TEXTS: "Do we, then, make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31.
"Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances." Eph. 2:15.
BOTH these texts are in the New Testament, and both were written by the same apostle; yet one asserts that the law has not been abolished by Christ, and the other declares as positively that the law has been abolished. How is this seeming contradiction to be reconciled? By the simple fact that Paul is speaking of two entirely different laws. The first text relates to the decalogue; the second, to the typical law.
Numerous passages in the New Testament clearly speak of the abolition of a law at the death of Christ. If there were not two laws, then not only the ceremonial law but the ten commandments and all the moral precepts of the Old Testament were done away by Christ. But is it reasonable that God should abolish such precepts as these: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart," "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," "Thou shalt not kill," etc.?
We will now show that there were two systems of law running parallel from the fall of Adam to the death of Christ, at which time one expired, while the other was confirmed.
In the beginning, man was placed upon probation under such condition that he could have secured eternal life by simple obedience to God. Adam was given free access to the tree of life and all the trees, except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Gen. 2:8-17. As long as he could continue to eat of the tree of life, just so long he would live. Gen. 3:22. The day of his death would not come till the day that he ate of the forbidden fruit. Had he never disobeyed God, he never would have died. But death came in consequence of sin. Rom. 5:12. If, therefore, man had been obedient to his Creator, he would have secured eternal life by that obedience. Then Christ need not have died to save men; and none of the types and sacrifices of the Old Testament, pointing to the death of Christ, would ever have been instituted. But men having become sinners, it thereby became necessary that Christ should die to redeem them; and as it was to be many ages before the Saviour would come, it became necessary to offer sacrifices as types and shadows of the death of Christ, thereby to show their faith in the coming Redeemer. To offer a sacrifice they must have an altar upon which to offer it, and a priest properly set apart to officiate at the altar; this priest must be supported; and, finally, a temple with all its ceremonies became necessary. To regulate all these, a law was needed. Hence the introduction of the law relating to types and shadows, commonly called the ceremonial law.
The least reflection will show that this law never would have existed if man had not previously transgressed the other, the moral law. Many references to both these laws may be found in Genesis. Abel offered sacrifices. Gen. 4:4. Noah built an altar and offered up burnt offerings. Gen. 8:20. So did Abraham. Gen. 12:7, 8. Melchizedek "was the priest of the most high God," Gen. 14:18, whom Abraham honored, and to whom he paid tithes. Verse 20. This shows that at an early day the Lord had regularly ordained priests and a law for their proper maintenance.
References to the moral law, the ten commandments, are also found in Genesis. See chap. 2:1-3; 4:8-11; 9:22-25; 20:6-9; 31:30-32; 35:1, 2; 39:17-20, etc.
DISTINCTION IN THE GIVING OF THE TWO LAWS.
Evidently the Lord designed to mark a plain distinction between the two laws by the very manner in which he gave them to the people. The decalogue was given in the following manner: 1. God himself spoke it from Heaven with his own voice. Deut. 4:12, 13. 2. He wrote it twice with his own finger. Ex. 31:18; 34:1. 3. He engraved it upon stone. Ex. 32:16. 4. It was placed in the ark in the most holy place. Ex. 25:16, 22; Deut. 10:1-5.
Now notice how differently the other law was given: 1. Moses wrote it out with his own hand. See Ex. 24:15-18; Deut. 31:9, 24. 2. Moses wrote it in a book of parchment. Deut. 31:24. 3. Moses spoke this law to the people. Deut. 1:3-5. 4. This book of the law was then put in the side of the ark. Deut. 31:24-26.
Thus we see that there was one law in the ark, and another outside the ark; one law on the tables of stone, another in the book; one law written by God, another by Moses; one law spoken by God, another by Moses; one law relating to moral duties, and another to ceremonial ordinances. Who will deny the existence of two laws when the distinction is so plain? And this distinction is everywhere kept up, both in the Old and in the New Testament. Thus, in 2 Kings 21:8, the Lord says, I will establish them "if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them, and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them,"—a plain distinction between the two. So Neh. 9:13, 14, says that God spoke from Heaven "right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments." Then the prophet adds, "and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant." Here we have, first, one set of laws, spoken by the voice of God; then, secondly, another set of laws by the hand of Moses. This makes it certain that there were two laws given to the people.
In the New Testament the same distinction is always recognized. When circumcision is spoken of, it is called "the law of Moses;" Acts 15:5; but when the decalogue is spoken of, it is called "the law of God." Rom. 7:7, 22. Every passage which speaks of a law being done away refers to the typical law, never to the ten commandments. The whole typical system pointed directly to Christ. Col. 2:14-17. When he came, in the very nature of things it must cease. But why should any moral precept be done away there?
In Acts 15 it is plainly taught that there was a certain "law" abolished by the gospel. But it is just as plainly declared to be "the law of Moses" relating to circumcision. Verse 5. The book of Galatians also teaches the abrogation of a law. Here again it is the one touching circumcision; chap. 2:1-3; 5:2, 3, 11; the one relating to eating; chap. 2:11-14; and that which "was added because of transgression, till the seed [Christ] should come." Chap. 3:19. Eph. 2:15, says that Christ abolished the law of "ordinances." Col. 2:14-17, speaks of "blotting out the handwriting of ordinances," "which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." It is the typical law, then, that was abolished. All the items mentioned, the meat, drink, the feast days, the new moons, and the yearly Sabbaths, are found in the ceremonial law. See Lev. 23. Paul, in Hebrews, plainly tells us what law was done away. It was the law relating to the priesthood; chap. 7:12; to the temple; chap. 9:1-8; to the sacrifices, chap. 10:1-5; and to "meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances." Chap. 9:10.
That the reader may appreciate more fully the contrast between the two laws, I have drawn up the following table of comparison between what is said of the moral law of God, the ten commandments, and what is said of the law of types. The moral law we will call No. 1, and the ceremonial law No. 2.
THE TWO LAWS COMPARED.
1 { No. 1—Existed in Eden, before the fall.
No. 2—Was given after the fall.
2 { No. 1—Was broken in the first transgression.
No. 2—Was given in consequence of that transgression of No. 1. Gal. 3:19.
3 { No. 1—Relates only to moral duties. Ex. 20.
No. 2—Is wholly ceremonial. Heb. 9:10.
4 { No. 1—Was spoken by God. Deut. 4:12.
No. 2—Spoken by Moses. Deut. 1:1-6.
5 { No. 1—Was written by God. Ex. 31:18.
No. 2—Was written by Moses. Deut. 31:9.
6 { No. 1—Was engraved upon stone. Deut. 4:13.
No. 2—Was written in a book. Deut. 31:24.
7 { No. 1—Was placed in the ark. Deut. 10:5.
No. 2—Was put in the side of the ark. Deut. 31:26. (Heb., beside the ark.)
8 { No. 1—Was "right," "true," and "good." Neh. 9:13.
No. 2—Was "not good." Eze. 20:25.
9 { No. 1—Was a law "which if a man do, he shall even live in it." Eze. 20:11.
No. 2—Was a law whereby they should "not live." Eze. 20:25.
How could these possibly be the same law?
10 { No. 1—Was perfect. Ps. 19:7.
No. 2—Made nothing perfect. Heb. 7:19.
11 { No. 1—Christ did not come to destroy. Matt. 5:17.
No. 2—He abolished. Eph. 2:15.
21 { No. 1—Is to endure while heaven and earth stand. Matt. 5:18.
No. 2—Passed away when the seed came. Gal. 3:19.
Of No. 1 Christ said, whoever shall break the least one of its precepts shall be condemned. Matt. 5:19.
13 { Of No. 2 the apostle said, "We gave no such commandment" that "ye should keep the law." Acts 15:24.
14 { No. 1—Is "the law of liberty." Jas. 2:12.
No. 2—Is a "yoke of bondage." Gal. 5:1.
15 { No. 1—The apostles delighted in. Rom. 7:22.
No. 2—Was a yoke which could not be borne. Acts 15:10.
16 { No. 1—Is established by faith. Rom. 3:31.
No. 2—Was abolished by the cross. Eph. 2:15.
How could the same law be abolished, and not abolished, at the same time?
17 { No. 1—Is "spiritual." Rom. 7:14.
No. 2—Is "carnal." Heb. 7:16.
Can the same law be both spiritual and carnal at the same time? Yes; if white is black, and black is white.
18 { No. 1—Is holy, just, and good. Rom. 7:12.
No. 2—Is called "the enmity," "that was against us, which was contrary to us." Col. 2:14.
19 { No. 1—Contains the whole duty of man. Eccl. 12:13.
No. 2—"Stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances." Heb. 9:10.
20 { No. 1—Was written by nature in the heart of the Gentiles. Rom. 2:14.
No. 2—Was a wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. Eph. 2:14:15.
21 { No. 1—Was "the royal law." Jas. 2:8.
No. 2—Was the law of Moses. Acts 15:10.
22 { No. 1—Jesus came to magnify and make honorable. Isa. 42:21.
No. 2—He disannulled. Heb. 7:18.
23 { No. 1—Is to be kept with the faith of Jesus. Rev. 14:12.
No. 2—Is superseded by the faith of Jesus. Gal. 3:19-25.
24 { No. 1—Must be kept as a condition of eternal life. Matt. 19:16-19.
No. 2—Is not a standard of character. Rom. 2:25-27.
25 { No. 1—Is the law by which the world will be judged. Jas. 2:12.
No. 2—Will judge no man. Col. 2:16.
This list might be greatly extended, but the above points of contrast are sufficient to show that all inspired writers have recognized and noted the distinction between the two laws, the moral and ceremonial. The gospel, then, abrogated only the typical law.
Please examine our book list over the leaf, and read further upon this subject.
FACTS AS THEY ARE.
By Editor
The present age is vain-glorious and boastful. "Peace and safety," "progress and prosperity," are the song of many who fear not God, and regard not his commandments. And the Church has not entirely escaped this contamination, but sometimes boasts of her success when she should blush for her unfaithfulness, her lukewarmness, and her apostasy. Churches publish their statistics, count up their numbers, talk of their missions and their converts, and while only one side of the question is considered, the exhibit seems very encouraging; but while all this may do for platform speeches, and may serve to stimulate the benefactions of the unthinking, there are other grave facts, known to all who wish to know them, which necessarily modify the conclusions of thinking men. The Missionary Advocate calls attention to some important aspects of the case as follows:---
"We spend in the United States $700,000,000 for intoxicating drinks yearly. All the boards of missions spend for the salvation of the world something under $6,000,000. There is the solemn secret. More than a hundred dollars used to send men to hell, for every dollar to send them the gospel of life! Yet this is a Christian country. We boast our civilization, our culture, our institutions; we think we are doing very well, and deserve the admiration of the world: yet our bureaus of statistics disclose awful facts to our disgrace. We have no excuse for these things. They are wrong. The Gospel can remedy them if we will do our duty. A day is coming when God will arise, and terribly shake the earth. Give us as much money for missions as is used in the cancerous traffic of liquor, and we will solve the problem of the reign of evil forever."
If a "Christian country" spends a hundred times as much money to destroy men as it spends to save them; if the rum bill of a nation—to say nothing of the tobacco abomination—is a hundred times as large as the missionary expenditure, how long will it take such "Christian nations" to Christianize the world?
It is not well to delude ourselves with false hopes or mislead ourselves by partial statements of the facts around us. Any man who dares to look the actual condition of the world in the face; to descend to the dark and terrible facts and statistics of crime and guilt and vileness which are all around us, will very soon see that with all the material facilities of the present age, and with all the vast wealth of professing Christians, the Church to-day is putting forth no adequate efforts to stem the tide of evil which rolls through the land.
We would not undervalue the work of missions or missionaries. We are not insensible to the glorious triumphs of the Gospel of Christ, nor are we ignorant of the power of divine grace and saving truth; but we remember also that the great Captain of our salvation fought on this same battle field, and was outnumbered, crucified, and slain. The true Church is yet, in comparison with the world, but "a little flock."
We remember hearing the venerable Dr. Lyman Beecher say, in a ministerial conference in Plymouth, Massachusetts: "It would take to all eternity to convert the world, at the rate that modern revivals progress." And we confess that we do not see evidence that "modern revivals" are becoming very much more effective.
It is comparatively easy for men who confine themselves to the charmed circle of their own associates, and who in their snug and comfortable quarters enjoy all the good things of this life, to imagine that the world is growing better, and that the dawn of millennial peace is at hand; but those who, forsaking all for Christ, go forth to labor in the vineyard of the Lord, see little to warrant such hopes. Those with whom Christianity is a fact, and who toil with restless and incessant zeal; who see how hard it is to convert men from the error of their ways, and how easy it is for a formal church to slide down into coldness and indifference; are led to cry with the prophets of old: "Lord who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?"
We would not breathe one syllable to discourage the zeal or restrain the efforts of those who seek to spread the knowledge of the Lord in all the earth, but we believe it to be of vast importance that the message which is carried to them who dwell in the dark corners of the earth, shall be the truth of God, rather than the fancies of a vain-glorious and light minded age. The awful facts of human iniquity, of man's utter ruin, of his rebellion against his Maker, and the impending doom which awaits a world that "lieth in the wicked one," need to be prominently and persistently set forth, as a background to that "light of the knowledge of the glory of God" which shines to lighten those that sit in the darkness and in the shadow of death.
It is time to have done with dreaming, and to comprehend the actual debasement of man as an individual and as a race, and then we shall be prepared to set forth Christ as the only Redeemer, not only from individual sin, but from the iniquities that burden a cursed and groaning creation. He who bore our sins in his own body on the tree, is "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." And while we sing of his love and grace, we may also "sing of mercy and judgment;" for "the wrath of the Lamb" is as certain and as terrible, as his long-suffering has been constant and compassionate.—The Christian.
Magnifying the Law.
By Editor
NO ONE who loves the truth of God's word can fail to regret that there is such diversity of faith concerning it. For where so great diversity exists, error must exist. Opposite faiths cannot be equally true. "God is not the author of confusion." The Romanists, and all who favor an "established church," who seek to place Christian principles "on a legal basis" before human laws, find in this variety of belief their argument against the "right of private judgment." They might with equal show of reason cry out against the freedom of the human will, or free agency, as through this came the fall of man "and all our woe." The abuse of the freedom of the will cursed man and the earth upon which he dwells; but without that freedom no moral character could be formed, for there can be no virtue in an action which is of necessity or by compulsion; a mere machine, moved by an irresistible power, can have no character. Even so, these diverse religious views are the result of an abuse of the right of private judgment; but without this right no genuine religion or acceptable worship of God can exist.
The "doctrine of the atonement" is not merely a part of the gospel system—it is the gospel itself. It is the sum total of the plan of redemption. An error in regard to this is fundamental. It is not among the "non-essentials" of religion—if any such exist.
We hold that the first great object of the atonement, or of the gospel, is to glorify God; to roll from his government the deep reproach which sin had brought upon it; to vindicate the integrity, the authority, and the majesty of that law which sinful man had trampled under his feet. Antinomianism is as far from the gospel as the west is from the east; as different from it as midnight is from noon.
Dr. Barnes was a good man and an able writer; and we can only express our astonishment that he professed to see no justice—nothing but mercy—in the scenes on Calvary. True, there is mercy to the sinner; but who can overlook the groans and agony of the divine Son of God while viewing Calvary? Never did this world—never will the universe see another such display of unbending justice as was presented in our dear Saviour's sufferings and death. Had man been left to perish in his sins, the Saviour would not have suffered. Or could the law have been abolished which condemned man as a transgressor, then the sacrifice of the cross would not have been necessary. But man was to be saved, and the authority of the King of Heaven must be vindicated; the law which was disregarded by sinners must be honored, therefore God devised a plan whereby "he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3:23-26.
The following beautiful and impressive remarks on this subject are from Maclauriu's Sermon on "Glorying in the Cross,"—pp. 152, 153:
"Here shines spotless justice, incomprehensible wisdom, and infinite love, all at once. None of them darkens or eclipses the other; every one of them gives a lustre to the rest. They mingle their beams and shine with united eternal splendor; the just Judge, the merciful Father, and the wise Governor. No other object gives such a display of all these perfections; yea, all the objects we know give not such a display of any one of them. Nowhere does justice appear so awful, mercy so amiable, or wisdom so profound.
"By the infinite dignity of Christ's person, his cross gives more honor and glory to the law and justice of God, than all the other sufferings that ever were or will be endured in the world. When the apostle is speaking to the Romans of the gospel, he does not tell them only of God's mercy, but also of his justice revealed by it. God's wrath against the unrighteousness of men is chiefly revealed by the righteousness and sufferings of Christ. 'The Lord was pleased for his righteousness' sake.' Rom. 1:17; Isa. 42:21. Both by requiring and appointing that righteousness, he magnified the law and made it honorable. And though that righteousness consists in obedience and sufferings which continue for a time, yet since the remembrance of them will continue for ever, the cross of Christ may be said to give eternal majesty and honor to that law which it satisfied—that awful law by which the universe (which is God's kingdom) is governed, to which the principalities and powers of heaven are subject—that law which, in condemning sin, banished the devil and his angels from Heaven, our first parents from Paradise, and peace from the earth. Considering therefore, that God is the Judge and Lawgiver of the world, it is plain that his glory shines with unspeakable brightness in the cross of Christ as the punishment of sin. But this is the very thing that hinders the lovers of sin from acknowledging the glory of the cross, because it shows so much of God's hatred of what they love."
Unreasoning Prejudice.
By Editor
PREJUDICE is both cruel and unreasoning. It never discriminates—never seeks that which is just and right. Therefore there is but little use to try to reason with it. A few things have lately been presented to our notice which we do not hesitate to lay to the account of unreasoning prejudice.
1. Dr. J. R. Graves, reporting from California to his paper in Tennessee, speaks disparagingly—almost contemptuously—of the Adventists, as denying the resurrection of the wicked and the salvation of infants. There is a comparatively small body of people, calling themselves Adventists, who deny the resurrection of the unjust. But they do not as nearly represent the Adventists of the United States as the Hardshells of the South represent the great Baptist denomination. We have traveled some in California and never been so fortunate (or unfortunate) as to meet one of that belief. We once wrote a pamphlet against the non-resurrection theory which is indorsed by Adventists in general—by Seventh-day Adventists unanimously, and almost entirely by the First-day Adventists. The latter have three organs on the Atlantic—the Bible Banner in Philadelphia, and the World's Crisis and Messiah's Herald in Boston—all of which are openly committed against that non-resurrection theory. Nothing but prejudice connects the Adventists in such a general manner with that theory.
As to the other point, we are not aware that those who deny the resurrection of the unjust deny the salvation of infants. We shall not believe it till we have more proof than we have at present. We know that other Adventists do not deny it. As Dr. Graves represents that wing of the Baptists who are the most Radical Calvinists or predestinarians, we should far sooner ascribe that position to him and to his followers than to any body of Adventists; for we know that in the past these predestinarians have taught the reprobation of unborn infants! True, they do not preach it so much now as they used to; but we have yet to learn that they have ever repudiated it as a doctrine.
2. Another case which we can only ascribe to the same cause, is found in the California Christian Advocate of the 13th inst. We confess that it has the appearance of cruelty to associate in the same article the editor of the "Great Iron Wheel!" We deeply regret that there exists a necessity for our so doing; but the necessity is pressed upon us, and we are forced to "accept the situation," however much it jars our feelings of charity.
We think the Advocate has done needless injustice to "Second Adventism" in its notice of a recent publication—"The Last Trump." There are several bodies of professed Adventists in the United States (not, however, as many as there are of Methodists). But this "Last Trump" does not represent either of them. It is "unique"—its editor is an original. In all our travels among Adventists for a quarter of a century, from Maine to California, we have met with only just one man whose faith appears to be similar to that of the editor of the "Last Trump." And he could not be called an Adventist, for he believed that the Saviour has come, and that the resurrection of the righteous has taken place, or is taking place; for he said the resurrection of the just, as the coming of Christ, is a silent, unobserved event, which occurs without any body on the earth knowing it! Something similar to this we noticed in the "Trump;" but whether or not it is the same, we are not able to say, as the writer urges that it can be understood only by a certain class, of whom probably we are not one.
Again, the editor tries to belittle the doctrine because many of the "Disciples" in Indiana embraced it "more than thirty years ago," and perhaps mingled it with their own peculiarities. But we can inform him, if he does not know it, that at that time many Methodists also embraced it,—thousands of lay members, and not a few of the elders, some of them very able men in that connection. But this does not lead us to endeavor to identify Methodists as Second Adventists, or even to class them together. And yet it is true that there is more difference between the Disciples and Second Adventists than between the Methodists and Second Adventists. And this is especially true of Seventh-day Adventists who stand at the very extreme of opposition to the antinomianism of the Disciples. In this, as well as in the doctrine of the immediate presence and operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion and in Christian life, we are in harmony with the Methodists whenever Methodists are true to their own principles. We have now "on file" for early publication some excellent things from Wesley's Works, against antinomianism. We regret that it is a fact that even some Methodist ministers need to be corrected by such teachings as those of the noble Wesley. They are leaving the landmarks of Methodism, apparently not realizing what they are doing or how they are falling.
But the gravest offense is an error of statement for which we can find no excuse. Or, if it is not an error of statement, we would like to have it shown. The following are the words:—
"The wise virgins had their lamps trimmed and oil in their vessels—and some of them provided their ascension robes."
This old story of "ascension robes" we have tracked from ocean to ocean, entirely across the continent; we have seen many who affirmed it to be a fact, but never one who knew it to be a fact. A reward of $1000 offered by a party in New England for an authenticated instance, was never called for. We are sorry that the Advocate, for which paper we have entertained genuine respect, should strengthen the prejudice of its readers by making such a statement. It can do them no good, and may do them harm, for there is entirely too much "denominational spleen" already existing; too much religious bigotry which cannot "render a reason," and too little of that charity which "thinketh no evil."
We are not pleading for exemption from blame where blame is deserved. Let it fall—let justice have its course. "Cry aloud and spare not," where sin is known to exist. But we deplore the fact that so many who apparently mean to do right and to be Christians, let their prejudices so control them that they cannot do justice to their fellow-man who conscientiously differs with them.
Examination of a Famous Falsehood.
By John Nevins Andrews
(Continued.)
Domville states other facts of interest bearing on this point, and then pays his respects to Mr. Gurney as follows:—
"It thus appearing that the reference made by Bishop Audrews to the 'Acts of Martyrs' completely fails to establish his dictum respecting the question alleged to have been put to the martyrs, and it also appearing that there existed strong and obvious reasons for not placing implicit reliance upon that dictum, what are we to think of Mr. Gurney's regard for truth, when we find he does not scruple to tell his readers that the 'stated day' mentioned in Pliny's letter as that on which the Christians held their religious assemblies, was 'clearly the first day of the week,' is proved by the very question which it was customary for the Roman persecutors to address to the martyrs, Dominicum servasti? 'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' For this unqualified assertion, prefixed as it is by the word 'clearly,' in order to make it the more impressive, Mr. Gurney is without any excuse."
The justice of Domville's language cannot be questioned when he characterizes this favorite first-day argument as—
"One of those daring misstatements of facts so frequent in theological writings, and which, from the confident tone so generally assumed by the writers on such occasions, are usually received without examination, and allowed, in consequence, to pass current for truth."
The investigation to which this statement has been subjected, shows, 1. That no such question as, Hast thou kept the Lord's day? is upon record as proposed to the martyrs in the time of Pliny. 2. That no such question was asked to any martyr prior to the commencement of the fourth century. 3. That a single instance of martyrdom in which any question of the kind was asked, is all that can be claimed. 4. That in this one case, which is all that has even the slightest appearance of sustaining the story under examination, a correct translation of the original Latin shows that the question had no relation whatever to the observance of Sunday! All this has been upon the assumption that the Acta Martyrum, in which this story is found, is an authentic work. Let Mosheim testify relative to the character of this work for veracity:—
"As to those accounts which have come down to us under the title of Acta Martyrum, or, the Acts of the Martyrs, their authority is certainly for the most part of a very questionable nature; indeed, speaking generally, it might be coming nearer to the truth, perhaps, were we to say that they are entitled to no sort of credit whatever."—Historical Commentaries, cent, 1, sect. xxxii.
Such being the authority of the work from which this story is taken, it is not strange that first-day historians should leave the repetition of it to theologians.
Such are the facts respecting this extraordinary falsehood. They constitute so complete an exposure of this famous historical argument for Sunday as to consign it to the just contempt of all honest men. But this is too valuable an argument to be lightly surrendered, and moreover it is as truthful as are certain other of the historical arguments for Sunday. If this be given because of its dishonesty, others will have to go with it for possessing the same character.
Since the publication of Domville's elaborate work, James Gilfillan of Scotland has written a large volume entitled, "The Sabbath," which has been extensively circulated both in Europe and in America, and is esteemed a standard work by the American Tract Society and by first-day denominations in general. Gilfillan had read Domville as appears from his statements on pages 10, 142, 143, 616, of his volume. He was therefore acquainted with Domville's exposure of the fraud respecting "Dominicum servasti?" But though he was acquainted with this exposure, he offers not one word in reply. On the contrary, he repeats the story with as much assurance as though it had not been proved a falsehood. But as Domville had shown up the matter from the Acta Martyrum, it was necessary for Gilfillan to trace it to some other authority, and so he assigns it to Cardinal Baronius. Here are Gilfillan's words:—
"From the days of the apostles downward for many years, the followers of Christ had no enemies more fierce and unrelenting than that people [the Jews], who cursed them in the synagogue, sent out emissaries into all countries to calumniate their Master and them, and were abettors wherever they could, of the martyrdom of men, such as Polycarp, of whom the world was not worthy. Among the reasons of this deadly enmity was the change of the Sabbatical day. The Romans, though they had no objection on this score, punished the Christians for the faithful observance of their day of rest, one of the testing questions put to the martyrs being, Dominicum servasti?—Have you kept the Lord's day?—Baron. An. Eccles., A. D. 303, Num. 35, etc."—The Sabbath, by James Gilfillan p. vii.93
Gilfillan having reproduced this statement and assigned as his authority the annalist, Baronius, more recent first-day writers take courage and repeat the story after him. Now they are all right as they think. What if the Acta Martyrum has failed them? Domville ought to have gone to Baronius, who, in their judgment, is the true source of information in this matter. Had he done this, they say he would have been saved from misleading his readers. But let us ascertain what evil Domville has done in this case. It all consists in the assertion of two things out of the Acta Martyrum.
1. That no such question, as "Dominicum servasti?" was addressed to any martyr till the early part of the fourth century, some two hundred years after the time of Pliny.
2. That the question even then did not relate to what is called the Lord's day, but to the Lord's supper.
Now it is a remarkable fact that Gilfillan has virtually admitted the truth of the first of these statements, for the earliest instance which he could find in Baronius is A. D. 303, as his reference plainly shows. It differs only one year from the date assigned in Ruinart's Acta Martyrum, and relates to the very case which Domville has quoted from that work! Domville's first and most important statement is therefore vindicated by Gilfillan himself, though he has not the frankness to say this in so many words. J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)
Faults in Preaching.
By Editor
It is possible to speak of faults without earning the reputation of a faultfinder. When it is done in love, for the benefit of the cause of truth, and the fault needs very much to be corrected, it is right to speak. An article in the Herald of Gospel Liberty, speaking of the danger of irreverence in the pulpit, says:—
"When making quotations from the patriarchs, the prophets, or other inspired teachers, how unpleasantly it grates upon one's ears to hear the minister suddenly say, 'Now, Job, what have you to say about it?' or 'Come up here, Lazarus, you are wanted,' or, 'Old Solomon, what can you tell us?' or, 'Brother Paul, what do you know about it?'"
Our memory brings up this very thing which we never heard but with feelings of sadness. Irreverence is the great sin of the age. It belongs to the minister to correct it in others as far as possible, and set an example of correct deportment in this respect, especially in the pulpit.