The Review and Herald, Vol. 55, No. 21 (Thursday, May 20, 1880)

The Review and Herald

Thursday, May 20, 1880

Seventh-Day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Thursday, May 20, 1880

THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH OR THE FIRST.

By O. Dickinson

BY O. DICKINSON.

Becoming convinced, a short time ago, of the fact that the word of God teaches us to keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, I wrote an article which appeared in the leading paper of our State, indicating the change which had taken place in my own mind and practice. In answer to that article, many friends who had known me as a Congregational minister in Oregon, wrote to me to correct what they believed to be a wrong understanding of the Scriptures, and, if possible, dissuade me from my purpose to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath instead of the first day. One of these letters gives so clearly and fully the substance of all I received, that I quote its propositions in the exact words of the writer, so that all may see what is the tendency of the present age in regard to the law of God. And it will also show what views of the Scriptures are entertained by one of the largest Christian denominations of our land.

“There is,” the writer says, “a fallacy in the conclusion of your argument, in the assumption that the law of God as given on Sinai is not abrogated. If, then, I shall prove to you by competent Scriptural testimony and logical reasoning that the law given on Sinai is no longer in force, that it has no place under the Christian dispensation, and that we are free from it, your conclusion will fail, and you will find the way out of your trial. Christ preached that he came to fulfill the law. I think you do not construe this text aright, when you indicate that to fulfill means to obey. I take it that Christ, in fulfilling the law, became the end of the law. The law thus having accomplished its purpose, is done away with. Its limit is attained, and it is a thing of the past.” And further on in his letter he says: “Christians of our day usually assemble themselves together on Sunday; but it is erroneous to suppose that we are commanded to do so on that day any more than on any other. This practice is founded on custom, not on commandment. It has grown up from immemorial usage.”

I quote thus at length in order to give, in his own words, the proposition which he seeks to establish, and the conclusion to which he comes in reference to the Sabbath. In answer to all this, and everything else which might be written indicating that there is now no law requiring the keeping of the Sabbath, either the seventh day or the first—“that all law referring to it is done away with,” “has attained its limit, “is a thing of the past,” I wish to lay down the following proposition, to which I will devote this article; viz., The moral law of God, that written upon tables of stone by the finger of God, is primary in its nature,—primary in the sense that it is of first rank, and that it never can be done away so long as God and intelligent moral beings exist, and have relations to each other. Even love, which is the “fulfilling of the law,” bows to it, and carries out its precepts in its highest and holiest meanings. It is in this last sense—in the sense of its truest meaning—that Christ came to fulfill the law. Before Christ, each of the ten commandments was a kind of skeleton of moral precepts; the law was the first draft, the first outline of that beautiful moral picture which he filled out in his own life, by his character, his way of obeying the law, what he was in spirit and feeling, in love to his Father, in sympathy, kindness, and good will toward men. Into whichever one of these laws we place this filling, the tints and shades of his interpretation, we see it in a new light, and to have a meaning which it never had before. The Greek word translated to “fulfill,” expresses what I have here given. It means to fill up; to supply; to furnish; to perfect. The above are Pickering’s definitions of the word πληρωσαι, plerosai. And now let me ask, Does this imply that Christ became the end of the law? that the law, having accomplished its purpose, is done away with? that its limit is attained, and it is a thing of the past? Does the artist fill out a picture to throw it away? Are all those beautiful touches which Christ put into his Father’s law in his sermon on the mount intended to finish it out, so that it can be laid aside, and be used no more? We know that this cannot be, although the text in question is one of the passages most frequently quoted to show that the law of God completed its work when Christ came, and that it is no longer binding upon the Christian heart and life.

I have said that the law of God, as given upon the tables of stone, is primary,—that it never can be done away so long as God and intelligent moral beings exist. I do not mean by this that the pure-hearted Christian, whose life is the image of his Master, must always think of God’s law before he acts. I do not mean that there is any chain that binds and galls and is felt as a burden. No part of the law of God is a burden to the Christian. The true man does not think of the law, “Thou shalt not steal.” He does not wish to steal. Stealing has no place in his heart. He is not bound. No hard restraint is put upon him by that law. It is only when he begins to think of stealing, and wants to steal, that the law becomes a chain. And so it is with the law of God; the loyal heart is as free under it as if there were no law.

“Thou shalt not kill.” “Thou shalt not steal.” “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” “Thou shalt not covet.” These are precepts which no more restrain the freedom of the Christian than does the air he breathes. The air enters his lungs and gives him life and vigor, and yet he may not think of breathing. But is there no need of the air, because he breathes it freely? Is there no need of the law, because he does not feel it, because he does not chafe and fret under it?

Let us try each one of these precepts of the Supreme Ruler, and see if they can be done away with. Suppose the written command, “Thou shalt not kill,” were lost from the decalogue, and from all written books and records, and no one believed that God had ever given any such command. Would it be less a duty to refrain from injury to our neighbor, and from taking his life? Independent of any prohibition from a Supreme Power, every one knows that the duty of treating his fellow-men with respect and kindness has its root in and grows out of the very nature of human beings. Can a man covet his neighbor’s house or his neighbor’s wife, and not be injured by it? If he opens his heart to covetousness, he takes into it a brood of stinging vipers. That man and woman in Connecticut who planned, a short time ago, the one to poison his wife and the other to poison her husband, to open the way to their own embrace, are but samples of the terrible state to which coveting what belongs to another opens the way.

But it is needless to pursue this matter further. It is admitted by all our best thinkers that every one of these commandments of God, as found in the decalogue, and as explained by the words and life of Jesus Christ, is binding, and that too, as nearly as possible, according to the letter of the law. There may be, and are, exceptions—circumstances in which the just Judge will not hold the man guilty who breaks his laws. A man may be compelled to kill. He may be compelled to steal. Necessity may lay it upon him, against his will, to work upon the Sabbath. The necessities of others, sickness, the hunger of brute beasts, may make it his duty to work. All these, and every other compulsion by which men are necessitated to do different from what the command of God directs, is provided for in the teachings of Christ. These teachings, however,—these necessities,—give no permission to men to do as they please, nor do they open the door, at any time, to constant transgression. As soon as these compulsions cease, the duty to rest upon God’s identical day, to spend the hours in his worship, returns upon the soul, and is as binding as it was before necessity loosed them from the guilt of transgression.

When the law says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me,” it means what it says, in letter and spirit, every jot and tittle of it. When it says, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image,” as explained by the latter part of that same precept, viz., to bow down to it, and serve it, it means just that, reaching

to the very soul, as Christ and his apostles filled it out. Paul, in his letter to the Colossians, says that covetousness is idolatry. In writing to the Ephesians he classes it among the lowest and most debasing passions. When a man so loves gold that he neglects his soul, his intellect, his heart, and lets it secure his affections, and dethrone God, that man is an idolater. This further meaning, which does not at once, and on the outside, appear in the original law, may be regarded as the filling out which Christ gave to that law. It reveals to man the heart-poison which that law forbids him to touch. But because the New Testament opens out the law, and shows hidden depths and larger thoughts, that does not destroy the letter of the law, nor make that letter (it being the framework which compasses the whole) less important.

As the letter of all these laws named is important (and all the others might be shown in the same light), why is it that we drop out the law of the Sabbath from this list, and say it is only to be kept as custom directs, and that any other day will answer as well, and be equally right to those who keep it? Did any one ever notice that the Supreme Giver of that law has put his own name in it, as the Creator of the heavens, the earth, and the sea, and all that in them is? Is it nothing that an earthly father has honor from his children? Is it nothing that the Creator of the heavens and the earth has honor in that which he has made? Is it nothing that the architect has the honor of inventing, drafting, and working out the grandest and most perfect machinery that ever was turned to intelligent use? and does not He who is higher than the highest heavens; “who hangeth the earth upon nothing,” and “stretcheth out the north over the empty place;” who “bindeth up the waters in his thick clouds, and the cloud is not rent under them;” who “holdeth back the face of his throne, and spreadeth his cloud upon it;”—is it nothing that he does not have his works remembered, and that he is the maker of them all? Can it be that any one will say, “No; he is not to be remembered in these things”? There is a Fourth of July for the fathers of our republic, a birthday for Washington, a day for Andrew Jackson, but no day of remembrance for our Father in Heaven. There is to be henceforth no direct calling to mind the mighty works of God; man has changed the day. The one which God appointed is left out, and another day is brought in to give us the rest we need. “Christians usually assemble themselves on Sunday, but it is erroneous to suppose that we are commanded to do so on that day, any more than on any other. The practice is founded on custom, not on commandment. It has grown from immemorial usage.” And so the law is abolished. The Sabbath of God is no longer; man has another day for rest,—another day that has all of the “spirit” of the Sabbath in it. It is just as well. And here the following words of the apostle, which refer entirely to Jewish civil and ceremonial laws, are quoted as if they were sufficient testimony to the rightfulness of our choice: “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

With the above, I leave the question sought to be established by these letters of my friends; and I believe every thinking man will say that the ten commandments of God go to the bottom of all intelligent relations, in God’s universe, and that they must stand unchanged forever.

MUSINGS

By Eliza H. Morton

BY ELIZA H. MORTON.

Oh, vain, illusive, fleeting life, The "shadow of a shade"! Oh, yearning hunger of the heart! Oh, flowers that bloom to fade!

Oh, love so fitful, changing, vague, Unsatisfying all! Oh, sorrow, wild and unexpressed! Oh, gloomy funeral pall!

Oh, moments lost and gone for aye! Oh, dreamers here below! Oh, broken spirits bowed to earth With weight of unknown woe!

O worker in the harvest field, Stay not thy busy hand! But toil on till the curse depart From earth's drear, desert land!

Shake off the fear that frets thy soul, Have faith in Christ the Lord; The One that rules the universe Is erring Israel's God.

Arise, and live as ne'er before, There's mercy yet for thee; Thou yet may'st join the victor throng, Upon the crystal sea.

Battle Creek, Mich.

THE KIND OF RELIGION WE WANT.

We want a religion that softens the step, and tunes the voice to melody, and fills the eye with sunshine, and checks the impatient exclamation and harsh rebuke; a religion that is polite, deferential to superiors, courteous to inferiors, and considerate to friends; a religion that goes into the family, and keeps the husband from being cross when dinner is late, and keeps the wife from fretting when the husband tracks the newly washed floor with his muddy boots, and makes the husband mindful of the scraper and door-mat; keeps the mother patient when the baby is cross, and amuses the children as well as instructs them; cares for the servants besides paying them promptly; projects the honey-moon into the harvest-moon, and makes the happy home like the Eastern fig-tree, bearing in its bosom at once the beauty of the tender blossom and the glory of the ripened fruit. We want a religion that shall interpose between the ruts, gullies, and rocks of the highway of life and the sensitive souls that are traveling over them.—Selected.

WHAT ROMANISM IS DOING.

By Wm. Penniman

BY WM. PENNIMAN.

The officials of the Romish church and all its adherents are exerting their power and influence to suppress freedom of speech and press, and to destroy free schools and civil and religious liberty. The war-cry of “godless schools” is still sounding through the length and breadth of our land. The object of this cry is to obtain as much as possible of the school funds for sectarian purposes, in direct opposition to statute law. With Jesuit vigilance and skill, they are seeking to accomplish by fraud, stratagem, or an underhanded policy, what they could not do in any other way. Roman Catholics have been put on School Boards and into official positions for the very purpose of increasing their power; and when once they get the power into their own hands, woe to dissenters.

“Facts are stubborn things,” and our object is to give a few in respect to what Romanists have done and are now doing. We give an extract, from one of a series of volumes entitled, “Familiar Explanation of Christian Doctrine, Adapted for the Family and more Advanced Students in Catholic Schools and Colleges,” approved by Archbishop Bagley, of Baltimore. In Lesson 12, which treats of “no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church,” the following questions and answers are given:—

“Q. Since the Roman Catholic Church alone is the true church of Jesus Christ, can any one who dies outside of the church be saved?

“A. He cannot.

“Q. Did Jesus Christ himself assure us most solemnly, and in plain words, that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church?

“A. They all, without exception, pronounce them infallibly lost forever.

“Q. Are there any other reasons to show that heretics, or Protestants, who die out of the Roman Catholic Church, are not saved?

“A. There are several. They cannot be saved, because 1. They have no divine faith; 2. They make a liar of Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles; 3. They have no faith in Christ; 4. They fell away from the true church of Christ; 5. They are too proud to submit to the pope, the Vicar of Christ; 6. They cannot perform any good works whereby they can obtain Heaven; 7. They do not receive the body and blood of Christ; 8. They die in their sins; 9. They ridicule and blaspheme the mother of God and his saints; 10. They slander the spouse of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.”

On page 97 we find the following:—

“Q. Now do you think God the Father will admit into Heaven those who thus make liars of his Son Jesus Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and of the apostles?

“A. No; he will let them have their portion with Lucifer in hell, who first rebelled against Christ, and who is the father of liars.

“Q. Have Protestants any faith in Christ?

“A. They never had.

“Q. Why not?

“A. Because there never lived such a Christ as they imagine and believe in.

“Q. In what kind of a Christ do they believe?

“A. In such a one of whom they can make a liar,” etc. etc.

“Q. Will such a faith in such a Christ save Protestants?

“A. No sensible man will assert such an absurdity.

“Q. What will Christ say to them on the day of Judgment?

“A. I know you not, because you never knew me.

Again, on page 104 we read:—

“Q. Are Protestants willing to confess their sins to a Catholic bishop or priest, who alone has power from Christ to forgive sins? ‘Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them.’

“A. No; for they generally have an utter aversion to confession, and therefore their sins will not be forgiven throughout all eternity.

“Q. What follows from this?

“A. That they die in their sins, and are damned.”

Strange as it may appear, many Protestants are sending their children to such schools. These are their so-called godly schools, and Protestant American youth must go to them to acquire a refined and finished education. The great mass of Protestants are perfectly indifferent to the rising power of Romanism in our country; but the student of prophecy does not look on with indifference, for he knows that this power must continue till it is destroyed by the brightness of Christ’s coming.

A FEARFUL LEAP.

By J. G. Wood

ELD. J. G. WOOD.

As the Disciple Church are at the present time quite unanimous in the position that Christ fulfilled the law and abolished it, and that as a consequence we now have no Sabbath by divine authority, I wish to quote a few extracts from Alexander Campbell, the founder of that church, as taken from his debate with Bishop Purcell in 1837. This will show the fearful leap which, as a denomination, they have taken some time during the last forty-four years.

On page 193, in speaking of the “immoral tendency of the Romish rule of faith,” he says: “License is given to violate, in some way or other, every precept of the decalogue. The Sabbath, as a divine institution, is thus set aside.” Again on page 204: “I was sorry to hear the gentleman defending white lies and little sins. When I think of the nature of sin, and the holy and immutable laws of God, against whom it is committed, I see no difference between one sin and another. But when He against whom every sin is committed, and that divine and holy law, which is violated in the least offense, is considered, we must say with the apostle James, ‘Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.’ He who said that not one jot or tittle of his law should fall to the ground, He who magnified his law and made it honorable, will suffer no person to add to or to subtract from, to change or to violate a single point with impunity.”

On page 214 he shows that the Catholic Church have rejected the second commandment of the decalogue, and says: “What myriads, then, through this fraud, must have lived and died in the belief that the

second commandment was no part of God’s law! It is clearly proved that the pastors of the church have struck out one of God’s ten words, which not only in the Old Testament, but in all revelation, are most emphatically regarded as the synopsis of all religion and morality.”

BIBLE READINGS.

“What man is he that feareth the Lord? him shall He teach in the way that He shall choose.” Ps. 25:12.

Let Him teach thee, weary soul; Isa. 1:4. Let His hands now make thee whole; Job 5:18. Let His peace thy heart control. Col. 3:15.

Into paths of righteousness. Ps. 23:3. Let Him lead and let Him bless; Ps. 67:7. Let Him save thee from distress. Ps. 107:13.

Let Him guide thee with His eye; Ps. 32:8. Let His hand thy need supply; Phil. 4:19. Let His goodness satisfy. Ps. 65:4.

Let Him still deliver thee; 2 Cor. 1:10. Let Him in adversity Act a brother’s part to thee. Prov. 17:17.

Let His good word sanctify; John 17:17. Let the furnace purify; 1 Pet. 1:7. Let Him say, “Fear not; ’tis I.” Mark 6:50.

Let Him probe thy heart within; Ps. 66:10. Let Him search out every sin; Ps. 139:23. Let the glorious light shine in. 2 Cor. 4:6.

Let the Shepherd kindly feed; Isa. 40:11. Let Him gently, gently lead; (He’ll not break the bruised reed). Isa. 42:3.

Let Him give thee songs at night; Job 35:10. Let Him make the darkness light; Isa. 42:16. Let Him set thy spirit right. Ps. 51:10.

In the tumult let Him hide; Ps. 37:5; 31:20. Let Him keep thee at His side; Ex. 33:21. Let His name be glorified. Isa. 61:3.

Let Him in the conflict dire Phil. 1:29, 30. Overcome and draw thee higher, Num. 16:9. Till He saith, “Now come up higher.” Luke 14:10; Prov. 25:7.

GIVING

By L. D. Santee

BY ELD. L. D. SANTEE.

There is an old Spanish proverb, that, “he who gives quickly gives twice,” and this is a fact to which I wish to call the attention of our people. Now, I believe that we, as a denomination, are as liberal as any religious body, and perhaps more so; but we are in danger of letting our intentions of ultimate generosity keep us from present liberality. Perhaps we reason like this: “At present I can give but little, for my means are limited; and instead of giving now, I will put all my means into my business, and try to get something worth giving.” So new machines are purchased, and new debts contracted, with a view to generosity by-and-by. One improvement calls for another. The new reaper demands an improved rake; the new rake demands a third horse, and with all this machinery a hired hand is needed. Then the house is too small for the increased family, and so an addition must be attached; and so, hard pressed with accumulated expenses, we are further than ever from giving. As a result, enterprises for the spread of present truth are crippled, or struggle under a burden of debt, because these small supports are withheld,

The great rivers, flowing down to the sea, are sustained by small fountains. Suppose that these fountains should say, “My stream is not worth giving; I'll hoard my waters until I have enough worth while.” And while the fountains accumulate their reservoirs of water, the stream of the river is falling; for its supplies have ceased, and its current has been sent down to help fill the mighty ocean. The hot August sun drinks up the pools, and the fish die. The grass is withered and dead on its banks. Now the fountains are ready to send down their accumulated treasures. Great floods come pouring down from the hills, filling the river’s banks; but the grass is dead, and no streams can revive it; the fishes have perished, and no amount of water can give them life. The harm has all been done by withholding the small supplies.

Some seem to think that by a liberal bequest they can cancel a whole lifetime of avariciousness and greed; but small praise would attach to giving money or property, when the owner could not possibly keep it longer. Have the pleasure of disposing of your own gifts. One quaint writer, considering the uncertainty of wills being properly carried out, suggests a shorter form as follows: “I hereby bequeath all my estate, both real and personal, to the honored attorneys of my beloved children.” While you are a steward over means, use them wisely and judiciously. By promptly giving to the Lord his share, prove yourself a faithful steward, and by-and-by your stewardship will be transferred from earthly to heavenly treasures.

“A CHANCE TO GET A PIANO CHEAP.”

Under the above title a recent number of a city paper speaks of a fair given by a neighboring church which closed “without enough tickets being taken for a splendid piano to warrant its being disposed of, and the ladies had therefore resolved to postpone the drawing until more tickets could be sold.” The article stated that the piano was worth $500, that tickets would be for sale at some of the principal stores in Albany, and that the drawing would take place as soon as a sufficient number of tickets were taken.

We were inclined to regard this as a joke when we first read it, but on our way to the office that morning, an advertising card, in a store window, offering these tickets for sale, attracted our attention, and upon inquiry we ascertained that they were actually offered to the public at the price of $1.00 each, the polite clerk urging us to improve a fine chance, and explaining the way in which the raffle was to be conducted.

An old-fashioned book, doubtless to be found upon the pulpit cushion of the church where this holy raffle is to occur, represents Christ as the head of the church; nay, so intimate is the union between the two that the apostle to the Gentiles uses the figure of marriage to indicate the relationship. But it requires a very elastic fancy to imagine a church which thrives on lotteries to be the bride of Christ. Nor can we conceive it possible that the wrongs so committed at a church fair do not compromise the entire membership of that particular society. “Whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him,” says Paul. It would be novel indeed to see a raffle conducted in the name of the Lord Jesus, and thanks returned to God for the privilege of throwing dice or drawing numbers from a hat, for even so nice a prize as a $500 piano.

Again, are there no weak ones in this church, looking for encouragement in the consistent walk of the older members, the light of whose trembling faith is in danger of being eternally quenched by such things? A piano ought to be worth more than a paltry $500 to be raffled for against a human soul. To quote again from one who never speaks of his raising money for a church by raffling at a church fair: “But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.” Is that statement worth anything, and does it mean what it says? The next verse proves that Paul thought it worth while to back up his statement by his own example. Imagine him writing in Romans 15: “But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to get up a raffle at a dollar a ticket to raise a contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. When, therefore, I have performed this, and have sealed to them this first—the proceeds of this heavenly method of raising funds—I will come by you into Spain.” We wonder, however, what expression would have lighted his face upon writing the next verse: “I am sure that when I come unto you I shall come in the fullness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ.”

Only last week one of the most notorious of the infidel writers of this land flung the thing in the writer’s face by saying: “Just look at your churches and see how they gamble when they want money! How much better is that than for anybody else to gamble?” Our shoe pinched just then, and we were not able to explain the difference in a religious point of view. Can we blame our enemies for beating us when we put the clubs in their hands and invite their blows?

Is it a matter of wonder that these pious policy shops should have a lean and lank spirituality? Think of a revival at a church altar, carpeted with the money made by gambling for a piano! Shall Christians be surprised that the wicked world who buy the tickets from the sanctified church, are a little skeptical as to the quality of the prayers which ascend from that pulpit and pew; and that a smile of incredulity creeps over the face of an unconverted sinner who has one of these lottery tickets in his pocket, and is solicited to be prayed for, that he may “renounce the hidden things of dishonesty” and “walk in the light as He is in the light?” What is our Christianity? Show, sham, velvet, lace, feathers, opera music, trifles, lotteries, grab bags, ring cakes! Or is it humility, walking with God, separation from the money-grabbing ways of the world, “fervent in spirit, serving the Lord, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation,” and instant in prayer, that we may be the children of our Father in Heaven? It cannot be both.

But, “the end justifies the means.” God forbid. He cannot sanction evil that good may come. “We must have money.” Better a thousand times poverty, than ill-gotten gain.

It is not our province to “lecture” the churches, or write homilies upon their duty to God or man, but we may say in closing that these things ought not to be, and every church in Albany or elsewhere ought to keep its garments unspotted from these juggling expedients to make money. Let every lover of our Lord Jesus and a pure church uncompromisingly set his face against these schemes, lest we altogether drive the Holy Spirit from the sanctuary.—Our Work at Home, March, 1880.

Continue reading: IMMORTALITY; CONSTITUTIONAL OR CONDITIONAL