Earlier text: General ArticlesTHOUGHTS ON BAPTISM—NO. 13.
By Editor
THE ORDER OF BAPTISM, CONTINUED.
WHERE moral relations exist, law must exist. To destroy one is to destroy the other. The declaration is no more scriptural than it is reasonable, that "sin is not imputed when there is no law;" for "where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15. But sin was imputed on the day of Pentecost, and without this, baptism would have been a nullity. Therefore the law then existed; by it they were condemned as transgressors. If, then, "by the law is the knowledge of sin," as the apostle says, we are proved to be sinners as long as we continue to transgress the law. He who fails to do the will of the Father, has no interest in the kingdom of Heaven, no matter how earnestly he calls Jesus Lord. Character is determined by relation to law, and not by profession. The transgressor of the law is a sinner, whether he is in or out of a church. And this brings us to the subject introduced in Rom. 6. He who is a transgressor of the law, no matter what his profession may be, is living in sin, and he has no reason to show why he should be buried in baptism. The condition or relation here brought to view is indispensable to Christian life; for no one can rise to walk in newness of life if the old life of sin still continues. "If we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Being planted in the likeness of his death can have respect only to the form and order of our burial with him, or our baptism into his death. "Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures; . . . he was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." 1 Cor. 15:3, 4. These are the facts as they occurred, and they present the pattern of duty in the gospel: 1. Die to sin; 2. Be buried in baptism; 3. Rise to walk in newness of life. This is "the likeness of his resurrection;" for "in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:10, 11. The same idea runs through the illustration and its application in Rom. 7. The woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as her husband liveth. "So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." Her relation to the law must be changed to enable her to marry another; and this change is effected by death. But death does not change the law: it changes her relation to the law. The law remains to convince of sin, the same as before. The application he makes thus: "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." The whole connection shows that becoming "dead to the law," is to become dead to the transgression of the law; the same as "dead to sin." The law holds us under condemnation as sinners, and the wages of sin is death. Where sin is found, death must ensue. And the law in justice presses its demand until the penalty is inflicted. Christ so honored the claims of the law in respect to its penalty that we are now permitted to die with him, be buried with him, and be raised with him, Rom. 6:8, 4; Col. 2:12, and so avert the penalty in the future—the second death. An option is thus afforded us of dying to sin or dying for sin. By dying to sin, our relation to the law is so changed, through Christ, that we shall escape the curse which the law inflicts on the sinner. For "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal. 3:13. He does not free us from the obligation, but from the curse. In this sense we "are delivered from the law;" delivered from its condemnation, or curse. It has been unjustly inferred from the conjunction of the two expressions, "dead to sin" and "dead to the law," that sin and the law are equivalents. No excuse can be admitted for this inference, for no one can accept this conclusion who takes the pains to read the chapter; for the apostle expressly denies it. "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid." The law is not sin: so far from it, that it condemns sin; it forbids and makes known sin. "I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." That is, he had not known the nature of his propensities or desires if the law had not enlightened him. "By the law is the knowledge of sin." It is sin that brings the curse of the law upon us. We must not blame the law if we find ourselves under its condemnation. Our complaint must fall upon ourselves. Had we not arrayed ourselves against the law in transgression, it would not be against us to condemn us. Sin is the cause of our trouble, and not the law. "For sin," said the apostle, "taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me." It is true the law—and it only—convinces of sin. "For I was alive without the law once; but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." This is a record of an important part of his experience. His being alive without the law refers to that part of his life wherein he thought he was doing God service in persecuting the church of Christ. John 16:2. His conscience was not awakened, because his mind was in darkness; he did it ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim. 1:13. "When the commandment came"—when he was enlightened by the law of God—"sin revived;" he found himself to be a murderer instead of a servant of God; he stood condemned, and as the only alternative, "I died"—died to sin; ceased to fight against God, and found a refuge and a remedy in the blood of the cross of Christ. The commandment was never given to condemn and slay people; it "was ordained unto life;" it was given in love, to form our characters aright, and thus to fit us to enjoy the favor and presence of God. Only when sin enters, is it "found to be unto death." Paul, using the first person, reckons himself among those who were buried with Christ. And when was he buried? Of course, when the commandment came and he died. When else should he have been buried? And when should we be buried? It becomes a very important matter for us to determine whether we have died to sin; whether we have been planted in the likeness of the Saviour's death. We have said there is no higher morality than that contained in the law of God. The apostle confirms this, saying, "For we know that the law is spiritual." Rom. 7:14. And if the law is spiritual, then obedience to the law is spiritual worship. Some affect to think that it evinces a lack of spirituality to keep the law; that it is mere carnality; or, as before noticed, they say it frustrates grace and dishonors Christ and his gospel. We have seen that Paul gave a very decided negative to the idea that we may transgress the law that grace may abound; and again we find him declaring that the law is spiritual. This ought to silence every cavil against a law which is holy, just, and good. But Paul goes farther: he not only vindicates the law from the charge of carnality, but he turns the charge pointedly against its originators. He says, "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8:7. The carnal mind—literally, the minding of the flesh, or walking after the flesh—is the opposite of obedience to the law, and so it must be, as "the law is spiritual;" for spirituality and carnality cannot agree. And the high morality of the law is further shown by Paul in stating the object of the gospel: "That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:4. The gospel is remedial. It is a cure for sin, or for the transgression of the law. Had there been no sin, there would have been no gospel; it would not have been needed. Then the righteousness of the law would have been fulfilled in every soul of man, for all would have lived in perfect obedience. It was "to put away sin" that Jesus came; to restore fallen man to obedience to the Heavenly Father. This is accomplished only in the obedient believer in Jesus; who accepts him as his sacrifice "for the remission of sins that are past," and is "reconciled to God by the death of his Son;" who "keeps the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Rom. 5:10; Rev. 14:12. In such, and in such only, is the righteousness of the law fulfilled and the carnal mind subdued. One point in the apostle's argument in Rom. 7 remains to be noticed. The woman's relation to the law must be changed by death before she can be married to another without being called an adulteress. "My brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead." This is a plain declaration that he who seeks such a union with Christ before death has changed his relation to the law—before he has died to sin—is guilty of spiritual adultery. And as baptism is the rite whereby we signify our union with Christ ("as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Gal. 3:27), this rite is illegally performed if there is such an impediment to the marriage as is spoken of in Rom. 7:1-4. And thus we find in this illustration a strong proof of the view introduced in Rom. 6, that death to the transgression of the law must precede burial in baptism. Death to the law—to its condemnation for sin—must take place before we can be united to Christ; for Christ cannot be joined to "the body of sin." We think we hazard nothing in the assertion that that is not Christian baptism wherein the conditions of the gospel are not met. We would speak with modesty, leaving it to each one's conscience as to how wide a divergence from the divine plan there must be to justify an imitation of the course pursued by Paul and the believers, recorded in Acts 19:1-5. But we would speak decidedly in favor of having both candidate and administrator look well to the teachings of the gospel on this subject. It is no light thing to trifle with divine ordinances. He who administers them improperly does so at his peril. Paul praised his brethren inasmuch as they kept the ordinances as they were delivered to them; and when they perverted one, we very deeply blamed them for not preserving it pure according to its intention. 1 Cor. 11. The importance of the ordinance of baptism, as presented by the Saviour in Mark 16:16, and by the apostle Paul in Rom. 6 and 7, cannot be overestimated; and the necessity of carefulness in its observance is according to its importance. Paul to the Colossians speaks in terms equally direct and decisive on this subject: "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col. 2:12. This adds new luster to the ordinance. Dead to sin; buried with Christ by baptism into death; and risen with him in the same ordinance. It cannot be possible that they who speak disparagingly of baptism, as some unfortunately do, have ever examined with care this impressive passage. Here it is shown that "the likeness of his resurrection" is not altogether reserved to a future life. "Risen with him." As he died to sin and lives to God, so we must die to sin, be buried with him, and rise with him to a new life—to a life of obedience to the Heavenly Father's will. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Col. 3:1. This brings to view the entire Christian life,—a life of consecration to God in imitation of the love and zeal of our Saviour. In the present argument it is not necessary to pursue this further, having fully met our design,—to show the important place which baptism occupies in the divine plan for the remission of sin and union with Christ. Six years ago a charitable lady visited the bedside of a dying woman in the seventh story of an East Side tenement, New York, and asked her if she couldn’t do something for her. “Yes,” replied the dying woman. “I can’t die in peace while that brute of a stepmother on the other side of the wall is beating poor little Mary Ellen to death.’ The lady applied to the police, but they told her she must have evidence; she applied to charitable associations, who said they could care for the child after it was rescued, but their charters, unfortunately, didn’t permit them to rescue it; she applied to benevolent individuals, private philanthropists, who told her she had better not meddle in such a case, that it was dangerous to interfere between parent and child, etc. When she had tried all these in vain, she went to the protector of the brute creation, Henry Bergh, who rescued the child, had the cruel stepmother imprisoned, and put little Mary Ellen in a proper home. The result was to overwhelm Mr. Bergh’s Society with applications for interference in similar cases, until finally the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was organized.—Observer. The Sabbath School.
By W. J. BOSTWICK
WHEN the Lord drew aside the veil that separates the past from the future and permitted his holy prophet Joel to gaze down the long vista of time, even to the consummation of all things, and revealed to his wondering eyes the great day of the Lord, with all its terrors, trials, and tribulation, he was led to utter in notes of warning to the church, these words: "Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly; gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts." Joel 2:15, 16. The trumpet among the ancient Israelites was to be blown as an alarm when danger was near. Was a hostile army approaching, were dangers impending, which required action and haste to escape, the trumpet pealed out an alarm from a watch-tower, and as the sound went reverberating over the hills, it was caught up by another watcher, and then another, until the whole land was warned and the people aroused. And thus it is with the words of the prophet; although the tongue that uttered them has long since been wrapped in the silence of the tomb, they have come down o'er the revolving centuries of time in all their power, until, finding the place of their application, in these last days, they are to act just as effectually in arousing the remnant Israel as the trumpet's alarm did the Israelites of old. The burden of the warning is impending destruction, and it is given because of the approach of the day of the Lord, which is a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness. Verse 2. The effect of sounding this alarm in Zion would be to gather the people, who, previous to and at this time, were in a scattered condition. But not only were the people in general to be gathered, but also the children. It is God's design that children shall have a part in his kingdom as well as adults; hence the commandment, "Gather the children." And here is prominently set before us the work of the Sabbath-school. And for what is this gathering? That the congregation may be sanctified. How are they to be sanctified? "Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth." John 17:17. But before they can be sanctified through the truth, they must be taught; it must be brought forcibly to their minds; their young hearts must be impressed with it. It will not do to simply bring the children together from week to week and hear their lessons; a higher object must be aimed at. The teacher must seek to instill God's truth into the hearts of the children, that it may effect their lives, and bring them in subjection to God, else no sanctification can take place. Oh, what a work is here set forth by the God of Heaven for the Sabbath-school teacher! what a responsibility! what an opportunity to gain a starry crown! The Lord's children are to be gathered that they may escape the coming destruction. The highways and hedges of the world are full of them. "Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled," is the word of command. Will our teachers obey? Do they realize the duties and necessities of the hour? The sands of time are fast running out; the work is fast closing up; the day of the Lord is near, and hasteth greatly. Each Sabbath that goes by, takes one week from the allotted time in which we have to do our work. In these times, none who profess to be looking for the coming of the Lord have a right to be idle. The time demands concerted action; the Lord commands it, and perishing humanity rightfully claims it. Laborers in the Sabbath-school are wanted,—men and women who have the work at heart, and who can act as missionaries to go out and gather these lambs into the fold. There should be an advance movement in the Sabbath-school work all along the line. Our officers, teachers, and scholars should bear in mind the great fact that we have now come out of Egypt, and that the command is, Go forward. There may be a Red Sea to cross, but the Lord will divide the waters; we may meet an Amalek in the way, but faith and works will give us the victory; we shall doubtless come to the wells of bitter waters, but the consciousness of duty performed will make them sweet; there may be giants in the land, but faith and courage will make them appear as grasshoppers in our sight, and finally by the help of the Lord, we shall go in and possess the inheritance. Let no one stumble at the difficulties which attend the work of gathering the children into the Sabbath-school. If we are working with God and he with us, the obstacles in the way will vanish before our earnest endeavors as the fog before the rising sun, and finally when our work is done we shall hear the welcome words, "Well done, good and faithful servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." JESUS says to every one of his disciples, "Follow me." But many a professed disciple of Jesus reverses this order, and practically says to Jesus, "Follow me"—looking upon Jesus as a servant rather than as a master. It is a very common thing for Christians to pray that the Lord will add his blessing to their work; as if they went ahead and the Lord followed after. A Christian's daily prayer should be that he may know what the Lord would have him do. A Christain's daily work should be the doing of what the Lord sets him at. There is never any doubt about the blessing when that order of service is observed. The more common order of precedence in the Christian's view of service is well illustrated in a little pamphlet recently published on "The Revival in St. Catherine's," Canada, under the editorship of Mr. J. H. Durham. The title-page of that work announces it as "a brief history of the great work, from its inception to its close, under the leadership of the Rev. E. P. Hammond, and the pastors of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches, aided by the power of the Holy Spirit." Now that is a pretty way of showing who count one, two, three in that movement, according to the idea of the editor of that pamphlet. If that were actually the order of things in Catherine's, the character of the revival there is sufficiently indicated by this announcement. In a real revival the Holy Spirit leads, and pastors, evangelists and other Christians follow.—S. S. Times. A GENTLEMAN was walking with a friend one day through his beautiful grounds, when they came to a fine large tree which was decayed to the very core. "That tree," said the proprietor, "was destroyed by a single worm. A short time since it was as vigorous as any of its companions, when one day a wood-worm was discovered forcing its way under the outer bark. A naturalist who was at that time my guest remarked on seeing it that if left alone it would ultimately kill the tree. It seemed so improbable, that the worm was suffered to remain. Gradually it bored its way into the fibre of the tree, slowly but surely doing its work. The following summer the tree shed its leaves much earlier than usual, and in the second season it was a dead, worthless thing. The worm which seemed so very insignificant had found its way to the heart of the once noble tree and destroyed its life." How forcibly do we see this same thing illustrated in the common walks of every-day life. A young man is persuaded by his companions to take his first glass of wine. It seems like a little thing, but it is the beginning of a course of degradation and eternal shame. The clerk in the bank appropriates a few shillings of the funds intrusted to his care. One step leads to another, until at last he is arrested and cast into prison as a defaulter. A boy begins to practice little deceits at school or at home, which, unless discovered and checked, will make him a base and unprincipled man. Such is the destructive power of little sins when the continued indulgence in them is practiced. It is of the highest importance to have the mind constantly employed on something useful. The soul, by its very nature, is active. If, therefore, the mind be not exercised about serious affairs, it will necessarily be engaged about trifles. Were this fact properly realized and practiced upon, it would save us from many evils into which we are otherwise often led. Our temptations to sin frequently grow upon us, and increase in strength, solely in consequence of our failure to furnish the mind with proper employment. In the case of children, there is reason to believe that many of them who become vicious and nuisances to society, become such solely in consequence of the neglect of their parents to furnish them with something of a profitable nature upon which to occupy their minds. Many parents leave their children to shift for themselves with respect to their mental occupation. The consequence is, in many such cases, children grow up vicious and vile. Oh, that parents were truly wise with respect to this matter !—Christian Counsellor. Godliness with Contentment
"Godliness with contentment is great gain." MRS. EMMA T. PLATTS read a paper before a late meeting of the S. D. Baptist Eastern Association at Rockville, R. I., on The Successful Teacher, from which we take the following extract:— “Accustomed as our children are, at the present time, to accuracy and clearness of statement in their teachers at secular schools, we cannot expect them to be satisfied with loose, slipshod teaching at Sabbath-school, begotten of inadequate preparation. Two superintendents lay strong emphasis upon the teachers’ meeting in connection with thoroughness of preparation. “The next element of success I find to be a genial, winning manner not only in presentation of the truth of the lesson, but before and after recitation, variously described as, “enlarging upon the bright side of the lesson,” “sometimes teaching the lesson by stories,” “entering into the spirit of what she is teaching,” “takes special pains to be agreeable in manner to his class, and has their entire confidence,” “talks with her scholars in a kind, pleasant way, about other things than the Bible.” “Closely allied to this, is that of personal interest in the individuals of the class, in school and out of school. Referring again to my authorities, I find this, in the description of one of the best teachers: “She is kind and affectionate, knows all about her scholars, visits them often, very often, has them visit her, makes them feel she is their friend.” Of another it is said: “He is not severe in his class, but keeps their attention by the kindly interest he manifests in them. Their love for him enables him to exert a wonderful influence over them,” and then is added, “you know that those whom we love have a mighty influence over us for either good or evil.” Could all our Sabbath-school children have this sense of companionship with their teacher, this feeling that my Sabbath-school teacher is my best friend, I believe we should hear much less of the difficulty of keeping our young people in the Sabbath-school. “To the qualifications already enumerated there is added that of an untiring purpose, made up of love for the work, faith in the truth, and trust in the great Helper, from whom, after all planting and watering, cometh the increase.” About teaching much misconception exists. Webster defines the word teach, "to impart the knowledge of:" Notice the word here employed—"impart"—the radical idea of which is, dividing into parts, or sharing. To teach is to share knowledge. Two parties are supposed to exist: the giver and the receiver, the teacher and the taught. It is also implied that the pupil really receives knowledge, or comes into possession of his share. According to this definition, therefore, the pupil must actually receive knowledge, or no teaching is accomplished. Professor John S. Hart's definition of teaching is, "to cause anyone to know." It is not to attempt to impart knowledge, but it is really to do it; it is really to cause one to know. According to this definition, the pupil must be affected. He must come from the interview with additional knowledge, or there has been no teaching.—G. A. Peltz. Teaching Children Effectively
CHILDREN hunger perpetually for new ideas. They will learn with pleasure from the lips of a teacher that which would be drudgery to learn from books. Hence the importance that the teacher should be an intelligent person. How often the child comes home and says, "What do you think my teacher told us to-day?" The constant effort of the teacher should be to meet the wants of the minds of the class. DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
A FEW points, professedly on a Scripture basis, and a few references to history, remain to be noticed. Acts 20:7. On this, as usual, the Doctor assumes much. He professes to know that only one meeting was held at Troas, but how he came to know it we shall never learn. True, we have account of but one, which was remarkable for a certain occurrence and case of healing. But other authors do not think this was the only meeting, and this, when carefully examined affords no help to the Sunday cause. The reader will please bear in mind that there is a difference in time between the first day of the week and Sunday. The first is a Bible designation of a 24-hour period, which commences at the setting of the sun, the evening of which precedes the morning. Sunday is a Roman or heathen designation of a 24-hour period, commencing at midnight, the morning of which precedes the evening. The meeting at Troas was a night meeting—on the evening of the first day of the week, but not on Sunday evening. It commenced on the evening of the first day of the week, and continued over on to Sunday morning, when Paul started on his journey. But if the Doctor thinks that it was Sunday evening, then he must also say that the apostle tarried seven days at Troas, clear over Sunday, without any meeting until Sunday evening, which is too improbable for belief. Even strong advocates of Sunday have admitted all we ask on this point. Thus, Prof. McGarvey, in his Commentary on Acts, says:— “I conclude, therefore, that the brethren met on the night after the Jewish Sabbath, which was still observed as a day of rest by all of them who were Jews, or Jewish proselytes, and considering this the beginning of the first day of the week, spent it in the manner above described. On Sunday morning, Paul and his companions resumed their journey.” We notice two points of evidence which show that first day was not observed by them as a Sabbath. 1. The companions of Paul—having rested with their brethren over the Sabbath—started on their journey, while Paul remained to hold a closing, evening meeting. The evangelist says, “We went before to ship and sailed unto Assos.” 2. Having held a meeting on the evening of the first day of the week, which, because of circumstances, making this meeting a memorable one, continued until the morning of the first day, Paul departed on his journey. It is with good reason that Rev. J. W. Morton said of this text:— “It is a remarkable fact that this text, which is the only one in the New Testament that speaks of public religious exercises on the first day of the week, is, at the same time, the only one in the Bible that directly proves that that day is not the Sabbath.” Next in course comes 1 Cor. 16:2, upon which he simply makes an assertion that it concerned collections in the congregation on the first day. But we will prove that it refers to no such thing. The following list of facts and authorities ought to be conclusive with every one:— “Let him lay up at home, treasuring as he has been prospered. The Greek phrase, ‘by himself,’ means, probably, the same as at home. Let him set it apart; let him designate a certain portion; let him do this by himself when he is at home, when he can calmly look at the evidence of his prosperity.”—Barnes. “Some are of the opinion that the sums thus set apart were brought to the treasury of the church at the time; but the words do not seem to admit of that interpretation; and if each separately laid by the sum which he proposed to give, the whole would be brought together at once when necessary, without any trouble in soliciting contributions.”—Comp. Com. “Every one was to lay by in store, have a treasury or fund with himself for this purpose. . . . Some of the Greek fathers rightly observe here that this advice was given for the sake of the poorer among them. They were to lay by, from week to week, and not bring into the common treasury, that by this means their contributions might be easy to themselves, and yet grow into a fund for the relief of their brethren.”—Matthew Henry, Com. “The apostle only meant that there should be no private and petty gatherings, then first to be made, when he came, but only one suneisphora [joint contribution] formed, containing all the sums which had been gradually laid up in private.”—Bloomfield, Notes on Greek Text. And of the ‘gathering’ he says; “The word logia is nowhere else found in the scriptural, and very rarely in the classical writers; and seems to have been confined to the language of common life. It properly signifies a gleaning, and then, as here, a slight gathering.” “Certainly it may not be inferred from this passage that collections took place among the congregations on the Sabbath, for it was Paul’s intention that each should make a suitable contribution at home.”—Olshausen, Com. “Lay by him in store; at home.”—Justin Edwards’ Notes. “Par’ heauto, by or with oneself; in one’s house; at home, Fr. chez soi. 1 Cor. 16:2. So Xen. Mem. 1. 13. 3.”—Robinson’s Lexicon. “Par’ heauto, at one’s home or house. Lat. apud se, Hdt., 1, 105, cf. 1, 86.”—Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon. These were Sunday men; some of them of the most rabid kind. What but the most evident facts could lead them thus to remove the foundation for a popular Sunday inference? We copy also a few translations:— “Let every one off you put asyde at home, and laye vppe whatever he thinketh mete.”—Tyndale. “Let each one of you lay by himself in store.”—Sawyer. “Let each of you lay by him and treasure up.”—Anderson. “Let every one of you lay aside and preserve at home.”—Syriac. To the above we add a summary given by J. W. Morton, in his address to the Synod of the Ref. Pres. church:— “I marvel greatly how you can imagine that it means in the collection box of the congregation! Greenfield, in his Lexicon, translates the Greek term, par heauto, ‘by one’s self, i. e., at home.’ Two Latin versions, the Vulgate and that of Castellio, render it ‘apud se,’ with one’s self, at home. Three French translations, those of Martin, Osterwald, and De Sacy, ‘chez soi,’ at his house, at home. The German of Luther, ‘bei sich selbst,’ by himself, at home. The Dutch, ‘by hemselven,’ same as the German. The Italian of Diodati, ‘appresso di se,’ in his own presence, at home. The Spanish of Felipe Scio, ‘en su casa,’ in his own house. The Portuguese of Ferreira, ‘para isso,’ with himself. The Swedish, ‘naer sig sielf,’ near himself. I know not how much this list of authorities might be swelled, for I have not examined one translation that differs from those quoted above. Now if your premise is false, your inference is not only unnecessary, but wholly inadmissible.” On Rev. 1:10, he says, “It was holy time, hallowed by the Lord.” Why, Doctor, how could that be so, seeing that “the day kept is holy because of the act of obedience?” Have you forgotten what you said before? Surely, “your ways are not equal.” The Doctor says, “It was hallowed by the Lord when he vanquished the enemy.” Why did he not give us the text from which he learned this? Oh, why will men pursue such a course sacred Scriptures, and make void the commandment of God by their traditions? When God’s word plainly declares that He blessed the seventh day and sanctified or hallowed it, and calls it his holy day, the Doctor presumptuously declares it is not holy—that its only claim to holiness is based on mere human observance. Then he turns around and asserts with great assurance that the first day is holy, that the Lord hallowed it, notwithstanding the Lord never uttered one word to that effect. How perfectly apply the words of the Lord to such a work as this:— “Thus saith the Lord God: Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirits and have seen nothing! . . . Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken?” Eze. 13:3, 7. And again, in like language:— “Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane, neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them. Her princes in the midst thereof are like wolves ravening the prey to shed blood, and to destroy souls, to get dishonest gain. And her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.” But we believe it was holy time. More than that, we know that the Lord’s day was and is holy time, for the Lord himself says so. “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honorable,” &c. True, this refers to a day which Dr. Benson stigmatizes as “the Jewish Sabbath,” which to him is no delight, upon which he tries to heap dishonor and reproach, which he says was not holy except on the slim basis of human observance. But on this question we have no faith in Dr. Benson, while we have the utmost confidence in the Lord’s own word on the subject. The seventh day is the only day which the Lord ever claimed as his day—his holy day; and the only day which he ever hallowed or sanctified and blessed, thus making it holy. If the first day of the week is the Lord’s day, in what scripture is the proof found? In what text did he put forth such a claim? If it is a hallowed day, how may we to a certainty know the fact? What proof exists that it is so? Assertions, human assertions, there are without number, but these are worthless in the absence of Scripture testimony. These prophetic words (see all of Eze. 13) we now see fulfilled. Having clearly shown that his whole argument is a series of the weakest inferences, we digress for a moment to speak a few words to those Baptist papers which have spoken words of commendation of the Doctor’s book. In so doing they destroy the force of their own arguments against inference and tradition. “Happy is the man that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.” It is an easy matter to present as strong inferential argument for infant baptism, or for sprinkling for baptism, as the Doctor has for Sunday. And he knows it, if these Baptist editors do not. Yet they will not admit inference as a ground for infant baptism, though they do admit it in favor of Sunday keeping. We can quote almost any required number of first-day keeping authors who admit they have no direct evidence in favor of Sunday. Would they admit this if evidence existed? Pedo-baptists are more consistent than Baptists. The first do not claim the necessity for express precept for ordinances or institutions, and their action is consistent with their profession. The latter claim that express revelation or positive precept is necessary to the existence of an institution, and yet keep “the day of the sun,” without any such revelation or precept. If they doubt the correctness of our conclusion, we stand pledged to make it good with sufficient evidence.