p. 248 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 7, No. 21. (6/2/1881)

NOT A SABBATH, BUT THE SABBATH.

By Editor

THERE is lying upon our table a pamphlet of 114 pages, published by the Methodist houses of New York and Cincinnati, having for its subject the following question and statement: "Is Saturday or Sunday the Christian Sabbath? A Refutation of Sabbatarianism. By Rev. Wm. Armstrong, of the Methodist Episcopal Church. With an Introduction by Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D., of Genessee Conference."

There are two errors in the title. It is by no means a refutation of Sabbatarianism. We never saw a pretentious work come farther short of it. By those who send it forth, it may be supposed to be a refutation, but only, we think, for want of a thorough examination of the subject, and of the merits of the book. And the title is deceptive; it professes to be an examination of the claims of the seventh day to the title of "Christian Sabbath," whereas nobody ever laid any such claim in its behalf. We repudiate the idea. And we deny the claim in reference to Sunday also. We deny that there is any such institution as a Christian Sabbath. And we would respectfully, but earnestly, and in behalf of the law of Jehovah, request the Sunday advocates to make this the first point of their investigations; let them first prove the existence of the institution; then we will examine, with all candor, the evidence for the subject of the institution.

The Catholic church takes the commandments of God and fashions them over into church institutions. But they frankly state what they have done, and give a reason for their so doing. We deny their authority for their action, and consider that their reasons are insufficient to justify it. But we honor their consistency in the course they pursue; a quality which is entirely lacking in the course of those half-way Protestants who deny both their authority and their reason, and yet follow them in their action. If they would listen to the Saviour, and "either make the tree good and its fruit good, or else make the tree corrupt and its fruit corrupt," they would save themselves an immense amount of confusion in their theology. They denounce the tree as corrupt, root and branch, but greedily partake of its fruit.

The Catholics have taken marriage and made it a sacrament of the church. Of course, according to their system, marriage outside of their church is not marriage in fact. It is considered invalid. But we affirm that the woman was made for the man (1 Cor. 11:9) before Christianity existed, and before the necessity for Christianity existed. Marriage belongs to the race; not to any class as such. It is what we call an original institution, growing solely out of the will of God, and not in any respect made necessary by the action of man, as were the gospel and its types.

And the Catholics have taken the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, abrogated it in respect to its essential element, and built up, as the Lord's day, the first day of the week, or Sunday, making of it also a church ordinance; thus turning aside the commandment from its obvious intention to make it subserve the interests of the church. But the Sabbath is also an original institution, "made for man," Mark 2:27; made before the fall—before sin came into the world. It does not possess a single characteristic of a Christian or church institution. And it is easy to show that the only Christian feature accorded to it in the churches is the name. In every other respect they treat it as an original institution, made for the race and not for a class. And here again they are more inconsistent than their Roman leaders. The Catholics give the origin and the reason of the institution of the Sunday Sabbath. It has its origin in that church; the reason is peculiar to that church. And they well say of the Protestant observance of Sunday, that "they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church."

In this, again, the Catholics are consistent and the Protestants are inconsistent. They feed upon the fruit and praise its qualities, while they denounce the tree which produced it.

But it is not our purpose to review the pamphlet; to do so is hardly necessary. There are thousands of readers of this paper who can take the word of God—"the Bible alone"—and refute its main positions. Our object in noticing it is to expose one of its gross errors, one which will not be obvious to the mass of its readers. On pp. 59-61 is found the following language, being a comment on the 16th chapter of Exodus:—

"My reasoning on this passage becomes almost demonstration by the fact that nowhere in this chapter does Moses call the seventh day the Sabbath, but a Sabbath, showing that the day was observed for the first time as a Sabbath. Gesenius, in section 107 of his Hebrew grammar, says: 'The article is employed with a noun to limit its application in nearly the same cases as in Greek and German, viz., when a definite object, one previously mentioned or already known, or the only one of its kind, is the subject of discussion.' In verses 23 and 29 the translators give us 'the Sabbath;' but the article is not in the original, and the rendering should have been, as it is in verse 25, 'a Sabbath.'

"According to the above rule in the Hebrew grammar, the absence of the article 'the' would indicate that this Sabbath-day was a day not already known. Let us read the passages as Moses gave them: 'To-morrow is the rest of a holy Sabbath unto the Lord,' (verse 23;) 'Eat that to-day; for to-day is the Sabbath unto the Lord; to-day ye shall not find it in the field,' (verse 25;) 'See for that the Lord hath given you a Sabbath, therefore he giveth you the bread of two days,' (verse 29.) No commentary is needed on this; the language is plainly indicative of the newness of the day. Why call it a Sabbath if this day had been well known as the Sabbath? In the fourth commandment, (Exodus 20:8, 10,) after this day was established and known, it is called 'the Sabbath,' but in Exodus 16, when a new cycle and a new day were given, it is 'a Sabbath.'"

It is difficult to determine just how to characterize the statements in the above quotation. We desire to be fair, as we can well afford to be, because we have the truth. We desire, also, to exercise due charity, and to deal with all, of every denomination, with becoming courtesy. We are determined that no one shall have just cause to complain of us. But under the circumstances we must confess to being puzzled to know how to speak to the work of these authors and publishers and appear to be courteous to them, and yet be just to the cause of the truth of God. But the honor of God's truth demands that we speak plainly, and sacrifice personal considerations in its behalf. We say then that, 1. The only truth contained in the above quotation is the statement that the definite article is wanting in the original in certain texts named.

2. The article is not omitted in the Hebrew of Ex. 16:29, though the writer repeatedly says it is. His statement is not the truth.

3. Gesenius, in both his Grammar and Lexicon, gives other rules besides that noticed by Mr. Armstrong, to determine whether a noun in the Hebrew is definite or indefinite. That is to say, that the presence or absence of the definite article is not the sole, or sufficient, evidence as to whether a noun is definite or indefinite. In this, all Hebrew grammarians are agreed.

4. There are two methods of determining whether or not a Hebrew substantive is definite. 1. By the presence of the article. 2. By "construction." A noun may be determined to be definite as certainly and as easily in the absence of the article as in its presence, if the construction demands it. The article is then understood.

5. The word "Sabbath" in Ex. 16, and in the decalogue, Ex. 20, is definite in every instance of its occurrence. It is made definite in ch. 16:29 and 20:8, 11, by the use of the article; it is equally definite in ch. 16:23, 25, and 20:10, by construction, in the absence of the article.

6. Mr. Armstrong says the absence of the article in Ex. 16, proves that it is "a new cycle and a new day." And to make this appear to be true, he quotes verse 29 thus: "See, for that the Lord hath given you a Sabbath," and affirms in positive terms that this is the way in which Moses wrote it. But in a copy of the record given by Moses in his own tongue, (in Hebrew,) now lying before us, it plainly reads: "See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath." Mr. A. resorted to a mere cavil to make it appear that he had the argument on this chapter; and to keep up the appearance he seemed willing to hazard a false statement on verse 29.

7. To further sustain his assumption he says: "In the fourth commandment, (Ex. 20:8, 10,) after this day was established and made known, it is called the Sabbath." To show the falsity of his conclusion, it is only necessary to say that the article is not used in Ex. 20:10, in the Hebrew, but it is in verses 8 and 11. Can the reader be made to believe that Mr. Armstrong's theory holds good,—that it was a new and unknown day in Ex. 16:23, 25, and a day well known in verse 29 of the same chapter, referring to the same day, and the same time and event? or that it was an unknown day in Ex. 20:10, but well known in verses 8 and 11 on either side of it? His reasoning, or that which he calls reasoning, is a mere puerility. The truth in this case is this: The construction of the language does not require the article in Ex. 16:23, 25, and ch. 20:10, the word "Sabbath" being definite without it. But the construction of ch. 16:29, and 20:8, 11, is different, and the article is inserted accordingly.

8. He who conceals the truth is often as guilty as he who tells an untruth. In the above quotation the truth is told in part, and it is evidently the intention of the writer to have the reader understand that all the truth on the subject has been told, and that his argument is as correct as a demonstration.

9. Had Mr. Armstrong told the truth and the whole truth in three particulars, namely, (1.) That the article is inserted in the Hebrew of Ex. 16:29; (2.) That it is not inserted in ch. 20:10; and (3.) That Hebrew grammarians give other rules for determining that a noun is definite besides that concerning the use of the article, he would not have had the shadow of an argument on Ex. 16. We are compelled to believe that he willingly took the risk of his erroneous statements, because it was certain that the mass of his readers could not determine for themselves that they were erroneous.

The last General Conference of the Methodists required that all their preachers shall conform to the standards of that church. We are not quite certain to what this requirement will apply; but we are certain that it will be a long day before Mr. Armstrong, or even "Rev. D. W. C. Huntington, D. D.," will compare with Dr. Adam Clarke in scholarly attainments or accuracy of criticism. On the same scripture and the same subject Dr. Clarke says:—

"There is nothing either in the text or context that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now first given to the Israelites, as some have supposed; on the contrary, it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been generally observed. The commandment, it is true, may be considered as being now renewed; because they might have supposed that in their unsettled state in the wilderness they might have been exempted from the observance of it. Thus we find, 1st. That when God finished his creation he instituted the Sabbath; 2nd. When he brought the people out of Egypt, he insisted on the strict observance of it; 3rd. When he gave the law, he made it a tenth part of the whole; such importance has this institution in the eyes of the Supreme Being!"

This testimony of Dr. Clarke is as truthful as it is explicit. He refers the Sabbath of Ex. 16 to the same day to which Gen. 2:3 refers; and he says there is nothing in the text or context to indicate that reference was made to anything which was then new. The reading of the decalogue, Ex. 20, plainly proves that the Sabbath or rest day of the creation week is referred to therein, and not a new day first made known in Arabia.

Dr. Scott also says on Ex. 16:22-27:—

"The whole narrative implies that reference was made to an institution before known, but not properly remembered or regarded; and not to any new law given on the occasion. Neither the inquiry of the elders, nor the language of Moses, can be consistently interpreted of an entirely new institution."

If this were merely a question of criticism, we should claim it against Messrs. Armstrong and Huntington. But it rests on weightier grounds than that. It is a question of plain facts, with the evidence all against our modern critics, who must be either ignorant of the Hebrew, or reckless in their methods of gaining a short-lived victory.

We have not gone fully into the evidence to prove our position in criticising theirs, but stand ready to defend all that we have said if occasion requires. The Methodist denomination is large and influential, and has much talent and learning at its command. If we are wrong it can easily be shown. But if we are correct; if the error is on their part, then we call upon the Methodists to prove their integrity by taking Mr. Armstrong's book out of the market, and not be a party to the work of deception of which the authors of that book must stand convicted. We write with no unkind feelings. We respect the Methodist denomination, and only ask them to do themselves justice in this case, for it is important. It is no slight matter to misrepresent the word of God, and to subvert one of his commandments; for all can see that, if Mr. Armstrong's position holds good, the fourth commandment is obsolete, for it then refers to a local and national institution, with which we can have nothing to do. In that case there is no Sabbath law for this dispensation. Our neighbors cannot afford to stand responsible for such a doctrine as this.

Other points in Mr. Armstrong's book are as weak and erroneous as the one we have reviewed. But we pass them by, at least for the present, as every reader can discover their unsoundness. We have selected to notice that which was hidden under the guise of Hebrew criticism, and which was, therefore, the most liable to deceive the general reader.

PRAYER.

By John Nevins Andrews

THE efficacy of prayer is not because of its power to change the mind of the Most High, but because of its effect upon the petitioner, in preparing him to receive. When we pray for things suitable to our real wants, it requires no statement of our urgent necessities to cause the Lord to incline toward our supplication. He desires to bestow such blessings upon us. The object of prayer is not, by any means, to create such a purpose in the mind of the Lord. The truth is, the hindrance is not on the Lord's part at all. The difficulty lies in ourselves. Prayer, humiliation, self-abasement, wrestling, agonizing, are all in place, all a part of the divine plan. Let no one suppose that these are undervalued, or that we may, by any means, dispense with them. No, by no means. But where lies the hindrance? It is wholly in ourselves. The object of the deep self-abasement is to prepare ourselves to receive the blessing of God.

Nothing is more certain than that when signal deliverance is needed, that deliverance has to be delayed because the people of God cannot bear it. Were it to be granted, they would be lifted up to their own ruin. So the Lord suffers them to be brought into a great strait, that they may, by the deepest humiliation and self-abasement, become prepared to bear the signal deliverance which he earnestly desired to grant. The earnest prayer and deep prostration of the soul before God, are not for the purpose of extorting favor from one who is really averse to granting it, and has to be worn out by importunity, and induced to do that which he was at heart unwilling to do. By no means. The delay is only that we may be brought into the place which God can approve, and where he can, in safety to ourselves, grant us his favor in the blessings which we ask. The hindrance is always with ourselves. The first question to be determined in prayer is, whether the petition is a proper one to present before the Lord. Then we must seek to ascertain and put away from ourselves everything that stands in the way of that petition being granted. When this work is really accomplished, the answer to prayer will be immediate.

J. N. A.

THE BIBLE—ITS PROPHECIES.

By Roswell F. Cottrell

BY ELD. R. F. COTTRELL.

THIS blessed volume of inspiration has stood the test of ages. It carries the impress of divine authenticity to every candid inquirer after truth. Among the many evidences which recommend it to our faith, its prophecies and their fulfillment are not the least. The common mind can grasp the invincible argument arising from this source, and maintain an unshaken faith independent of the opinion of others, whether friendly or hostile. It is the privilege of every one to know why they believe, and to be able to give a reason of their faith to those who inquire.

And the evidence derived from the prophecies is cumulative, increasing with every fresh fulfillment. As empire after empire has arisen upon earth, the prophetic word has been verified more and more. And when, in addition to this, we view the many signs predicted of the last days, which cluster around us, we conclude that none need be infidels through lack of testimony.

But, strange as it may appear, infidelity has taken a fresh and unparalleled impetus, right in the midst of these prophetic fulfillments which speak with thunder tones the near approach of the day of God. This does not stagger but confirms the faith of the Christian, for it is distinctly and clearly foretold in prophecy, and that too as immediately preceding the great day. The past history of the world confirms the truth of the prophecies, while present fulfillments unmistakably declare that earth's closing scenes are upon us. And though the Christian mourns the increasing darkness of this moral night, yet he rejoices with the blessed assurance that the morning light is about to dawn upon all who, with constant faith and hope and love, wait, and watch for it.

Faith in past and present fulfillment of prophecy is the only anchor that can hold the soul amid the surging billows of these last days. It is the only chart that can safely guide it amid the rocks and whirlpools which are dashing in pieces and swallowing up our race. And oh! the apathy, the heartless indifference of those professed Christians who can look "with brute unconscious gaze," upon the thrilling events which cluster around us as harbingers of the day of God, and calmly see their fellow-men swallowed up in the whirlpool of spiritualism, while they propose to themselves to "attend to the practical part of religion, and let the prophecies alone." And why let the prophecies alone? There seems to be a consciousness that, if they investigate them, they will be forced to the conclusion that the end of all things is at hand; and then all the odium that is attached to those who thus believe, will cleave to them. So they close their eyes to the only truth that can awaken them from their stupor, and sanctify and save them from the awful gulf yawning to receive them.

Fellow Christian, where is your influence? Is it on the side of the Bible, its morality, its teachings, its prophecies? While you see the multitudes of mankind rushing madly into the latest form of infidelity, are you holding up the light of prophecy, which predicts these lying wonders as a sign of the last days, and points out the awful ruin that awaits those who are thus led captive by Satan at his will? Are you giving heed to the "sure word of prophecy, as to a light that shineth in a dark place," as an apostle directs, or are you practically making the prophecies of no account—slighting this bulwark of the Christian faith in such a time as this—a time when the emboldened enemies of the Lord are saying with insulting and defiant strains, where is your God? If you do not now rally to the standard of prophetic truth, your influence is on the side of infidelity, whether you are aware of it or not. While you ignore the prophecies, you yield some of the main props of the faith—the pillar and ground of the truth. Will you tamely surrender this part at such a time as this? Oh, says one, I believe the prophecies, but I do not know what they mean; and there is too much uncertainty about them for any one to be fully assured in regard to them. Such a faith in them is no faith at all. It is a cowardly unbelief, which favors the cause of the enemy. Christian, where is your faith, and where is your influence?

WHOSE LAW IS IT?

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

BY E. J. WAGGONER.

THE following paragraph, which is going the rounds of the religious press, shows the careless manner in which most people handle the word of God:—

"Moses with his decalogue, could never accomplish what has been achieved by Christ and his cross. The bonds of the old morality could, like green withes, be easily broken; but the ties of this morality are strong, just because they are tender."

It is evident that the writer of the above is trying to place Christ in antagonism to the ten commandments; but where in the Bible do we find any record of the decalogue of Moses? Moses did not originate the law, he did not speak it to the people, he did not even write it. Everywhere in the Bible the ten commandments are distinctly termed God's law. The introduction to them when spoken on Sinai, is as follows: "And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord thy God," etc. After speaking the words of the law in the presence of all the people, God called Moses into the mount, and there gave him the ceremonial law, and directions concerning the building of the sanctuary. But the decalogue was not intrusted to Moses to be transmitted to the people. Thus we read, "And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon Mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God;" Ex. 31:18; and in chapter 32:15, 16, we read, "And Moses turned and went down from the mount, and the two tables of testimony were in his hand; the tables were written on both their sides; on the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables." And still later, when Moses rehearsed the ten commandments to Israel, he said: "These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone." Deut. 5:22.

When these first tables were broken, the Lord said to Moses: "Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first; and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.", "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. 34:1, 28.

This law thus spoken and written by God is always called his. "Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; a blessing, if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, and a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God," Deut. 11:26-28. "And they left all the commandments of the Lord their God." "Also Judah kept not the commandments of the Lord their God." David in his charge to Solomon, said: "Only the Lord give thee wisdom and understanding, and give thee charge concerning Israel, that thou mayest keep the law of the Lord thy God." See also Ps. 1:2; 19:7, 8; 119; Isa. 5:24, and many other texts in which the commandments are distinctly called the law of God.

There is a law that is sometimes called Moses' law, but it was distinct from the decalogue. It was the law of ceremonies which God gave to Moses while he was in the mount. Of this law it is said, "And Moses wrote this law," and, "And it came to pass when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book," etc. Deut. 31:9, 24. But although Moses wrote this law for the use of the people, and it is sometimes termed his law, it is nowhere claimed that Moses had any further connection with it than as the mouthpiece of God. Thus in Lev. 27:34, after this law had been rehearsed, the statement was made, "These are the commandments which the Lord commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai;" and in Neh. 9:13, 14, the distinction between the law of God and that of Moses is clearly made, while God is still represented as the author of both. "Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant."

The clearness of these statements leaves no room for mistake as to the authorship of the decalogue. It is easy to discern, however, whence such carelessness as the above arises. The same spirit which leads men to speak of the Sabbath of the Lord as the "old Jewish Sabbath," leads them to speak of the law of which it is a part as the "decalogue of Moses." The antipathy felt toward the Sabbath will naturally extend to the whole law, and instead of repudiating the fourth commandment merely, men will reject the whole law. The respect which men have for a law is in proportion to the respect felt for the maker of it. Cannot these religious teachers see that their efforts to diminish immorality and extend the gospel of Christ can meet with no real success while they thus "pervert the right ways of the Lord"?

THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD.

By John Nevins Andrews

WE read with the deepest interest the record of the wonderful providences of God, contained in the Bible. Perhaps no one of these seems more worthy of our admiration, than the case of Mordecai and Haman, contained in the book of Esther. The hand of God was directly concerned in the advancement of Esther to the throne of Persia. And by this remarkable event, he saved the Jews from a general massacre. No one can doubt that the providence of God made Esther queen for this very purpose. But there is one fact stated that shows how high above human agency God is exalted. The question ever arises, Suppose the agent to whom Providence commits a certain work should prove unfaithful to that work, what, then, would the Almighty do? Even suppose Esther had proved untrue, what then?

The words of Mordecai, meet this very point; Est. 4: 14: “For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this ?”

Here we have a most striking truth revealed. The providence of God is prepared for the emergency. It can never be taken by surprise. If Esther were to forget God, and fail in her duty, deliverance would arise from another place. If she, in her exaltation, left her work undone, God would employ, perhaps, one of the most lowly. His work would not fail. Let us remember this. We may ruin ourselves by disobedience, and may cause others to stumble, but we shall find that God is not dependent upon us. J. N. A.

A PROTESTANT SAINT.

PATRICK, of the fifth century, was undoubtedly a saint. He was not a Rome-made saint, but one of God's New-Testament saints. It is a wrong to his memory and to our Protestant Christianity to concede him to the Romish church. In the popular mind Patrick stands for some devoted Papist enshrined in the hearts of the Catholic Irish. As history presents him to us, he is a large-hearted, pure-minded Christian minister of the early centuries.

We find the short story of his life in his Confessions. Stolen from his home in Britain, when seventeen, he was for six years a slave in Ireland. While in captivity the light came into his heart. His words, describing his conversion, burn with devotion. "The love and the fear of God more and more inflamed my heart. My faith and fervor were increased so that I prayed a hundred times a day, and also as many by night." Returning to his home, his life is in obscurity until he is forty-three. Then a Macedonian cry from Ireland came into his soul. He went alone, breaking away from the entreaties of friends, to a land of Druidical cruelty and heathen ignorance. He went with a Pauline earnestness, though without the large intellectual proportions of Paul. He calls himself unlearned.

He was a Bible preacher. In his Confessions are twenty-five quotations from the Scriptures. There is no allusion to the Pope, the Virgin Mary, or praying to the saints. His father and grandfather were ministers, living in holy wedlock. His religion came from Jerusalem, not from Rome. He studied the Scriptures and recommended them to the people. His followers were, for generations, eminently Biblical in their belief. When the emissaries of Rome met them in England and Scotland they resisted them. Ireland was essentially a Protestant (though this word was not yet born) country, until the eleventh century. The Romish myths that have gathered about the memory of this man were all formed after this time.

Patrick found Ireland a moral waste, he left it a land of light. He speaks of having baptized thousands of people. The first meeting-house was built at Armagh in 456. He ordained not less than three hundred and fifty pastors. Ireland was largely redeemed before he died, March 17, 465.

His work was not that of ignorant enthusiasm. Where he planted a church there he planted a school. The New England fathers, in building side by side the meeting-house and the schoolhouse, were but imitating Patrick. Ireland became the light of the dark ages in Western Europe. Armagh, Bangor and Derry numbered their students by thousands. We mentally associate Ireland with ignorance, but we are all her debtors. "The Irish people, living in the ends of the earth, have done more to preserve and promote learning than all other parts of Europe."

From Ireland went a sacred influence that lightened other lands. The school at Iona lifted up all Scotland. France, Switzerland, Germany, were traversed by men of Patrick's spirit. Columba and Columbanus were both Irishmen worthy of standing side by side with Patrick.

Very beautiful and Paul-like are the words in the Confession: "And now I commend my soul to God, who is faithful, for whom in reproach I have performed this mission. I pray God that he may give unto me perseverance, that I may bear for him a faithful testimony until my transition to my God."

Ireland was the last country in Europe to submit to the papal yoke. She bent her neck, forced by English bayonets. If the Irish people should drink in the spirit of that Patrick who stands before us in his Confessions and life-work, they would throw off that yoke, and rejoice in that freedom wherewith Christ makes men free.

Dr. Cathcart does not, I think, go too far in Baptism of the Ages when he says: "St. Patrick gives an account of his own conversion in his Confession, just as a regenerated candidate for baptism in a Baptist church would. He required apparently the same regeneration in his converts, and then he immersed them. The story of his life makes him so like a Baptist missionary that we believe he was one."—O. P. E., in Examiner and Chronicle.

KNOX'S RETURN TO ENGLAND.

By Stephen Nelson Haskell

BY ELD. S. N. HASKELL.

DURING John Knox's exile on the Continent he visited Switzerland where he was cordially received by the Swiss reformers. He also formed the acquaintance of Calvin, with whom he ever maintained an intimate friendship. At this time, although nearly fifty years of age, he applied himself to study with all the ardor of youth, and acquired some degree of proficiency in the Hebrew language. He had no means of support, excepting the voluntary contributions of his friends in Scotland and England, and he seems at times to have been in very straitened circumstances.

As the persecution in England against the Protestants, continued to increase in severity, large numbers left the country. In 1554 it was estimated that no less than eight hundred learned Englishmen, besides many others, were living in exile on the Continent. In Frankfort, Germany, the English exiles were permitted to hold religious service in their own language, on condition of their conforming as nearly as possible to the form of worship used by the French church. Three pastors were chosen, of whom Knox was one, which office he held for a time. Nothing, however, could take from his mind the thoughts of his persecuted brethren in England, and he occasionally made journeys to Dieppe where he could inform himself of their situation. As he thus learned of the recantation and re-acceptance of Popery by many who had embraced the truth under his ministry, words can hardly express the agony of his feelings. While in this state of mind he composed the Admonition to England, and other productions, for which he has often been censured on account of the severity and bitterness of the language employed. "O England," says he, "if thou obstinately wilt return into Egypt, that is, if thou contract marriage, confederacy, or league, with such princes as do maintain and advance idolatry, . . . if, for the pleasure of such princes, thou return to thy old abominations before used under Papistry, then assuredly, O England, thou shalt be plagued and brought to desolation by the means of those whose favor thou seekest."

About this time the cause of the Reformation was again to some extent tolerated in Scotland. The Queen-Dowager was elevated to the Regency in 1554, and, for a time, she found it for her interest to shield the Protestants from the violence of their enemies. The Protestant ministers were not slow to improve the opportunity thus presented. Traveling from place to place, they instructed many, and fanned the latent zeal of those who had formerly received a knowledge of the truth. Under these circumstances Knox decided to return to his native land. Having visited his wife at Berwick, he set out secretly for Edinburg. Here he held meetings in private houses, one service immediately following another, which were listened to by successive assemblies, consisting of the nobility and persons of high distinction in the kingdom.

Thus he was almost constantly employed, by night as well as by day, in giving instruction to those who were eager to receive it. To avoid the scandal which they would otherwise incur, the friends of the reform doctrine generally attended popish worship, and even the celebration of the mass. This course was strongly condemned by Knox, and a discussion of the subject resulted in a formal separation from the popish church. From this place Knox proceeded to other parts of the kingdom, and preached for some time before the clergy became aware of his presence. Finally, for the purpose of intimidating him, he was summoned to appear at a convention at Edinburg; but upon learning that the Reformer proposed to obey the summons, the clergy, fearing to bring matters to an issue while unsure of the Regents' decided support, annulled the summons before the day appointed. On this day, and for ten days following, Knox preached to far greater audiences than had before attended him in Edinburg, without disturbance from the clergy.

Such an opportunity as this was what Knox had earnestly longed for. In writing to his wife's mother, during this time, he says:

"The trumpet blew the ald sound thrie dayis together, till private houssis, of indifferent largeness, culd not conteane the voice of it. God grant me to be myndfull that the sobbis of my heart hath not bene in vane, nor neglectit in the presence of his majestic. Ol sweet war the death that suld follow sic fourtie dayis in Edinbrugh as heir I have had thrie. Rejose, mother; the tyme of our deliverance approacheth: for as Sathan rageth, sa dois the grace of the Hailie Spreit abound."

Soon after this he addressed a letter to the Queen-Regent with the hope that it might incline her, not only to protect the reform preachers, but lend a favorable ear to their doctrines. Although written with great care, and by no means in an uncourtly style, this letter received only a passing glance from the Regent. Knox, learning of the reception which his letter had received, soon after published it with additions.

While thus laboring in Scotland he received a letter from the English congregation at Geneva informing him that they had chosen him as their pastor. This invitation he accepted, and soon removed thither with his family.

NORTHERN EUROPE.

By J. G. Matteson

The interest in Christiana had diminished some in my absence, and there is much need of labor to build up the church, as well as the outside interest. It will also take some time to get things arranged in the printing office for a more extended work. I will get ready to visit Sweden and Denmark in the fall. If I can find an open door not too far from here, perhaps some work can be bestowed there this summer. Things move more slowly here than in America.

Five persons were baptized Sabbath evening, April 23. Bro. Rosqvist had baptised four in my absence. On the Sabbath, eight brethren and sisters united with us. In the afternoon we met to celebrate the ordinances. About eighty took part. The Lord was present, and blessed us with his good Spirit; and we were thankful to have an opportunity once more to show the Lord's death before he comes.

We sustain quite a loss by removals. Eleven Sabbath-keepers have gone to America from this place. Most of them unite with our own brethren

there. Since our organization two years ago, one hundred and twenty-seven persons have been received. Of these, eleven have moved away, five have died, eight have left the church and been excluded, leaving the present number one hundred and three. Of these, twelve live in other places outside of Christiana.

In Denmark Bro. Brorson continues to labor with some success. Five believers were received in the church in Dronninglund at their last quarterly meeting. Bro. C. Hansen writes to me that the brethren there are firm in the truth, and that they are very thankful for Bro. B.'s labor.

From Ostervallskog, Sweden, Bro. Levin writes that there are six Sabbath-keepers who meet together for worship, and try to live out the truth.

May the Lord bless his cause everywhere, and give wisdom and strength for his work.

J. G. MATTESON.

Continue reading: THE CAUSE IN ENGLAND