as that--a thing composed only of such stuff and nonsense and iniquity as all that--is seriously proposed by a Senator of the United States as the thought of the Fourth Commandment of "an all-wise God," and to be enacted into law under the Constitution that declares that Congress shall make "no law" on any such subject!
And in the present insistent and persistent ecclesiastical pressure of federation, confederation, and "forward movement" backward, in an ever-increasing tide upon Congress and all this land, perpetually demanding Sunday legislation, and ever more Sunday legislation--in all this what observant person can fail to see that history is being repeated unto the very living likeness of the original?
To see how on principle The Reformation stands toward all this, read again the first paragraph on page 39 of this book.
What more Satanic thing could ever be invented, what thing more suicidal to the State or more demoralizing to society, than the making of idleness compulsory and universal, and honest industry a crime to be punished by fine and imprisonment?
Industry, not idleness, is the life of the State and the stay of Society. Gen. 2:5; 3:17-19; John 5:17; Rom. 12:11.
And now will Congress and the courts allow the people of the District of Columbia and of the United States to deal with their human law in the like manner as they themselves thus deal with the divine law?
When this very Sunday bill now before Congress shall become law, expressing their thought of "the Fourth Commandment," will they allow you and me to observe the seventh day of the week in fulfillment of their law enjoining the first day of the week, as they offer to "an all-wise God" the observance of the first day of the week in fulfillment of the divine law that enjoins the seventh day of the week?
If not, why not? Upon what ground can they refuse such action on the part of the people here?
What ground, indeed, other than the implication that they and their human law are superior to "an all-wise God" and His divine law?
Wouldn't it be interesting to know just what "an all-wise God" and infinitely just Judge really does think of all this ecclesiastical. legislative, and judicial, fantastic fiddling with His law?
Finally, when the Congress and the courts of the United States, and the Federal Council, shall enforce upon the people any law requiring the observance or recognition of Sunday as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, then that will be, not the Fourth Commandment as God gave it, but only that commandment as the Church of Rome has changed it.
And that will be the enforcement, not of the will of God, but of the will of the Church of Rome.
Sabbath observance, according to the Fourth Commandment, as God gave it, means worship--the worship of God.
"Sabbath" observance of the "Fourth Commandment," as Rome has changed it, just as certainly means worship--the worship of Rome: and the worship of Rome as God in the place of God.
And when Congress and the courts of the United States, or of any State, enforce the observance or recognition of the "Fourth Commandment" as Rome has changed it, that is nothing else than the enforcement of the worship of Rome as God in the place of God.
In this connection recall from pages 29-30 of this book, The Reformation principle that "Subjection in the spiritual world constitutes worship.:
There are just three specific characteristics that distinguish the papacy:
1. A human theocracy: a false kingdom of God.
2. The "Christian" religion by force: by law and governmental power of both State and church.
3. Infallibility in the humanly constructed church: which is but human infallibility.
The institution of Sunday as a day or the day of assembly, or of worship, or of rest, or of refraining from labor, for anybody, is the pivot upon which turns each of these three specific characteristics of the papacy.
The papacy is man in the place of God, and above God in doing as God what God could not do.
Of His purpose and in His wisdom God occupied six days in creating, and chose the seventh day to be the Sabbath. By resting, blessing, hallowing, and sanctifying, this day, He made it the Sabbath of the Lord "for the man.:
It is not too much to say that He could have created all things in five days, if in His wisdom He had so chosen; and could have rested, blessed, hallowed and sanctified, the sixth day, and so made it the Sabbath.
Or He could have occupied four days in creating, and made the fifth day the Sabbath; or three days in creating, and made the fourth day the Sabbath; or two days in creating and made the third day the Sabbath; or one day in creating, and made the second day the Sabbath.
But that is as far as even God could go. For He could not have occupied the first day in creating, and also have occupied it in resting. He could not call that His rest day in which He had worked; for "it is impossible for God to lie.: Therefore the Creator Himself could not make the first day the Sabbath.
And by the same token it is demonstrated that the men who have set up Sunday, the first day of the week, as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, in so doing have gone beyond what God Himself could do: and so have not only put themselves in the place of God, but above God.
And it would be impossible for men so effectually to do this in any other way. Therefore, Sunday as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment, or as the rest day to God, is transcendentally the sign of man in the place of God and above God which is the specific distinguishing thing that marks the papacy--"the beast" of Revelation 13.
And thus it stands plain and certain that the Sunday institution as the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment is "the mark of the beast" designated and denounced in Revelation 13 and 14.
And now all of the Roman federations, special and general, are urging Sunday observance and ever more Sunday observance by law.
The Pagan governments of China and Japan are definitely committed to it, by law.
And all of the federations, denominational and Federal, of false Protestants are committed to Sunday observance by law.
All of these are being combined in every possible way and by any possible means to bring about the enforced observance of Sunday as the one day for worship of all the world.
It is only the truth to say all. For there is not a single denomination that is not committed to Sunday observance by law. Even the denominations that profess to keep the true Sabbath--the Seventh-Day Baptists and the Seventh-Day Adventists--are committed to it.
The Seventh-Day Baptist denomination is definitely and actively a working part of the Federal Council of Churches which is pre-eminently devoted to universal Sunday observance by law. And beyond all question this commits that denomination to it.
But in addition to that, one of the delegates of that denomination is actually a consenting member of the Council's "Commission on Sunday Observance!" [6]
By their supremely authoritative word the Seventh-Day Adventists are committed to it. That word to that denomination gives the following specific and full instructions as to "Sunday observance" when it is "enforced by law:--
"The light given me by the Lord . . . was that when the people were moved by a power from beneath to enforce Sunday observance, Seventh-Day Adventists were to show their wisdom by--
"refraining from their ordinary work on that day,
"devoting it to missionary effort.:
"House to house work can be done.:
"Whenever it is possible, let religious services be held on Sunday.:
"On that day open-air meetings and cottage meetings can be held.
"Make these meetings intensely interesting.
"Sing revival hymns and speak with power and assurance of the Saviour's love.
"Speak on temperance and on true religious experience.:
"Make no demonstration on Sunday in defiance of law.:
"Give them no occasion to call you law-breakers.:-- "Testimonies for the Church," No. 37, pp. 232-3.
And now in order that the situation shall be accommodated to both of these denominations of professed Sabbathkeepers, and to make it perfectly easy for them to occupy their false position all the way, the arrangement is being made to have both Sabbath and Sunday to be rest-days by law.
The Federal Council actually proposes, advocates, and works for, not merely a Saturday half-holiday, but the Saturday whole-holiday: in the "hope" that--
"the time may come when hand and brain toilers shall have for their own use both Saturday and Sunday, one being a day of social recreation and the other a day of worship.:
At the Chicago meeting of the Council it was said in a report that this scheme "gives to the workingman a privilege that he never had before--a day for worship, and a half day or a whole-day for preparation": that the Saturday whole-holiday should be spent in "rest and recreation and in sports and games, as a preparation for Sunday as the day of worship.:
Both in committee and on the floor of the Council this arrangement as to the two days was agreed to by the delegates of the Seventh-Day Baptist denomination; and it fits exactly the already arranged procedure of the Seventh- Day Adventist denomination. So certain it is that denominationalism wherever found is essentially papal.
Read again the words of Pope Gregory "the Great" on page 288, that "Antichrist, when he comes, will cause the Sabbath day as well as the Lord's day to be kept free from all work.:
If it can be supposed that Antichrist knows his own mind and purpose, then this arrangement of all denominations for both these days "to be kept free from all work" is unquestionable evidence that the time of the ultimate Antichrist is now upon the world; and that through denominational, national, and international, federation and confederation he is already carrying things his own way in that aim and purpose.
"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. If any man have an ear, let him hear.: Thus by the Federal Council, by Congress, and by Courts; by Federation and Confederation, denominational, national, international, and world; by the combine of all worldly power, false Protestant, pagan, and papal; there is forced upon every soul the reign of Rome against The Reformation.
Notes:
1. The authorities for the facts, dates, and quotations in this chapter are: the "Ante-Nicene Library;" the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers;" Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church," Vol. II, sections 2,3; a law book, the "Law of Sunday"--Appendix; Hallam's "Constitutional History of England," Chapter vii; Neal's "History of the puritans;" Brook's "History of Religious Liberty;" Moffatt's "Church in Scotland;" Encyc. Brit., Ninth Ed., under "Scotland," and "St. Margaret;" Holtzman's "Kanon und Tradition.:
2. "Canon 16. On Saturday, the Gospels and other portions of the Scripture shall be read aloud.
3. Canon 49. During Lent the bread shall not be offered, except on Saturday and Sunday.
4. "Canon 51. During Lent no feasts of the martyrs shall be celebrated, but the holy martyrs shall be commemorated on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent. Hefele's "History of the Church Councils.: His transactions of the canons gives "Saturday" every time, but the original is "Sabbath.:
5. Church-ale itself is "A strong ale of good quality brewed especially for a church-festival, and broached only on the day of the feast in question.:
6. Celebration of church-ale is "A convivial meeting on the occasion of a church-festival, at which the ale specially brewed was served.:
7. See "Sabbath Recorder," April 21, 1913, page 487.