THOSE who keep Sunday claim that the first day of the week should be observed in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ on that day. But there is no Bible authority for this claim. The first day is never called the Sabbath, the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's day, or a holy day of any kind. There is not even a reference to such an institution nor an intimation of it in the Bible. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever kept it. No command is given for any one to keep it. God never rested upon it, nor blessed it, nor sanctified it. There is no penalty for its violation, nor regulation for its observance.
Reader, think of these facts. What do they mean? Paul says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. 4 : 15. As there is no law of God for keeping the first day, there can be no sin in working on it; for Paul says again, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. 5 : 13. Then why keep Sunday? God does not leave men to guess at their duty, but he states plainly whatever he wishes done. Does he wish men to keep the seventh day? How explicitly he has said so. Ex. 20 : 8–11. How plainly baptism and the Lord's supper are enjoined. Mark 16 : 15, 16; 1 Cor. 11 : 23–26. So if the Lord wished us to keep the first day, would he not have plainly said so? Certainly; but he has said no such thing.
Let us examine every text in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament, and we shall thus learn all the Lord has said about it. There are but eight texts. Here is the first: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28 : 1. This is all that Matthew says about it. He relates that the angel opened the tomb; that the women saw him, ran to tell the apostles, and met Jesus on the way; but not a hint is given that there is to be any change of the Sabbath, not a word is said about keeping the first day in honor of the resurrection. Think of this.
Next, Mark mentions the first day twice. "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." Chap. 16 : 2, 9. This is all the mention he makes of the day. Here, again, there is a profound silence as to any change of the Sabbath or any sacredness for the first day. There is not the slightest intimation of any such thing. Read the whole chapter, and see for yourself.
Luke mentions the first day only once. "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Chap. 24 : 1. What does this say about the change of the Sabbath? Nothing. What intimation is there here that the first day then became a holy day? The candid reader will admit that there is not the slightest reference to such a thing. Yet these are the texts always relied upon by Sunday-keepers to sustain their position. Luke does state that two of the disciples went that day seven and a half miles, on foot, to Emmaus. Verse 13. What were they going there for? Evidently on business. Jesus walked with them, and made himself known to them. Verses 15–31. Then they ran back to Jerusalem to tell the others. Fifteen miles they walked that day. Not much of a Sabbath! It was nearly night when they got back, verse 29; yet, as late as that, few of the apostles believed in the resurrection of Jesus. Mark 16 : 12, 13. While they were eating supper, and doubting and disputing about the resurrection, Jesus came in and upbraided them for their unbelief. He took fish and honey from the table, and ate before them, to convince them. Luke 24 : 38–43. Certainly, then, they were not keeping that day to commemorate an event in which they did not yet believe! The absurdity of such a view is too evident to need further notice.
John mentions the first day twice, stating substantially the same facts as the others. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." Chap. 20 : 1. She ran and told Peter and John. They went to see if it were so. Later, Jesus appeared to Mary, and sent her to tell the others. Verses 11–18. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Verse 19. This is all that John says of the first day. Reader, how much do you find here about the change of the Sabbath? Like the others, John is silent upon the subject. He makes no reference to it; he simply states the events that occurred at the resurrection of Jesus. There he leaves it.
But were not the apostles assembled together when Jesus met them? Yes, at their own home, eating supper. John 20 : 10; Mark 16 : 14. And where else should they be? Even then, Thomas was off on business somewhere. John 20 : 24. So there is no evidence here of any religious meeting held on that day.
John mentions the first day twice, but does not call it the Sabbath, the Lord's day, nor by any other sacred title. He says nothing about the disciples' keeping it, nor does he record any intimation from the Lord that they should keep it. There is not even an inference to that effect in the four gospels, and the whole argument in favor of it is pure assumption.
Another Sunday meeting is claimed from verse 26: "And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." This did not occur on Sunday, but as late as Monday evening, Verse 19. After eight days is not the eighth day. Count from Sunday evening. After one day would take us to Monday evening; after two days, to Tuesday evening; and so on, till "after eight days" brings us to the next Monday evening. Hence, this was on Monday evening. Just one week is "after seven days," as the reader will see by 1 Chron. 9 : 25, 32. Then "after eight days" is one day more than a week.
But suppose it had been the first day of the week; that does not prove that it was the Sabbath, nor that there was any sacredness to the day. The disciples were "within," that is, at home. Verse 10: "Then the disciples went away again unto their own home." This is where they were when the event occurred which is recorded in verse 26. See Acts 1 : 13. Jesus came because Thomas was there; but there is not a word, or even a hint, that the day was sacred.
The next time Jesus met them was on a fishing day. They all went fishing, and toiled all night, but caught nothing. In the morning Jesus stood on the shore, and told them where to cast the net to get a good draught. Was this on Sunday? Then it is a working day. If it was not on Sunday, then Jesus met with them on any day, just as it happened. So we see in Acts 1: 1-4, that his farewell meeting with them was on Thursday. Verse 3. By a moment's reckoning it will be seen that it fell on Thursday, as all agree. Thursday is ascension-day the world over. So the claim that Jesus always met with his disciples on the first day of the week is utterly false. As we have seen, the day of his resurrection was one of the greatest confusion among his disciples; the next time he met them was on Monday evening, the next time was on a fishing day, and the last time was on Thursday. So much for the example of Christ.
A desperate endeavor is made to find evidence for Sunday-keeping from the day of Pentecost; Acts 2 : 1-4; but there is not the remotest hint of it here. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind." Verses 1, 2. Then the Holy Spirit rested upon them. But what has that to do with Sunday-keeping? Sunday observance is not mentioned, nor even referred to. It is not stated what day of the week it was, as that was a matter of no importance. It was the Pentecost which was to be signalized, and not the day of the week. No; the best scholars, even among the observers of Sunday, admit that Pentecost fell that year upon the Sabbath, or Saturday. Prof. Hacket says, "It is generally supposed that this Pentecost signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday." - Com. on Original Text.
Barnes says: "If the views of the Pharisees were followed, . . . then the day of Pentecost would have occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday."--Kuinoel, Lightfoot.
Olshausen says: "The fiftieth fell, therefore, it appears, upon Saturday."
Dean Alford, in his New Testament for English Readers, remarks, "It appears probable, however, that it was on the Sabbath, i. e., if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan."
Next, Acts 20 : 7-11 is supposed to furnish some little proof for first-day observance. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." Then a young man fell down, and was restored to life by Paul. And when he "had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." We notice, 1. The first day is not called the Sabbath, Lord's day, or by any sacred title. This is the only religious meeting upon the first day of the week of which we have any record in the New Testament. This is remarkable, if that was the common day of meeting. But we have a record of eighty-four Sabbaths which Paul kept, and on which he preached. See Acts 13 : 14, 44; 16 : 13; 17 : 2; 18 : 1-4, 11. 3. Nothing is said about its being their custom to meet on that day before this occasion or afterwards. 5. What settles the whole matter is the simple fact that it was only an evening meeting. When they assembled, Paul began to preach to them, and "continued his speech till midnight." After breaking bread, he again talked "till break of day," and then went on his journey. Evening meetings are frequently held on all days of the week. No one thinks of calling a day holy for this reason. So in the above case, this meeting does not furnish the slightest evidence that Sunday was a holy day. Moreover, this was not an ordinary meeting, verse 25; hence it lasted all night. A dead man was raised. It was for those reasons that it was mentioned, and not because of any sacredness belonging to the day. Then there is not a particle of evidence here for Sunday observance.
Only one more text mentions the first day; viz., 1 Cor. 16 : 2: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." From this a public meeting for Sabbath worship on the first day is inferred. But what is said here about keeping that day as the Sabbath, or even holding meetings that day? Not an intimation of such a thing is given. Paul does not say that when they came together for meetings they should bring their gifts, nor that they should put them into the public collection box, nor anything of that nature. "Let every one of you lay by him in store," is the direction; that is, at home, by himself. The original Greek term means by himself, at home, as the best critics say on this passage.
Now, reader, you have before you every text in the New Testament that mentions the first day of the week in any manner. You must see that they do not intimate that the day has any sacredness, or that there is any example for keeping it, or any commandment that any one should observe it.
But should we not, then, celebrate the resurrection of Christ? Yes; but the Lord never told us to keep Sunday for that purpose. God has given us baptism, burial in water, as the fitting memorial of this. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism." Rom. 6 : 4. We are buried in the water just as Jesus was in the earth. Then we are raised up out of the water "also in the likeness of his resurrection." Verse 5. Again, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." Col. 2 : 12. Baptism, then, is the divinely appointed memorial of the burial and resurrection of Jesus. It is appropriate. To be buried in the water and raised out of it, resembles the burial and resurrection of Christ, which it commemorates.
Then why do you keep the first day? It is simply because you have been brought up to do it. It is a Catholic tradition, without any foundation in the word of God. Be careful how you make void the law of God by your traditions. D. M. C.
SPIRITUALISM AND THE FUTURE ANTI-CHRIST.
Rationalism and Socialism are ripening the world for a climax. Recent writers assure us that in Protestant Germany "reason proudly sits in the chair of faith, and the natural powers of man are ended with the attributes of Divinity." What does this point to but the elevation or pantheising of our race? "Ye are as gods," says Satan, as preparatory to placing one man above every god. What more common than to hear such expressions as the following: "The divine ideality of man;" "the exploded idea of God;" "the coming new development;" "the higher theology of the future;" "Christianity is doomed," etc.?
It is perhaps no wonder that, taking advantage of such sentiments as these, a well-known writer in the Westminster Review should recently have asserted that Spiritualism, or the "new revelation," is the only religion of the future. This brings us to the consideration of this last sign of the times, as it affects the question of unfulfilled prophecy. The apostle distinctly mentions that at the close of the age, or dispensation, there shall be a revival of what in all ages of the world has been termed necromancy, or dealing with familiar spirits. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils," or teachings of demons. (1 Tim. 4).
The fact cannot be too distinctly insisted upon, that Spiritualism contains in itself the germ of the antichristian system. The slow and stealthy strides by which it has crept into the world have been the ruin of thousands; and if to-day the "new delusion" counts its votaries by tens of thousands, we have only ourselves to blame. Rightly or wrongly, the majority of people have hitherto mocked and underrated its claims to attention.
The future antichrist will arise on the world as the apostle of progress—the prophet of humanity; he will appeal to all classes and to all religions. Moreover, it is probable that a distracted and chaotic world will be found ripe and ready to bow down to its claims and worship him as the Saviour of mankind. For this supreme moment Satan has apparently been long preparing. The Spiritualists boldly assert that, in the "coming regeneration," the present state of society, and all existing creeds and religions, will be swept away by a personage whom they call the "Comforter," who is shortly to appear in order to heal the wounds of our afflicted race.
A Spiritualistic medium, speaking under supernatural, or rather infranatural, influences said:—
"There will be great and astounding manifestations within the next few years; innumerable sorrows are in reserve for earth's inhabitants; but beyond is the prospect of a brighter day, when among the blessings the least shall be communion with the spirits of the pure and the good. Some years will pass before a great change; but another century will not commence before this great change will be wrought. I may not reveal more now. The spirit manifestations will astound the world. Day after day spirits continually watch the progress of the new light—then will the great day of jubilee come, and all the sorrows of the past be done away. These things presage the coming of a glorious future—the coming of a 'new Messiah.'" (!)
The reason why the religious world has been so slow to recognize the fearful nature and origin of modern Spiritualism is because the phenomena have been kept, for the most part, confined to certain strict and select circles. In this may be seen the manifest finger of the Evil One. Under cover of silly and profane phenomena (table-turnings, rapping, levitations, and the like), this last—and most accursed—delusion has been foisted on mankind. It has silently but surely crept into the remotest villages and hamlets; and there is not a considerable town in this country where the "cause," as it is termed, has not its adherents, its circles, and seance-chambers. Not long ago it was heard of in the Azores.
We affirm that this hideous mockery of a new religion is gathering together its forces, unknown to the multitude, for a world-wide upheaval—a gigantic confederacy—the excesses and blasphemies of which what tongue can tell, what pen describe, but which will be an accompaniment of the latter-day great tribulation foretold in Daniel 12:1, and Matthew 24:21, to be associated with the second advent of Christ and the millennium.—Christian Herald.
A Truth Well Stated.
By Editor
The editor of the Sabbath Recorder, in reviewing an article in the Baptist Banner, says:—
“The Banner says: ‘Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week. See Mark 16:9.’ In a discussion on the Sabbath, we never deny that Christ rose from the dead on the first day, and the reason is, it has nothing to do with the question. It has no more to do with it than has the day of his birth, or the day of his death. We ask, Do the Scriptures say anything of this? Not a word; it is pure human invention! The passage, however, quoted to prove that Christ rose on the first day of the week only does this by putting a comma in the wrong place. Correct this, and then we get its true sense, for it does not attempt to tell when Christ rose from the dead, but when he appeared to his disciples. Let us see: ‘And having risen, early on the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.’ This gives the true sense and makes Mark’s testimony agree with the other evangelists, showing that after Christ’s resurrection, the exact time of which no man knows, he appeared early on the first day of the week to certain of his followers.”
Several years ago a friend in New England appealed to us to join in an effort to prove to the people that Christ did not rise on the first day of the week. We refused, because we had no interest in the question. He said by so doing we could remove the last prop of Sunday keepers. We deny that it is any prop at all, because the resurrection has no relation to Sabbath observance. They who labor so hard to prove that Christ did not rise on the first day attach an undue importance to the question. They give this much advantage to their opponents, by virtually admitting that it is important in the Sabbath controversy to determine the day of the resurrection of the Lord.
We have no idea that any considerable number of people will ever become convinced by the argument on the resurrection so as to renounce Sunday keeping. The law of God is the only true basis of Sabbath observance. That law is based on certain events, but the resurrection is not among them. While we spend our time to argue with them concerning the time of the resurrection, we are only diverting their minds from the true issue. We say with Dr. Hull, the day of the resurrection of Christ has no more relation to the Sabbath “than has the day of his birth or the day of his death.”
And no Baptist can be consistent and try to urge the observance of the Sabbath on the ground of the resurrection of the Lord. The Baptists professedly deny tradition and inference concerning matters of institution; yet they know there is nothing bearing any resemblance to a precept for observing the first day of the week. A few quotations where the first day is mentioned, without any statement of its sabbatic character, or of a duty to observe it, no more determines a duty in that respect, than a few mentions of the baptism of households proves the duty to baptize unconscious babes.
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable . . . that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” No one is “thoroughly furnished” to Sunday-keeping by the Scriptures; it is not a “good work”—it is not a duty in the revealed will of God. No one can draw nigh to God with a “full assurance of faith” on the strength of Sunday observance, for “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” The word of God does not require the keeping of Sunday; therefore it is no part of Christian faith to accept it. Baptism regards the resurrection, as the Sabbath does creation. To substitute one for the other in the divine institutions is to pervert those institutions, to destroy their significance, and introduce confusion into the house of God, where all should be harmony. We shall best please God if we let his truth remain as he gives it to us. It needs no amendments,—it admits of no addition or diminution.
And Yet Another!
To get rid of the Sabbath, and to enforce Sunday, a correspondent of the Herald of Life says:—
“A requisition of any kind presupposes arbitrary and positive law, which would be compatible with the Old Testament, but not with the New Testament. Commands pertain to a covenant of works. We are not under such a covenant. . . . An obedient child never waits for a command.”
We are left to infer that this writer stands opposed to baptism and the Lord’s supper, and many other revealed duties, because they are commanded! and “commands pertain to a covenant of works.” Probably, also, it will vex his soul sorely when the Lord Jesus shall reward every man according to his works. Perhaps we might say that, instead of being vexed, he will be sadly disappointed.
“A requisition of any kind, incompatible with the New Testament!” It is amazing to behold the lengths to which people will go to evade the truth of God when it crosses their selfish or carnal propensities. We cannot imagine that a man who can write for a paper, can be ignorant of our Saviour’s words: “Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you;” John 15:14, and many others of like import.
John says, “Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.” “For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” 1 John 3:22; 5:3. And in the Revelation of Jesus Christ given to his servants through John, with a blessing pronounced upon them that keep the things written therein, he says: “Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12. And, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14.
“An obedient child never waits for a command!” Richard Baxter asked this forcible question,—“Can that be obedience for which there is no command?” Can this writer tell us how the child obeys when there is no requisition or precept to be obeyed? Alexander Campbell never wrote a more truthful paragraph than the following:—
“All will-worship is a disparagement of the worship appointed of God; it is, consequently, a reflection upon his wisdom, and obnoxious to his displeasure. It is as contrary to his revealed will as the presenting of ‘strange fire’ upon his altar was in the days of Nadab and Abihu. And, indeed, every religious practice which was not founded upon an explicit revelation of the will of Heaven, is will-worship.”
Without a requisition or commandment to guide us in our obedience, every one would offer to God the promptings of his own feelings, and what confusion would exist in the service of God! As “God is not the author of confusion,” he might well inquire, “Who hath required this at your hands?”
The Lord, by the prophet Ezekiel, said, “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel that prophesy, and say unto them that prophesy out of their own hearts, Hear ye the word of the Lord: Thus saith the Lord God; Woe unto the foolish prophets, that follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing!” Eze. 13:2, 3. And again, “But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” Isa. 66:2,—not to the man that follows the devisings of his own heart, or follows his own spirit, and has seen nothing from the Lord.
The very angels in Heaven are commended in this manner:—
“Bless the Lord, ye his angels, that excel in strength, that do his commandments, hearkening unto the voice of his word.” Ps. 103:20.
It is the truly obedient child that waits for the word of the Lord; the loving heart that keeps his commandments. “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments,” for obedience is the only test of love. “The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to the law of God.” Rom. 8:7.
With those things which God hath not revealed—which are not requisitions or commandments—we have nothing to do. The Papist has long talked of “works of supererogation,” that is, more than are required by the divine law. But this is an evil age—a perverse generation. Men would rather be judges of the law than doers of the law. See James 4:11; so they glide into the ways of the great apostasy.
“The secret things belong unto the Lord our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.” Deut. 29:29.
“Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Prov. 30:5, 6.
“Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks; walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” Isa. 50:11.
How can men with Bibles in their hands, in which such things as these are written, advocate a theory of such lawless and demoralizing tendencies? Their own course shows the lengths to which men go when they throw off the wholesome restraints of the divine requirements, and proves our need of Jehovah’s precepts to guide our hearts and lives in the way of right.
We thought we had come to the end of devices framed to evade the word of the Lord in respect to the holy Sabbath, but this is the climax of all we have yet seen. With aching hearts for the people who are perishing for lack of knowledge, we cry out, “Lord, how long?” How long shall the people set aside the way of God and follow vanity? How zealous should be the lovers of God’s word of truth to enlighten the world in regard to our duty in these last days of peril.
The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
WE find the distinct promise of the new covenant in Jer. 31. What did Jeremiah mean by the old covenant—or the covenant made with Israel when God led them out of Egypt?
When Jeremiah predicts the establishment of a new covenant with Israel and Judah, he uses the following language respecting the old covenant. Thus he says:—
"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord." Jer. 31:32.
This text sheds much light on the nature of the covenant to which Jeremiah refers. But it is remarkable that Jeremiah, in another place preceding this, has defined with great precision what he means by the covenant made when God led Israel out of Egypt. Thus we read, Jer. 11:3, 4:—
"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you; so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God."
Here we have Jeremiah's own definition of what constituted that covenant which the children of Israel had, by their disobedience, dissolved. And it identifies this covenant with the solemn contract between God and Israel, which Paul designates as the first covenant. For Jeremiah makes the essential feature of this covenant to consist in one grand stipulation on the part of God toward his people; viz., "Obey my voice; . . . so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God." Now it is a remarkable fact that this is the very stipulation, and the only one, made by God in entering into solemn contract with Israel. It is a stipulation exacting obedience to the voice of God, which was about to utter the ten commandments. Thus the contract was opened by the God of Heaven: "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people. Ex. 19:5. We cannot, therefore, fail to identify the covenant to which Jeremiah refers. It is not the ten commandments, but the solemn contract made between God and Israel respecting those commandments.
But the words of Jer. 31:32, are entitled to particular attention in determining what the prophet understood by this covenant of which he spoke. He says: "Which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them." The expression sheds great light on the nature of the covenant in question. Was that covenant simply the law of God? or was it the solemn contract between God and Israel by which the people pledged themselves to obey that law, and God pledged himself on that condition to accept them as his people, and to be their God? Surely, we cannot mistake here. The first covenant made God the husband of his people. The solemn contract between them and himself was that whereby he espoused, or married, that people. Jer. 2:2. There can be no mistake, therefore, that a contract was requisite, in order that God should become the husband of that people; and that contract is found in Ex. 19 and 24. He could be their lawgiver, by virtue of proclaiming his law to them; but to be their husband, he must enter into contract with them, and it is precisely this relation that he sustains to Israel by virtue of the covenant of which Jeremiah speaks. See Webster's second definition of contract, previously quoted.
And this distinction properly introduces a further argument on the nature of this covenant, from Rom. 9:4: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises." Paul elsewhere informs us that there are two "covenants." Gal. 4:24. Here he distinguishes between the giving of the law and the covenants. Our opponents claim that the giving of the law was the making of the first covenant. We say, Not so; for that covenant was the solemn contract between God and Israel which preceded and followed the "giving of the law;" and that the law of God was that which the people covenanted to obey, when it should be spoken by the voice of God. This text preserves the distinction between the law and each of the two covenants.
And this distinction between the law of God and the first covenant is further shown by another important fact. The new covenant was made because the first covenant had been destroyed by the sins of the people, and because God still desired to save them. The first covenant was rendered null and void by the disobedience of the people. "Because," says Paul, "they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Heb. 8:9. "Which my covenant they brake, should I have continued an husband unto them? saith the Lord." Jer. 31:32, margin. If, therefore, we hold, as do many at the present day, that the covenant between God and Israel was simply the ten commandments, then we have the people of Israel weaken, and finally bring to an end, the law61of God, simply by disobeying it! So that the law of God did depend for its strength upon the obedience of the people, and not upon the authority of the Lawgiver! But let us test the other view of this subject. It has been shown from Moses, from Paul, and from Jeremiah, that the first covenant was the mutual agreement between God and Israel respecting the ten commandments. This is a covenant in the primary sense of the term. This covenant it was in the power of the people to destroy, by violating its conditions, i. e., by breaking the law of God. This transgression could not in the slightest degree weaken the authority of the law of God; but it could, and did, render null and void the contract which made God a husband unto them. The truth on this point may be expressed in a word: Men could not release themselves from the obligation to obey God's law by breaking that law; but they could release the God of Heaven from the obligation he had taken upon himself, toward them in the first covenant, by violating its condition, and thus bringing the covenant to an end. Hence the distinction is palpable between the law of God and the solemn contract made respecting that law. One could be destroyed by a failure on the part of the people to fulfill its conditions. The other can neither be destroyed, nor even weakened, by such transgression; and it will, in due time, demand the death of all its transgressors.
The law of the Lord is perfect. Ps. 19:7-11; 111:7, 8; 119:96; James 1:25; 2:8-12. It is God's great rule of right by which sin is shown. 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 3:19, 20; 7:12, 13. But the first covenant is declared by Paul not to have been faultless. Heb. 8:7. This is another palpable proof of a distinction between the moral law and the covenant which God entered into with Israel respecting it. Nor is this to be met by the statement that Paul pronounces the law itself to be faulty, and therefore the law and the covenant may be identical. For the law thus designated by Paul was not the ten commandments, but the Levitical law. And here are a few points out of many in proof of this assertion:—
1. This law was received under the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 7:11. But the ten commandments were received before that priesthood had been appointed. Compare Ex. 20 with Ex. 28.
2. This was a law relating to priesthood, tithes, and offerings. Heb. 7:5, 12, 28. But the ten commandments said nothing concerning this.
3. It was a law which required that the priesthood should be of the tribe of Levi, and which had to be changed in order to have a priest arise out of the tribe of Judah. Heb. 7:12-14. But the ten commandments had no precept that related to the subject, or that needed to be changed for that reason.
Finally, with one further proof of the distinction between the moral law and the first covenant, this point of the argument shall be closed. The first covenant having waxed old and vanished away, the new covenant is made by God in its place. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13. And now observe the grand promise of the new covenant: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. 31:33. It is therefore certain that the dissolution of the first covenant is not the abrogation of the law of God. That which was the law of God in the days of Jeremiah, six hundred years before Christ, is the subject of this prediction. This law was not only to survive the dissolution of the first covenant, but it was to continue to exist under the new covenant, and to sustain a more sacred relation to the people of God under the new, than under the old, covenant. Here the argument on this part of the subject is rested. It has been shown,
1. That the first, or old, covenant, was not the law of God, but the contract between God and Israel concerning that law.
2. That the law of God is a covenant only in a secondary sense; viz., in that it constituted the condition of that agreement or contract by which God became a husband to Israel.
3. That when the old covenant vanishes away, the law of God remains in full force, and is ready to enter into the most sacred relations with the people of God under the new. J. N. A.
The Second Advent.
By Editor
A CORRESPONDENT of the Christian Statesman makes a good point in reply to a remark of that paper. He says :—
"Another point, you say, our brother makes, is, that 'Christ need not to come visibly to take possession of his dominion. . . . We fully agree with Mr. Cheyne in that he need not come visibly in order to take possession of his dominion, in the same sense that he needed not to give himself to the crowd armed with swords and clubs from the chief priests. Jesus said, Dost thou think that I cannot entreat my Father, and he will send to my relief more than twelve legions of angels? But in that case, how could the Scriptures be verified? And we ask, How can the Scriptures be verified if Christ does not come visibly to this earth?"
Strange that the opposers of the doctrine of the Advent persist in inventing reasons which set aside the fulfillment of the Scriptures. The spirit of all such arguments is that of the question, "Where is the promise of his coming?"
Answers to Correspondents.
By Editor
To F. S.—The Scriptures on the subject are found in 1 Cor. 7:39; 2 Cor. 6, and some strong warnings in the Old Testament. While all must act for themselves, we must bear in mind that we are responsible for the use we make of our conscience in matters of duty.
To A. T. J.—The remarks about King David are based upon the mistaken idea that the Lord called him a man after his own heart after he became King, and after he sinned so grievously. So far from this God severely reproved him. But after his sin, and the reproof, the quality of his repentance is truly commendable.
To L. H. C.—We are not able to lay down any rule on this or any kindred subject. Lyceums may be so conducted as to be proper and profitable; and they may be so conducted as to be highly objectionable. Seek to be on the right and safe side, and an enlightened and tender conscience will not be apt to greatly err in regard to it.