We have been requested to notice the historical argument in favor of trine immersion. It is a well-known fact that history is the main reliance of the trine immersionists. The Greek of the New Testament is decidedly against them. The analogies of the language of Scripture are against them. And the facts of Scripture are against them. But, fortifying themselves with historical statements, tracing the practice, as they claim, almost to the very time of the apostles, they do not find it very difficult to build up inferences from the Scriptures in their favor. The inferences in themselves are very weak, as we have before shown. They think these inferences are justified by the evidences drawn from history. And thus it every way appears that history is their chief dependence.
These people publish a paper in Illinois, at the head of which stands Eld. J. H. Moore. He has written a pamphlet of 64 pp., with the following pretentious title: “Trine Immersion traced to the Apostles; being a Collection of Historical Quotations from Modern and Ancient Authors, proving that a Three-fold Immersion was the Only Method of Baptizing ever practiced by the Apostles and their immediate Successors.” We think that neither the contents of the book nor the facts justify this flaming title.147
Eld. Moore frequently quotes from Eld. James Quinter. Eld. Quinter wrote a tract entitled, “The Origin of Single Immersion.” These two works have been forwarded to us with the request that they may be noticed. We will now comply with that request. We wish to make here a few statements which we hope the reader will bear in mind.
1. Nothing can be justly inferred from the early practice or the early mention of a practice among the successors of the apostles, inasmuch as the wildest errors and boldest innovations are found among the immediate successors of the apostles. Milner certainly could not be accused of undue prejudice against the early traditions and customs of the church, but he says:—
“Superstition had made, it seems, deep inroads into Africa. It was rather an unpolished region, certainly much inferior to Italy in point of civilization. Satan’s temptations are suited to tempers and situations; but surely it was not by superstitious practices that the glad tidings of salvation had been first introduced into Africa. There must have been a deep decline. One of the strongest proofs that the comparative value of the Christian religion in different countries is not to be estimated by their distance from the apostolical age, is deducible from the times of Tertullian.”
Very many of the innovations which finally gained a footing in the church are traced to Tertullian. He first mentions sprinkling in connection with baptism. In his work “On Baptism,” chap. 2, he says:—
“Without expense a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much or not at all the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible.” Edition of Clark, Edinburgh; also in chap. 12. He is the first to mention sponsors in baptism, and other appendages to the rite, and we shall show that he is the first to mention trine immersion.
2. We are not to infer that an early practice was derived from the apostles because we find mention of the practice, but find no mention of its origin. Scarcely a single innovation or dogma peculiar to the Romish Church can be traced to its origin. The Catholics base their argument on this fact, that you cannot trace their origin; that being practiced so early the practice must have been derived from the apostles. But Archbishop Whately draws an argument against them from this same fact; inasmuch as the Scriptures thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works, if these dogmas had been promulgated by the apostles we could easily trace them to that source. The following will illustrate this point. Bingham, in Antiquities of the Christian Church, speaking of the “Baptism of Bells,” says:—
“The first notice we have of this is in the capitulars of Charles the Great, where it is only mentioned to be censured.”—B. 11, chap. 4, § 2.
It was then in practice. Bishops baptized bells, but when and where it originated, how it came to be a part of Christianity, we have no means of ascertaining. Shall we therefore conclude that it was derived from the apostles?
3. As it will not be safe to infer anything from a practice because it was early mentioned, so we may not infer its genuineness because it was generally received. For, (1.) Party spirit ran high; opposition of parties was most bitter; and the weaker parties were very early crushed out by power, oftener than they were subdued by argument. (2.) As it was adjudged by the empire that “the primacy should remain with the elder Rome,” so the authority of the empire was called in to put down everything which opposed the doctrines of the bishop of Rome. And by this means heresies were extirpated; and the writings of the heretics, being condemned, were destroyed. So now we have only the writings of the orthodox party, which then meant, as it now means, the strongest party, and all the writings of that age of superstition and error have passed through the hands of those who were unscrupulous in modifying everything to suit their purpose.
To show that we may not implicitly follow that which history affirms so early and so generally obtained, we refer to the fact that the historical testimony in favor of infant baptism makes it to have been both early and general. The evidence in its favor is far greater than that in favor of trine immersion. And with this was introduced infant communion. Thus Dr. Schaff:—
“In the Oriental and North African churches prevailed the incongruous system of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism, and was advocated by Augustine and Innocent I. on the authority of John 6:53. In the Greek Church this custom continues to this day, but in the Latin, after the ninth century, it was disputed and forbidden.”—History of Christian Church, vol. 2, p. 516.
Bingham says infant communion existed in the days of Cyprian, an African bishop in the third century. The Greek Church, to which trine immersionists refer with such an air of triumph, affirm that trine immersion, infant baptism, and infant communion, all came down from the days of the apostles, and may all be deduced from the Scriptures. We have elsewhere shown the absurdity of claiming scriptural authority for trine immersion. In history it is not as strongly fortified as infant baptism. Of the three unscriptural rites above referred to, now held by the Greek Church, trine immersion has the least plausible argument in its favor.
And 4. We must exercise due caution in receiving the statements of historians of the middle ages; for, (1.) They knew no more of the facts of the first centuries, personally, than we know. They derived their knowledge from those who wrote before themselves. (2.) They lived in an age when almost unbounded confidence was placed in tradition; when almost any writing which was received and endorsed by the church was accepted as authority without further questioning. This will be seen as we present our argument.
We will now notice two statements by Eld. Quinter in his tract. He says:—
“Chrystal, in his book entitled, ‘History of the Modes of Baptism,’ quotes Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus, an author of an Ecclesiastical History and various other works, and who lived in the latter part of the fourth and early part of the fifth century, as follows: ‘He (Eunomius) subverted the law of holy baptism, which had been handed down from the beginning from the Lord and from the apostles, and made a contrary law, asserting that it was not necessary to immerse the candidate for baptism thrice, nor to mention the names of the Trinity, but to immerse once only into the death of Christ.’”
We cannot say that Theodoret never wrote these words, but the quotation comes to us with a suspicious bearing. 1. There is not the slightest evidence in existence that it was handed down from the apostles. This was a very common method of enforcing any and every practice, even before the time of Theodoret. 2. Theodoret himself was a zealous partisan on the orthodox side, who bitterly opposed dissenters, and he lived when the controversy on the Trinity ran very high, and we shall show that respect for the doctrine of the Trinity was one ground of advocating trine immersion.
3. The author from whom Quinter quotes this extract mentions that Theodoret was the author of an Ecclesiastical History; but why this mention, if not to give the appearance of authenticity to the extract? Why did he not tell us where we may find it? It is not found in that history, and we have no means to determine that Theodoret ever wrote it. Such loose quotations scarcely deserve the name of proof. From the next quotation from the same author we shall feel warranted in stamping him as unreliable.
This next quotation is offered from Sozomen. We quote again from Eld. Quinter’s tract:—
“The following is the language of Sozomen in regard to the origin of single immersion. It occurs in his Ecclesiastical History. He lived, according to Cave, about the year A. D. 440. ‘Some say that Eunomius was the first who dared to bring forward the notion that the divine baptism ought to be administered by a single immersion; and to corrupt the tradition that has been handed down from the apostles, and which is still preserved by all (or among all). But whether it was Eunomius or any other person who first introduced heretical opinions concerning baptism, it seems to me that such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger, according to their own representation, of quitting this life without having received the holy rite of baptism; for if, after having received baptism according to the ancient mode of the church (i. e., by trine immersion), they found it impossible to reconfer it on themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a practice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus undertook to administer to others what had never been administered to themselves (i. e., single immersion into the death of Christ). The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from their own confession; for they admit that those who have not received the rite of baptism have not the power of administering it. Now, according to their opinion, those who have not received the rite of baptism in conformity with their mode of administration (i. e., single immersion) are unbaptized; and they confirm this opinion by their practice, inasmuch as they re-baptize (i. e., by single immersion) all those who join their sect, although previously baptized (i. e., by trine immersion) by the Catholic Church.’—Chrystal’s History of the Modes of Baptism*, p. 78.”
These are the words ascribed to Sozomen by the trine immersionists. The following are the exact words of Sozomen copied from his History:—
“Some assert that Eunomius was the first to maintain that baptism ought to be performed by immersion, and to corrupt, in this manner, the apostolic tradition, which has been carefully handed down to the present day. * But whether it was Eunomius, or any other person, who first introduced heretical opinions concerning baptism, it seems to me that such innovators, whoever they may have been, were alone in danger, according to their own representation, of quitting this life without having received the rite of holy baptism; for if, after having received baptism according to the ancient mode of the church, they found it impossible to reconfer it on themselves, it must be admitted that they introduced a practice to which they had not themselves submitted, and thus undertook to administer to others what had never been administered to themselves. Thus, after having laid down certain principles, according to their own fancy, without any data, they proceed to bestow upon others what they had not themselves received. The absurdity of this assumption is manifest from their own confession; for they admit that those who have not received the rite of baptism have not the power of administering it. Now, according to their opinion, those who have not received the rite of baptism in conformity with their mode of administration are unbaptized; and they confirm this opinion by their practice, inasmuch as they re-baptize all those who join their sect, although previously baptized by the Catholic Church.”
A fierce controversy long raged in the church as to whether baptism by heretics, or those who did not conform to the dominant party, was to be accepted as valid. It will be seen above that every reference to single and trine immersion was put into this extract, not by Sozomen, but by the man who quoted it in favor of trine immersion. They may indeed say that that is what Sozomen meant, but if Sozomen was not able to say what he meant, and needs to stand corrected at this day, then he is not competent to testify in this or any other case. It needs no words of ours to brand the course of Chrystal as dishonorable in palming on his readers this quotation for the words of Sozomen.
We do not dispute that trine immersion prevailed to a considerable extent in the days of Sozomen; but we strongly object to any controversialist making him many times say that which he never said at all. But, our opposers may ask, What else could it mean, if trine immersion then existed? We answer, 1. If we could discover no other meaning, we still denounce the course as unworthy of weaving into a historical quotation that which we think it means while it does not say it. The Catholic Church, in all her pious frauds, never went beyond this. 2. We find historical reference to sprinkling in the church about two and a half centuries before Sozomen wrote. Now inasmuch as Sozomen spoke disparagingly of immersion (not of single immersion) he may at that time have referred to sprinkling as the preferable mode. But, 3. Whatever mode Sozomen meant to endorse, it is condemned by his own words, for he speaks in favor of a “tradition handed down from the apostles.” He knows but little of church history who does not know that tradition had obtained a standard position in the fifth century. And we promise to show, also, that the first authority for trine immersion rested it on tradition only.
(To be Continued.)
TRUST
By Adelaide Proctor
I think if thou couldst know,
O soul that dost complain,
What lies concealed below,
Our burden and our pain;
How just our anguish brings
Nearer those looked-for things
We seek for now in vain,—
I think thou wouldst rejoice and not complain.
And yet thou canst not know,
And yet thou canst not see;
Wisdom and sight are slow
In poor humanity.
If thou couldst trust, poor soul,
In Him who rules the whole,
Thou wouldst find peace and rest;
Wisdom and sight are well, but trust is best.
—Adelaide Proctor.
Truth Shall Endure Forever
God's word will stand and triumph gloriously. Eternity shall recount the praises and triumphs of the truth. Truth shall endure, and its lovers shall live.
THE OLD TESTAMENT LAID UPON THE SHELF.
By J. H. Curry
The fact is almost as universal as it is sad that the Old Testament scriptures are comparatively dispensed with, considered out of date, and therefore null and void, in this day and generation. Very few professedly Bible-loving Christians are conversant with any portions of the Old Testament outside of the Psalms, Proverbs, and one or two of the prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah. This is not characteristically true of the masses of Christians, but grievously true with a goodly number of our preachers. I confess it has been the case with myself that I have neglected the Old Testament for the New, not only in my pulpit preparations, but in my individual reading and studying of God’s precious word.
I. The questions are natural: Why is this? and should it be thus? There may be many more explanations, but I think these are the leading ones:—
1. In the New Testament the “doctrines of grace” are so much more clearly brought out and personalized; the teachings in the Gospels and Epistles being lifted out of that necessary materialism suitable for the development of Messianic thought in the Jewish mind, are more in harmony with our Spirit-enlightened natures.
2. A main reason is, because we consider the Old Testament a fulfilled mission. We fail to appreciate the great facts of unity, from the first to the finale, in the divine revelation to man. We divorce the two books; or, rather, never have considered them divinely joined together. There is a sublime harmony between the law and the gospel. The gospel was never designed to nullify or do away with the law. Christ answered the question of legal and gospel relationship when he declared: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill.” The law of God is still and forever operative, obeyed; it was dignified by Jesus Christ, the sinner’s substitute and Saviour.
3. Another reason of this neglect is simply this,—mental laziness. It requires no mean effort to read understandingly the word of God; but especially that portion darkened by the shadow of the law. But still more practical: A great deal of the old Bible is historical and biographical and we do not like such dry literature as this. It requires some effort to retain the facts, and some thought to conclude a lesson from these facts, and we are right down mentally lazy, and shrink from the ought-to-be-delightful task. Oh, how often you hear in our Sunday-schools: “I do wish we would hurry and get through with the lessons of this quarter; they are in the Old Testament, and so dry.” Some of our most intelligent Bible-class teachers are heard expressing the same sentiments. What good are they or their classes accomplishing?
II. Now, ought this to be? If not, what is the remedy? To be sure, we will readily answer that it ought not to be thus. All of God’s word should be studied,—should be loved. The Old Testament scriptures are not null and void. Jesus himself quoted them, read them, and enjoined his hearers to read them. Paul declares that “all scripture is given by inspiration, and is profitable,” &c. He certainly referred to the Old Testament scriptures in their entirety. The Gospels and Epistles had not been collected and canonized. He meant the Hebrew Scriptures. He further declares that these same Hebrew Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation. Now, what is the remedy to counteract this tendency to neglect the Old Testament? I shall only suggest one: Let our preachers and Bible-class teachers make these Scriptures their heart and mind’s foremost study, and thus be enabled to impress the minds of their hearers with those glorious truths of God, that, when appreciated, scatter a heavenly radiance over the face of his complete revelation. We need to become more profoundly conversant with God’s word as a whole, not as a scrap, a part, but as a sublime unity.—J. H. Curry, in Texas Baptist.
Are Adventists the False Prophets of Last Days?
You tell us that you believe that we, Adventists, are the false prophets that were to come in the last days, which would, if it were possible, deceive the very elect. If this is so, we are certainly in the last days; but that is just what we preach. Is it false, or is it true?
OBSERVATIONS UPON THE CAUSE IN IOWA.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Nine years ago this spring I went to Iowa, and began labor with Bro. Butler, at Sigourney. I labored in this field largely for four years, and became quite well acquainted throughout the State. After an absence of five years, I have again had the privilege of being there, and seeing most of the brethren whom I formerly knew. Some facts have been forcibly pressed upon my mind, to which I wish to call attention.
1. When I first went to Iowa, the friends had just passed through the rebellion of Snook and Brinkerhoff. That move took all our ministers then in the State, divided our churches, and brought general discouragement on the cause there. It left us, I think, less than three hundred Sabbath-keepers in the Conference, and everything in a demoralized condition; but from that very point God has seemed to have a special favor for Iowa, and the cause has come up rapidly, and now there are in this Conference about thirty-five preachers, seventy-five churches, and two thousand Sabbath-keepers. What has become of the rebels? You need a spy glass to find the little remnant there is left of them. Adversity and confusion have followed them, and the scattering hand of God has been against them. One Eld. Goodenough, of that party, about seven years ago made a raid against our church in Richland. Eight or ten Sabbath-keepers were deceived, and went with him. What has become of them? Every one of them has given up the Sabbath. This is the fruit of their labors everywhere they go.
One thing I have noticed in every Conference where these murmuring opposers have risen up to divide our people, and establish a work of their own, is, right there the Lord seems to bless the cause more than anywhere else. Many years ago Michigan was their head-quarters for a short season, until their light went out. Directly following them, God began to bless Michigan; and his blessing has followed the State ever since. Then they moved to Iowa, and planted their batteries there; and see what God has done for that State. Two years ago they made a rush for California. About that time many things were very discouraging there; but no sooner did they enter the field than the Lord began to revive his work in California. Now see how he has raised up ministers and churches in that Conference within the last two years. Missouri has been their last place of attack,149and we confidently expect to see the blessing of the Lord poured out on that State. Let our brethren mark these facts, and let it establish their faith in this work, and in the providence of our God.
2. I was particularly impressed as I noticed the large number of young people in the truth in Iowa. I don't know as I have ever seen so large a proportion of young men and women in any of our churches as here. I should judge that at least one-third of our membership are under twenty-five years of age, and many of these are from fifteen to eighteen years of age. The small children are quite largely in the truth. This is very encouraging indeed. Bro. Farnsworth thinks it is because Iowa has taken special pains in the Sabbath-school cause. Every church, so far as I learned, has a Sabbath-school, and considerable effort has been made to make these schools interesting.
Let our other Conferences note this fact, and wake up to the importance of saving their children. Of course there are children among these Sabbath-keepers who are not converted to God; but their number is not nearly as large as in some other Conferences where I have been.
With the exception of two or three, the thirty-five preachers in Iowa are all young men. The president of their Conference, Eld. E. W. Farnsworth, is not thirty years of age, and he has only been preaching three years. These things look very favorable for the cause in that State. Other States might just as well have two preachers where they have one, if proper efforts were made to encourage young men to preach.
3. I believe that one reason why God is raising up these ministers, and so blessing Iowa, is because that Conference has been liberal in sending out its best ministers to other Conferences. From Iowa, Eld. Butler has gone to Missouri, Eld. Kilgore to Texas, and Eld. Osborn to Kentucky. When these men left, it looked like taking all the strength from the Conference; but, now see how God has blessed them. Michigan has done the same, and see what new ministers have come up. The Lord means to teach us by this not to be selfish, not to settle down in a small sphere, but to move out, and risk something in this cause. If other strong Conferences would follow suit, no doubt God would bless them.
4. Another thing I observed here, as I have every-where else,—it is not the ministers of the greatest natural talent and most liberal attainments who have the most success in the work; but it is those who work with God in the message, and give the greatest energy to it. Iowa furnishes a good proof of this.
There are several men here of much more than ordinary ability, from whom we would naturally expect great things; but they have accomplished comparatively little. Younger men, and men of far less ability and experience in the work, have gone all around them in their labor, accomplishing several times as much as they have done. Let these brethren see if this is not so, and see why it is so. Brethren, how much more time shall we lose in this way? Is it not time to wake up, and go to work? More anon. D. M. Canright.
Ans. “And no man hath ascended up to Heaven [for the purpose of coming back to instruct us in regard to Heavenly things, which is the subject of discourse, verse 12], but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of man who is [so far as his knowledge of Heavenly things is concerned, the same as if it were] in Heaven.”
Do S. D. Adventists believe it is right to go to war? D. G. W.
Ans. No. Our position is that of non-combatants, and was so acknowledged by the Government in the late civil war.
What out-door games are allowable for our children? Are such games as ball, croquet, &c., if not played to excess, harmful? I. A. L., and others.
Ans. We would divide the answer to this question into two parts, in reference to the two classes upon whom it has a bearing.
1. Those who have no interest in religious things. How far should Sabbath-keeping parents indulge children, in this condition, in games such as are above mentioned? Any answer to this would be an answer at random, unless something could be known, (1.) of the temperaments of the children, (2.) how far they were disposed to let these things engross their minds, (3.) what results were being produced, and (4.) the views and feelings of observers. All these considerations would have some bearing upon the question, and would serve to indicate in a great measure the proper course to be pursued.
2. Professed believers in the third message. We have no hesitation in saying that we do not see how any who believe that we are having the last message of mercy, that the time of trouble, the Judgment, and the coming of Christ are right before us, while so much remains to be done for a world lying in darkness and sinking to ruin,—we do not see how any of this class, old or young, can feel that they have any time of the few remaining moments of probation to squander in such useless ways as indulging in games of any kind.
What principle did our Lord design to illustrate in Matt. 9:16, 17, when he spoke about putting new cloth into an old garment, and new wine into old bottles? H. O.
Ans. The utter inconsistency of trying to unite the system which he came to introduce with that observed by the Pharisees. The very question which called out the illustration was a question of difference between the practice of his disciples and that of the Pharisees. Why do the Pharisees fast oft, but thy disciples fast not? Verse 14. The two systems of worship were incompatible with each other. Theirs had degenerated into lifeless formality; his was a new and life-giving principle which could not be confined within such bounds. It would take out from the old garment and make the rent worse, or it would burst the old bottles with its new expansive force.
Should the seat of the papacy be removed to the United States, would it not invalidate the claim that our government is represented by the two horned beast of Rev. 13?
Ans. If the beast can be said to be wherever his seat is, we should have, in case of the removal of the popedom to this country, two beasts occupying the same territory. The seat of the beast, at the time when that power appears in Rev. 13, was the “seat” which the dragon gave him, which was the city of Rome. And we find no intimation of any change of seat between this and Rev. 16:10, where the “seat of the beast” is again brought to view, but this time under the fifth plague just before the coming of Christ. Hence we think the seat of the beast will never be moved from the city of Rome.
What is described in the first chapter of Ezekiel? D. T.
Ans. The throne of God. This chapter and chapter 10 of the same book give a most impressive description of that throne, showing it to be a living moving throne of awful life and majesty. See work on the Sanctuary, pp. 230-236.
ANSWERED BY LETTER: S. R. Twist. E. J. Hammer, G. H. Murphy, L. H. Priest, J. G. Cheal, D. H. Mason, H. W. Quin, C. C. Ramsey, H. W. Decker, D. M. Canright, S. Sharp.
WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT.
By Stephen N. Haskell
Those things which are most important should be attended to first, afterward other things of less importance. The Bible teaches that if we seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, all things else will be added. This is generally explained to mean conversion, or, as the expression is frequently used, to give the heart to the Lord. When an individual has had an experience so that he can say, I have done this, the idea prevails that this is all that is necessary, regardless of any special faith or interest in the work of present truth, which is now being carried forward in the world. There are thousands who will make a fatal mistake here. A Christian experience entirely disconnected from the special work of God will be of no account in the time of trouble to those who live at that time. This special work is to prepare a people for that event, and therefore it is of the utmost importance to those who are called to act in connection with it. When Gideon placed the fleece of wool on the floor that he might more perfectly understand the will of God concerning him by observing whether dew fell on it or not, nothing in the world was of more importance to him than its appearance, as in the morning he received an answer to his inquiry. The breaking of the pitcher at the right time, and the cry, “The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon” was of no less importance.
What would a religious experience have been worth at the time of the flood if it had not been connected with the building of the ark? So it is now in the closing scenes of this world's history. In Rev. 7, we learn that God's angels hold the four winds, which represent the warring elements throughout the world, that a specific work may be accomplished in the earth. This work is symbolized by the angel ascending from the east; and the fact that the winds are held for its completion, proves it to be the most important work in the world. God's especial providence overrules the rise and fall of nations, so that if not directly contributing to the advancement of his cause they are made to assume such positions that its progress is not hindered. A Christian experience connected with this work is invaluable, and one outside of it is of but little worth. It is the same as the third angel's message of Rev. 14; and the greater sacrifices that can be made for its advancement, the more closely we can have our lives interwoven with it, the more devotedly and efficiently we can serve its interests, and the more valuable will be our Christian experience.
The state of Europe, the crumbling condition of society, are sure indications of the return of our Lord, but the greatest evidence lies in the progress of the work of God. Therefore to every true believer nothing can be more interesting than to learn of the progress of this work, and not a week passes during which some new achievement gained by present truth is not brought to our knowledge. Wherever our ministers go there are accessions to the truth; wherever the banner of truth is unfurled, victory is sure to follow. This is God's work, and he is leading it on to certain victory.
A few more years, and the conflict will be over. The urgent calls for means will then be in the past. The pressing need for men to fill positions in the cause of God will then have ceased. Then the burden-bearers will wear the crown. It is men and women of influence that are now wanted to recommend the truth of God to others, and also means to carry the work forward. Nothing in the world can be so important as this work. There is an importance to it that is not realized. Salvation is in it, and those are wanted to engage in it who will not count their lives dear unto themselves, but who will labor with untiring zeal the short time that remains for labor. S. N. HASKELL.
ANOTHER VICTIM.
Of what? Of the miserable falsehood that is going the rounds of the religious press on the subject of the “Christian Sabbath,” started some time since by the Christian Observer. The falsehood is this: That in the Greek the first day of the week is called the Sabbath in the New Testament. If a person could not detect the error of this statement, the supremely foolish manner in which it is defended should be enough to open anybody’s eyes.
We have had occasion to refer to this several times already, and to call the attention of the reader to the tract on Sabbaton, in which the fallacy of the statement is fully exposed. This week the article comes to us again, this time clipped from The Baptist, published in Memphis, Tenn., in which it is seriously spread before the reader as containing true statements and fair criticism.
It is a marvel that such a claim should ever be put forth as that the Greek calls the first day of the week the Sabbath; but it is a greater marvel still that it should be seized upon with such avidity by the different papers which have already published it. This is something we can hardly understand. Is it owing to a bit of desperation which has seized them in view of the utter want of any evidence in behalf of the pet Sunday institution? or is it an indication of the alarming ignorance that prevails on this subject?
When the little tract on Sabbaton was prepared, we did not anticipate that the error which it refutes would ever be avowed to a sufficient extent to make the demand for the tract general. That idea is somewhat modified by the great run this article from the Christian Observer is having; and hence we again call the attention of the reader to this tract, and advise all the friends of the Sabbath to supply themselves with it for general circulation.
We cannot forbear quoting a little from this last appearance of the article in The Baptist. It says:—
“The Seventh-day Adventists are circulating tracts gratuitously all over the South and West, assailing the Christian Sabbath, much to the annoyance of our brethren. One of these tracts makes the following assertions, viz:—
“‘The first day of the week was never called the Sabbath for more than a thousand years after Christ, nor observed as the Sabbath by the early church prior to the commencement of the fourth century. The New Testament nowhere forbids work to be done on it. It is never called the Christian Sabbath. It is never called the Sabbath at all. It is never called the Lord’s day. It is never said that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.’
“A correspondent of the Christian Observer thus notices it:—
“‘These assertions are untrue. The New Testament calls the first day of the week the Sabbath as positively as it states that Christ rose from the dead on that day. Mark 16:9.’
He passes a sweeping charge of falsehood upon all the statements quoted from the tract. Yet he undertakes the refutation of only one; namely, that the first day “is never called the Sabbath at all.” And he can refute this only by making a statement which is itself absolutely false; that is, that the Greek calls the first day the Sabbath. All the falsehood comes out on his side of the question. The statements of the tract are true, every one of them.
We will notice only one of his efforts at criticism. He quotes and translates Mark 16:9 as follows: “Anastas de proi prota sabbaton. Now when Jesus was risen early on the Sabbath.” The ludicrous Greek given us in this quotation, which should be “proi prote sabbatou,” we will charitably attribute to the blunders of type-setters and proof-readers. But in the translation a very essential Greek word, prote, is left out entirely. Thus, Anastas de, and having risen, proi, early; prote, on the first, sabbatou, of the week, ephane, he appeared, etc. Prote is a numeral adjective of the feminine gender. It cannot agree with sabbaton, which is neuter gender, but agrees with hemera, day understood. And sabbaton after such numeral adjectives always signifies week. See Greenfield, Parkhurst, Robinson, and Liddell and Scott.
The same rule holds in Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7; and 1 Cor. 16:2, where different forms of the numeral mia are used instead of prote. And our translators, in the expression “the first day of the week,” have given us a literal and correct translation of the original.
Our critic says: “The translators were not inspired.” True; but they were men of good education, and good common sense, and knew when a passage from the Greek was correctly translated.
We need not pursue this subject further, as it is treated at length in the tract to which we have called attention. If this is the best our friends can do in support of Sunday, they are destined to suffer still greater annoyance on this subject, unless they will accept the truth.