Earlier text: Economizing TimeAre Angels Spirits?
By R. M. Kilgore
ALL the knowledge we have concerning them we have received from the word of God, which represents them as corporeal beings, and not as mere phantoms or apparitions. We are informed that, when the foundations of the earth were laid, “the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy.” Job 38:7. As Abraham sat in the door of his tent on the plains of Mamre, he lifted “up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men [angels] stood by him,” who ate of the food prepared for them, and with whom Abraham walked as they went toward Sodom. Gen. 18. “And there came two angels to Sodom at even” for whom Lot made a “feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat.” These “men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness.” And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, “Arise.” “And while he lingered, the men laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters; the Lord being merciful unto him. And they brought him forth, and set him without the city.” Gen. 19. Jacob said, “I have seen God face to face,” when he was left alone “and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.” Gen. 32:24, 30. When the “angel of the Lord appeared” unto the wife of Manoah, she came and told her husband, saying, “A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name: but said unto me.” &c. Judg. 13:3, 6. The strength and power of one single angel is shown in answer to the prayer of the prophet Isaiah, and Hezekiah the king, by the destruction of Sennacherib’s army; “And the Lord sent an angel, which cut off all the mighty men of valor, and the leaders and captains in the camp of the king of Assyria;” “an hundred fourscore and five thousand” in one night. 2 Kings 19:35; 2 Chron. 32:20. The glory and the light which enshrouds these angelic beings is very clearly described by the prophet Daniel: “I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz; his body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.” Chap. 10:5, 6. Matthew, speaking of the angel at the resurrection of Christ, says: “His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.” Chap. 28:3. Their number is beyond computation. Says the prophet Daniel, speaking of the Ancient of days sitting in judgment, “Thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him.” Chap. 7:10. And John says, “I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands.” Rev. 5:11. Because of their number and the exceeding brightness with which they are clothed they are represented as the “clouds of Heaven.” Says the prophet, “I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they [the clouds, angels] brought him near before him.” Dan. 7:13. John says, “Behold he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him.” Rev. 1:7. Enoch prophesied, saying, “Behold the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints” (holy ones). Jude 14. Again, in Rev. 14:14: “And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like the Son of Man.” Our Lord also said, “The Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him.” Matt. 25:31. Against the view that these beings are material, Ps. 104:4, quoted by the apostle Paul in Heb. 1:7, is brought forward to prove the opposite. In a note under “Faculties of Superior Beings,” Thos. Dick, the Christian philosopher, answers this objection in the following manner: “It will doubtless be objected, ‘that these intelligences are pure spirits, and assume corporeal forms only on particular occasions.’ This is an opinion almost universally prevalent; but it is a mere assumption, destitute of any rational or scriptural argument to substantiate its truth. There is no passage in Scripture, with which I am acquainted, that makes such an assertion. The passage in Psalm 104:4, ‘Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flaming fire,’ has frequently been quoted for this purpose; but it has no reference to any opinion that may be formed on this point; as the passage should be rendered, ‘Who maketh the winds his messengers, and a flaming fire his ministers.’ Even although the passage were taken as it stands in our translation, and considered as referring to the angels, it would not prove that they are pure immaterial substances; for, while they are designated spirits, which is equally applicable to men as well as to angels, they are also said to be ‘a flaming fire,’ which is a material substance. “This passage seems to have no particular reference to either opinion; but, if considered as expressing the attributes of angels, its meaning plainly is—that they are endowed with wonderful activity—that they move with the swiftness of the winds, and operate with the force and energy of flaming fire;—or in other words, that He, in whose service they are, and who directs their movements, employs them ‘with the strength of winds, and the rapidity of lightning.’”—Phil. Future State, Part 3. Bell Creek, Neb., Feb. 27, 1872. The Pope and Europe.
By Editor
A CORRESPONDENT of the New York Tribune, in the city of Rome, writes that “even to-day the pope, an infallible pope to boot, has become a mere curiosity” there. The spectacle presented by the Vatican court is indeed an anomaly in political history. The pope is self-imprisoned in his palace. The neighboring court of Victor Emmanuel has possession of the city, as well as of the nation; the pope and his phantom court is tolerated, and quietly stultified by being tolerated. Some of the European Powers maintain ambassadors at the latter, but they are hardly more than diplomatic puppets. All the Powers have also ambassadors at Victor Emmanuel’s court, except France. She has stood sullenly off, in her ruins, and the successive government of Italy has not troubled itself much about her failure in this particular. But now even France feels that her conduct is not only powerless to produce any effect in favor of the Vatican, but that it has become ridiculous amidst the universal acceptance by the other Powers of Europe of the state of things in Italy. Old Thiers, therefore, has at last transferred his minister at the court of Sweden to the court of Emmanuel at Rome. A curious diplomatic anomaly, however, grows out of this fact. France and other similar Powers have now two ambassadors in the same capital at two different and tacitly antagonistic courts! Such is one of the absurdities attending the “connection of church and State.” History sometimes avenges itself thus against the folly of rulers by an irony which becomes more effectual than the artifices of policy. This preposterous example cannot last. If not its double expense, yet its transparent nonsense will compel the European States to get rid of it as soon as they politely can. They cannot but perceive, also, that it must be attended with disagreeable, if not dangerous liabilities. The obstinacy of the ecclesiastical court will lead to new complications and differences with the civil one; and the twofold embassies may present some very curious contrasts and contradictions. The only safety for the foreign States is to withdraw from the pretended court, and treat the real one as they do all others. This must inevitably soon be their course, and then the shadow of the papal court will vanish. A further policy, however, is still requisite for the safety of European States—namely, to get rid, once and forever, of the whole system of their medieval ecclesiastical relations. Bismarck, as we lately showed, begins to see this. Modern civilization renders toleration necessary; toleration renders variations of religious opinion inevitable; varieties of religion render governmental patronage or control of religion impracticable. Independence of church and State is, therefore, a primary condition—an axiom of normal government in this age. It is not only an axiom of just and free government, but of true religion as well. The church is really enfranchised by its divorce from the State. For nearly a hundred years the United States has exemplified this fact before the nations. There has, perhaps, been no more momentous demonstration made by American history, for it embraces alike the essential liberty of government and religion. And here, under the great experiment, religion has had greater activity, and more beneficent achievements, moral and philanthropic, than anywhere else in the contemporary world. Europe has been silently gazing at our example, so anomalous, at first so incredible, to her rulers and people. They have come at last to see in it a grand advance of government and civilization, and they are gradually tending toward it. The abolition of the civil papacy is apparently about to put the State ecclesiasticism of Europe alongside of her feudalism—among the things that are past, and are never to return.—The Methodist. “What are you going to do about the Christian Sabbath?” This question was asked at a camp-meeting near Ionia last fall. Nearly four thousand were present to listen to that question, and the home appeal made by the minister in its behalf. “The German element that has come over here, and the French commune, have no regard for the Christian Sabbath, and are treading it under foot. What will you do, citizens of Ionia County, when brought to the polls to vote on this question.” This is bringing the matter right home, and it is evident that this test will come. And shall we who have the truth remain inactive while this question is being agitated by the ministry, the press, and well-organized societies? Let every lawful means be used to advance the truth; and the labor will not be spent in vain. The “well done” will be said to those only who have wrought in the Lord’s vineyard. Evidently, many that are interested in this question think they are doing God service, and that the Bible teaches that Sunday is the Sabbath, while others will seek only to carry out their selfish ends, and, when asked for their reason, could give no better than one who was asked for his reason, gave before a crowded house. He rose with these remarks: “If I must, I must. My grandfather kept it, and my father kept it, and so have I. And I am bound to keep it, right or wrong.” This is the spirit that we shall have to meet, that might makes right, and the custom of our fathers must not be set aside, but must be sustained by law. P. Strong. THERE is no use for me to attempt to do anything for the cause of Christ. I have no influence. If I was only familiar with these solemn truths, if I could preach to the people, if I could offer an eloquent prayer, or, if I had a fortune, why, then I might do something. This is all a mistake. Not one of us stands on neutral ground. Every one of us has an influence, either for good or for evil. We may be poor, uneducated, homeless, friendless, deserted by all save Christ; we still have an influence. If we endure the troubles, trials, tribulations, and persecutions of life, with meekness and humility, trusting in the strong arm of God, living a humble, devoted, self-sacrificing life, faithful adherents to God's holy law; such an influence will have an untold effect in favor of the cause of Christ. The influence which the whole-hearted Christian, the charitable Christian, the God-fearing and commandment-keeping Christian exerts, is worth more than thousands of gold and silver. Oh that we could realize with what rapidity we are hastening to the judgment! How soon Jesus will leave his mediatorial position, and we be called upon to give an account of the influence which we have exerted among those with whom we associate! Have our lives been such as to lead souls to Christ? May we awake to our true position, and be willing to endure trials, troubles, and discouragements for the salvation of perishing souls. Lives of watchfulness and prayer will show to those around us that there is a reality in religion. Let us not attempt to compromise with the Lord. We cannot serve God and mammon. We all have an influence. It may be a sanctifying influence, an ennobling influence, a godly influence; or it may be the opposite. Which shall it be? The following little paragraph is full of meaning, and worthy of being committed to memory: “Any one can drift. But it takes prayer, religious principle, earnestness of purpose, constant watching, to resist the evil of this world, to struggle against the tide.” The mass of mankind is nothing but moral drift-wood, going whichever way the tide flows, finally bringing up in the great ocean of perdition. Only a few here and there have the moral courage and strength of principle to stem this mighty tide, and live out the real convictions of their souls. But none else will be made immortal. Reader, which way are you going? SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE IMMORTALITY.
Advocates of the immortality of the soul have boasted greatly that science and philosophy clearly prove the soul immortal. But we notice that this claim is coming to be quite generally abandoned as untenable. Here is a good confession from Rev. Wm. Pittenger in the Phrenological Journal, Feb., 1872:— “Science will not prove immortality. In all her shining pages, there is not a sentence written concerning the future life. The utmost we can hope is to extract from her teachings on other subjects the assurance that such a life is not impossible. That concession, if we can fairly gain it, is enough. We can then commit to religion the sweeter and nobler task of lifting the vail of the future, and directing our eager eyes to the vistas of eternal life.” Discussion at Lancaster on the Kingdom of Christ
By R. F. Cottrell
Discussion at Lancaster, N. Y. No. 2.
THE proposition on the question of the kingdom was this: “Christ has a kingdom now, and that kingdom is his church.” Eld. Burns affirmed, Bro. Reynolds denied. It was admitted on our part that Christ now reigns with the Father on his throne, and that this is the kingdom which “he shall have delivered up,” when he comes to take his own everlasting kingdom. 1 Cor. 15:24. Eld. Burns made the absurd claim that Christ’s kingdom, of which it is said, “there shall be no END,” (Luke 1:33; Dan. 2:44), was the one to be delivered up. It was on the second part of the compound proposition, that is, that the kingdom of Christ and his church are identical, that the issue was taken. In proof of their identity, Eld. Burns’ text upon which he relied most was Matt. 16:18, 19: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” The Elder affirmed with great emphasis that that which is called the church in verse 18, is called the kingdom of Heaven in verse 19. In reply it was shown that the Greek, ekklesia, church or assembly, found 115 times in the New Testament, and basileia kingdom, found 160 times never are used interchangeably; that ekklesia, (from ekkaleo, to convoke,) is defined, “any public assembly, a congregation; a Christian assembly, a church;” basileia is defined, [“a kingdom, realm, i. e. the region of country governed by a king; kingly power, authority, dominion reign; royal dignity, the title and honor of king;” &c. It would seem that the kingdom of Heaven, in the text was not the church upon the earth, because earth and Heaven are put in contrast, as two distinct places; and the promise is that what Peter should bind on earth should be bound in Heaven. This does not sound much like the assertion, that Peter used the keys to unlock the kingdom of Heaven, which is the church on earth; it seems rather that Peter’s work on earth, directed by the Spirit of God, would be ratified in Heaven. And it was shown from Matt. 18:18, that this work of binding and loosing pertained to the church in general, as well as to Peter. “Whatsoever YE shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven.” Eld. Burns claimed that the promise to the apostles, that in the regeneration, or at the renovation, they shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, (Matt. 19:28), was fulfilled on the day of pentecost; that then the apostles sat on the twelve thrones “giving laws to the twelve tribes.” He said that the kingdom of Heaven was not set up during the life time of Jesus Christ, but that it must have been set up during the life of Peter, as he was to unlock the church. To show the fallacy of this, Luke 16:16 was quoted: “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.” Christ also said to the scribes and Pharisees, “Ye shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.” These texts prove that men could enter the kingdom of Heaven in a certain sense, that is, become heirs of that kingdom, before the memorable day of Pentecost. And it was shown that the Christian church also received the kingdom by faith, being the heirs of that which is promised to be given hereafter. Says James, “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and HEIRS of the kingdom which he hath PROMISED to them that love him.” Jas. 2:5. Other texts were quoted having the same import. To prove that Christ’s kingdom is already established, the Elder emphasized the tense of the verb in those texts which assert that the Father hath put all things under Christ. Said he, It says hath put, not will put. In reply to this it was shown that Christ is to sit where he now is, at his Father’s right hand, UNTIL his enemies should be put under him. Ps. 110:9; Acts 2:34, 35; 1 Cor. 15:25. And that when all were put under him, the last enemy, death, would be destroyed by the resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:26, 27. And though the apostles quote the original prediction, Ps. 110:1, in the perfect tense yet Heb. 2:8 proves that Paul did not preach that it had been fulfilled, but the contrary. He says, “For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see NOT YET all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.” &c. Where is he crowned with glory and honor? At his Father’s right hand. He is already set down with his Father in his throne. Rev. 3:21. While there he is expecting his own throne and dominion, when all will be put under him. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth EXPECTING TILL his enemies be made his footstool.” Heb. 10:12, 13. On Dan. 2:44, it was claimed by Eld. Burns that “these kings” refer to the four successive kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. On the other hand my brother held that it would not be very luminous to assert that the God of Heaven would set up a kingdom in the days of four kingdoms, only one of which was to exist at a time. It might then be set in the time of the kingdom of Babylon. But after the fourth kingdom, the Roman, was divided, as predicted in the prophecy, there would be contemporaneous kingdoms, in the days of which the kingdom of God would be set up. Here Eld. Burns called for a grammatical umpire to decide what is the grammatical antecedent of “these kings.” Three were appointed, of whom I was one. We did not fully agree at the moment. One of my colleagues, a teacher in a high school, said he would like to have time. The next morning I told them I was ready to report my opinion. The teacher was not present. I gave my decision as follows: - “These kings” being in the plural number, there is no antecedent noun in the whole interpretation to which it can possibly refer as its antecedent. The kings to which it refers must be inferred from the description given.
- These refers to the last mentioned, while those refers to the former or first mentioned. Therefore, if there are two classes of kings described, these must refer to the last described.
- There is an antecedent pronoun, “they” to which “these kings” may possibly refer. It is first introduced as follows: “They shall mingle themselves with the seed of men, but they shall not cleave one to another.” We are left to infer the antecedent of they from the description preceding.
My other colleague, a Presbyterian minister, instead of giving his opinion as a grammatical umpire, gave, in a spirited speech, his theological opinion that the phrase refers to the four kingdoms, referring to Clarke, Barnes, &c., to sustain him. It was anticipated that to prove that the kingdom was set up on the day of Pentecost, a strong argument would be made by Eld. Burns on the fact that Jesus sent out his disciples to preach that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand. Therefore Bro. R. took up this matter. The gospel narratives first prove that Jesus was the son of David, the rightful heir to his father’s throne; that he was born of a virgin, according to prophecy, and in Bethlehem where David dwelt. It was understood at his birth that he was born king of the Jews; and an attempt was made by Herod to slay the infant king. John the Baptist preached that the kingdom of Heaven was at hand. Jesus preached the same; and he sent out the twelve and the seventy to preach the same, confining their mission to the house of Israel, and telling them that they would not be able to go over all their cities ere the Son of Man should come. At length, when the Jews were assembled at Jerusalem on occasion of one of their great feasts, Jesus, attended by a great retinue, entered Jerusalem according to Zechariah, “Behold, thy KING cometh unto thee;” while the multitude cry, Hosanna to the Son of David, saying, “Blessed be the kingdom of our father David that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Being rejected by the chief rulers, he gave the parables of the householder and his vineyard, and the marriage of the king’s son, marriage being a figure of the coronation of the king, and reception and inauguration of the kingdom, then told them plainly that the kingdom was taken from them and given to such as should bring forth the fruits of it. From this point of time there is no more preaching of the kingdom of Heaven at hand. He had come to his own, but his own received him not. He is accused of making himself a king, and thus speaking against Cæsar. Said they, “We have no king but Cæsar.” Pilate asks him, “Art thou the king of the Jews?” The reply, “Thou sayest it,” admits it fully. But said he, “My kingdom is not of this world,” implying that it will be established in the future world. “But now [now, since I am rejected] my kingdom is not from hence,” That is, it is not from this time forward. The marriage does not take place till all the guests have accepted the invitation; and the guests are examined, before they are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. The net of the kingdom gathers a multitude of fishes, bad and good. Then they are sorted and the bad thrown away. “Who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.” The advent messages of Rev. 14:6–12, proclaim the gospel of the everlasting kingdom; and it is now at hand, because “The hour of his judgment is come.” After these messages have done their work, Jesus descends from Heaven, crowned King of kings and Lord of lords. Rev. 14:14; 19:11–16. I close by giving in form an argument used. - Christ’s kingdom is not of this present world.
- But his church is a real institution in the present world.
- Therefore the church and the kingdom are not identical. The true believers are heirs of the promised kingdom.
A Collision on the Sabbath at Locust Grove, Ky.
By D. T. Bourdeau
Wednesday night, the 13th inst., an unusually large concourse of people assembled at Locust Grove, Ky., expecting to hear Eld. Daugherty and myself speak on the Sabbath question, he, against the seventh-day Sabbath, and I, in favor of that ancient institution. The school-house was filled to overflowing, and several had to remain out of doors. Eld. Daugherty arose and said he had simply announced to speak on a doctrinal subject, and would not speak on the Sabbath, but on the commencement of the reign of Christ as King of kings and Lord of lords. Yet as far as we had been able to learn, the people had understood him to mean the Sabbath, as that was the main point of difference between us, and especially as I had announced it to be the Sabbath, stating that if we were wrong on the Sabbath, the sooner the people knew it the better—when he gave out the appointment, and he did not correct me, but responded, by saying that if he was wrong he wanted to know it. We were to speak twice each, and to lead out with thirty minutes each. The Elder first spoke thirty-five minutes, and I replied in the same length of time, enjoying more than usual freedom. The Elder claimed and tried to prove that the Lord commenced to reign as King of kings on the day of Pentecost; that then a law went forth from Jerusalem agreeable to a prediction of the prophet, Isa. 2:3; that it was under the old covenant that Christ kept the Sabbath, and taught the young man to keep the commandments; that the old covenant with the Sabbath was abolished at the cross; Col. 2:14–17; Eph. 2:14; etc.; and that as it was not commanded over by Christ and the apostles, was not now binding. In my reply, I made the following points:— 1. The commencement of the literal reign or kingdom of Christ is at or about the time of his coming. 1 Tim. 4:7; see also Luke 19:11–15; Dan. 7:9–14, 25–27; Matt. 6:10; James 2:5. It is when Christ comes to destroy his enemies that he has “on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.” Rev. 19. Isa. 2:3, has no allusion to the day of Pentecost, but to the state of the church in the last days, when the mountain of the Lord’s house, the church, shall be established on the top of the mountains, governments. Dan. 2:35; Rev. 17:9, etc. In this popular attitude the church says, “Out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Here, Zion and Jerusalem are put for the church, who is not satisfied to rule herself, but speaks of giving the law to the world. She also says, “They [the nations] shall beat their swords into plow-shares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more;” while the Lord says the opposite: to “prepare war,” and “beat your plow-shares into swords,” etc. Joel 3:9, 10. For this reason, because they preach smooth things, the Lord forsakes his people. Verse 6. (Query. Would the Lord forsake his people for preaching the gospel on the day of Pentecost? Read the rest of the chapter.) 2. Christ, in teaching and keeping the commandments, took a leading step in the establishment of the new covenant, which he was to confirm, Dan. 9:27, and one of the “better promises” of which was, to write the law of God in the heart. Jer. 31:33. The remaining acts of Christ in the establishment of the new covenant were: 1. To teach the means of pardon Matt. 20:28; 2. To institute the ordinances to keep them in remembrance; Matt. 26:26–29, etc.; and, 3. To die to provide the means of pardon and seal the covenant. 3. Though the old covenant was abolished at the cross, yet the law of which the Sabbath was a part, Christ says positively he came not to destroy, and that till heaven and earth pass, not one jot or one tittle shall pass from that law. Matt. 5:17, 18. But of another law, called the middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, Paul as plainly affirms that Christ did abolish it in his flesh. Eph. 2:14, 15. Col. 2:14–17, and Eph. 2:14, 15, which Bro. Daugherty quotes to prove that the Sabbath was abolished, are the very scriptures which show us that the Sabbath was not abolished, and which constitute the grand rule with which we go, in the Old and New Testaments, to determine what was done away and what was not. Thank God for the rule! Let us apply it. We need not lay aside Christ’s teachings or the Old Testament scriptures, “which are able to make us wise unto salvation,” provided that we add to them faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim. 3:15, etc. This rule tells us that these commandments and ordinances which were done away were “the middle wall of partition,” were “against us,” and “contrary to” us, and “a shadow of things to come.” Can this be said of the ten commandments? God is the subject of the first four. Is God a shadow? Can you produce a better God than the God who made the heavens and the earth? The last six commandments teach us to honor parents, and pay a strict regard to the life, chastity, reputation, property, and all the interests of our fellow creatures. Are these shadows? The grand design of the ten commandments is to inculcate the precepts of supreme love to God and equal love to our fellow creatures. Can there be better precepts than these? The Sabbath was made at creation, and before the fall. Was it a middle wall of partition between the Jews and Gentiles, a shadow, and against us? Would God punish our first parents by giving them an institution that was against them and contrary to them before they did that which was against him? Christ says “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27. But to be circumcised, to go to Jerusalem three times a year with sacrifices, to keep three yearly feasts of the Jews, and, in connection with these feasts, seven annual Sabbaths, falling on certain days of certain months like Christmas and New Years, see Lev. 23, would indeed be a tremendous wall against us and contrary to us—would consume all our time, and would be a yoke that we Gentiles could not bear. The annual sabbaths of the Jews and the sabbaths of the land could typify the seventh millennium in which the earth shall rest from the curse; but will the Elder show us how the seventh-day Sabbath could be a shadow or type? 4. Christ and the apostles did not command over or re-enact any of the ten commandments as a new law. The ten commandments were not repealed; hence no necessity of re-enacting any of them. But 1st. Christ and the apostles quoted from, and enforced, the law of ten commandments on the same authority that gave it on Sinai. Proof. Of the fifth commandment Christ said: “Full well ye reject the commandment of God.” “For laying aside the commandment of God.” Mark 7:8, 9. And James says, “He that said (margin, the law that said), Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill,” etc., etc. James 2:11. 2d. All those scriptures which prove that the law of ten commandments is binding as a whole prove the Sabbath to be in force. When Christ says he came not to destroy the law, we say he did not come to destroy the Sabbath which is a part of that law. When he says every jot and tittle of the law shall hold good till heaven and earth pass, he makes the Sabbath binding at least throughout this dispensation. When he says unqualifiedly, “If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments,” he makes the keeping of the Sabbath a part of the condition of eternal life. Matt. 19:17. When Paul says, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law,” Rom. 3:31, we affirm that the Sabbath is not made void, but established through faith. When Paul concludes that “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, just and good,” Rom. 7:12, we conclude the same of the fourth commandment. When he says, “I delight in the law of God,” verse 22, we infer that he delighted to keep the Sabbath. When the beloved apostle defines sin as “the transgression of the law,” John 3:4, we scripturally and logically assert that it is sin to transgress the fourth commandment. Again, when he says, “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments,” John 5:3, we believe that we show our love to God by keeping the Sabbath. When of the law that says, “Do not commit adultery” and “Do not kill,” James says, “So speak, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty,” James 2:11, 12, we infer that we shall meet the Sabbath in the Judgment. 3d. Christ said, “The Sabbath was made for man,” i. e., for Adam and all his posterity. 4th. Christ took especial pains to show what was lawful on the Sabbath, thereby acknowledging the Sabbath law. Matt. 12:12. 5th. Christ, as our example, kept the Sabbath. Luke 4:16. 6th. Christ commanded the disciples to pray that their flight from Judea, should not be on the Sabbath day. Matt. 24:20. This flight took place A. D. 70, about forty years after the crucifixion. And Christ did not enjoin this duty upon them because the gates of Jerusalem would be shut on the Sabbath so that they could not flee; for, 1. Josephus (Jewish Wars, B. ii, chap. xix) informs us that a few days before the flight, the Jews actually went out in battle against the Romans on the Sabbath; and,135 2. The command to flee is to those that would be in Judea. It was therefore because the Saviour regarded the Sabbath and wished to have Christians keep it that he enjoined this duty on his followers; and history informs us that they did observe it. Surely, Christ has a good deal to say about the Sabbath. Shall we hear him? 7th. The disciples kept the fourth commandment this side of the cross. Luke 23:56. And this is recorded by Luke, without comment, twenty-eight years after the crucifixion, as though the disciples had done right. 8th. The apostles made it their preaching day. Acts 13:14, 42, 44; 17:1–3; 18:4–11. This was not merely to accommodate the Jews. Those who say that it was, beg the very point to be proved. They should first prove that the Sabbath was abolished. With the fourth commandment in force, we claim that they preached and worshiped on the Sabbath because they delighted to keep it holy. 9th. Paul preached to the Gentiles, at their request, on the Sabbath. Acts 13:42, 44. 10th. The reasons why the Sabbath should be kept are as applicable to us as to the Jews. God is the Creator of the Gentiles as well as of the Jews. It is as interesting and profitable for us to commemorate his works and rest as it is to the Jews. God’s example is as sacred to us as to the Jews. 11th. We read of the Lord’s day as existing in A. D. 96. Rev. 1:10. And which day is the Lord’s day? Is it the first day? That day is never claimed by the Lord as his day. But the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith. And “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:10. God calls it his holy day. Isa. 58:13; and it is the day of which Christ styles himself the Lord. Mark 2:28. The position of Bro. Daugherty sets aside a Sabbath that Jehovah has instituted for one that he has never established; it sets aside one that has the example of the Almighty for one that has no such example; it rejects one that God has blessed and sanctified, and accepts in its stead one that he has never blessed and sanctified; it disregards a Sabbath that is enforced by the fourth commandment, and accepts a man-made Sabbath without a commandment to enjoin its observance; it neglects a day which Christ and the apostles observed, and regards one that they never kept holy. How can we halt between two opinions on so plain a subject? Here the Elder arose and said he had spoken on one subject, and I on another, and that I had not answered his arguments. Doubtless some would have been delighted to see the Sabbath put in the shade under pretense of speaking on another subject. Elder Daugherty said he could say many things. I replied, Speak on. He said he did not propose to discuss, but that they had plenty of men who would be glad of the job. Our reply was, We do not go about challenging, but if we are challenged we do not back out; for we have seen the matter tested too often. The Elder would not speak a second time, and here the disappointed congregation were dismissed. D. T. BOURDEAU. TRUSTING IN JESUS.
By M. H. Luke
Come to me when trials heavy
Press their weight upon thy brow,
Lay thy burden on my shoulder,
I will lift it from thee now. I will be thy God and Saviour,
Whereso’er thy lot be cast,
Guide thee through earth’s darkest sorrow,
Bear thee safely home at last. Only lean upon my bosom,
Let my word thy wants supply,
Believing that it never faileth,
And the fount will never dry. Blessed words! Oh! sweet the promise,
Toiling through this world of sin,
Joy and comfort mingled in them,
Teach us how the crown to win. How to gain that sinless Haven,
Where the tempter’s power will cease,
And the heavenly light that beameth,
Overflow with love and peace. Can we shrink when trials heavy
Bid us lay the armor down?
No! we’ll gird ourselves for duty,
And through Jesus win the crown.