It is the signature and seal of the law.
This the papacy has torn from its place, and erected in its stead, on its own authority, an institution designed to serve another purpose.
This change of the fourth commandment must therefore be the change to which the prophecy points; and Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast! Some who have long been taught to regard this institution with reverence will perhaps start back with little less than feelings of horror at this conclusion.

We have not space, nor is this perhaps the place, to enter into an extended argument on the Sabbath question, and an exposition of the origin and nature of the observance of the first day of the week.

Let us submit this one proposition: If the seventh day is still the Sabbath enjoined in the fourth commandment; if the observance of the first day of the week has no foundation whatever in the Scriptures; if this observance has been brought in as a Christian institution and designedly put in place of the Sabbath of the decalogue, by that power which is symbolized by the beast, and placed there as a badge and token of its power to legislate for the church, is it not inevitably the mark of the beast?
The answer must be in the affirmative.
But all these hypotheses can easily be shown to be certainties, See History of the Sabbath, and other works on the subject, published at the _Review_ Office.

To these we can only refer the reader, in passing.
It will be said again, then all Sunday-keepers have the mark of the beast; then all the good of past ages who kept this day had the mark of the beast; then Luther, Whitefield, the Wesleys, and all who have done a good and noble work of reformation, had the mark of the beast; then all the blessings that have been poured upon the reformed churches have been poured upon those who had the mark of the beast.

We answer, _No_! And we are sorry to say that some professedly religious teachers, though many times corrected, persist in misrepresenting us on this point.