Earlier text: General ArticlesBut to return to God's memorial: The position taken in these pages presents the one-day-in-seven-and-no-day-in-particular, or one-seventh-part-of-time theory in its true light. If the Sabbath was made for man, for the simple reason that he needed rest from physical toil, and a day of worship, one day may answer as well as another. But if it be a memorial of Jehovah's rest, the seventh, and no other day of the week, is the day of the Sabbath. Sabbatarians are charged with being great sticklers for the day. And so they are. Sabbath signifies rest. Man is required by the fourth commandment to celebrate the rest-day of the Lord, or the day on which the Lord rested. God rested on the seventh day. He hallowed the seventh day. Hence, the seventh day, and no other, is the day of the Sabbath. Change the day of the Sabbath, and you cease to celebrate the rest of the Lord. If God rested on one day in seven and no day in particular, man may do the same; but if God rested on the seventh day of the first week, acceptable Sabbath-keeping is the celebration of the seventh day of each succeeding week. The American people celebrate their national independence on the fourth day of July. And why? Because July 4, 1776, patriotic men signed the Declaration of Independence. The men of this nation are great sticklers for the day; and well they may be. Should they change our national celebration from the day on which the Declaration of Independence was signed, to a day on which it was not signed, it would lose its significance. It would cease to be a celebration of our independence. Let the people of this country celebrate their independence on the twenty-fifth day of December, and let the Declaration of Independence be read from every orator's stand on that day, as is customary on the fourth of July, and the American people would be regarded as a nation of simpletons. And what Jew ever thought of observing one three-hundred-and-sixty-fifth part of time, or one day in three hundred and sixty-five and no day in particular, and calling that the passover? And we might as well talk of celebrating our national independence on one day in three hundred and sixty-five and no day in particular, as to talk of celebrating the rest-day of Jehovah upon one day in seven and no day in particular. The veriest American idiot that can recollect of ever hearing about George Washington or the Declaration of Independence, might well laugh at the folly of changing the day of our national celebration. Verily, as our Lord has said, the men of this world are wiser in their generation than the children of light. It is only in matters of religion that people seem to be satisfied with that which, in regard to any other subject, would be considered consummate folly. And do these men who use the one-day-in-seven-and-no-day-in-particular theory, advocate a change of the Sabbath from the rest-day of the Father, to the resurrection-day of the Son? Then we inquire of them, Who ever thought of celebrating the resurrection of Christ on one day in seven and no day in particular? If they say that this can be done, then we inquire again, Where is the change of the day of the Sabbath? Was it a change from one day in seven and no day in particular of the former dispensation, to one day in seven and no day in particular of the present dispensation? This would be "confusion worse confounded." And to those who assert that redemption, as a greater work, is to be celebrated on the first day of the week, as creation was anciently to be celebrated on the seventh day of the week, we would say, We only have your word for that. Please notice these facts:— 1. The Bible is silent relative to redemption's being greater than creation. Who knows that it is? 2. The Bible is silent as to the observance of a day to commemorate redemption. Who knows that a day should be kept for that purpose? 3. We have, in the Lord's Supper, and baptism, memorials of the two great events in the history of the Redeemer's work for man. These are appropriate. 4. There is no fitness in keeping a day of weekly repose to commemorate the agonies of the crucifixion of Christ, or the activities of the morning of his resurrection. 5. But if a day of the week should be kept, to celebrate man's redemption, which should it be? the day on which he shed his blood for our sins? the day on which he rose for justification? or the day on which he ascended to the Father, to intercede for sinners? The day of the crucifixion, when the greatest event for man's redemption occurred, has the first claim. The apostle does not say that we have redemption through the resurrection; but he does say, "We have redemption through his blood." Eph. 1:7. Now if a day should be kept to celebrate redemption, should it not be the day on which he shed his blood? Redemption is not completed; but in the Lord's Supper and baptism, are two memorials of the greatest events that have occurred in connection with this work for man. Neither of these are weekly memorials. Baptism may be received by the believer on any day of the week; and it is said of the emblems of the broken body and shed blood of the Son of God, without reference to any particular day, "As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. 11:26. These memorials point back to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God's great memorial points back to the day of his rest. And why not let all these remain, answering the purpose for which they were instituted? Why should the work of creation be lost sight of in the work of redemption? Why not celebrate both here? Both are equally remembered hereafter. It is said of the redeemed:— "And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation." Rev. 5:9. The same also "cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory, and honor, and power; for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." Rev. 4:10, 11. Here the redeemed are represented as ascribing praise to both the Creator and the Redeemer. And again, every created intelligence in the universe, in joyful sympathy with man in view of his redemption, is represented in chap. 5:13, as ascribing "blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, unto Him that sitteth upon the throne and unto the Lamb, forever and ever." We here see that the redeemed, with all the enrapturing facts of redemption completed before them, do not lose sight of the creation. The Creator shares their adoration equally with the Redeemer. How, then, must Adam have felt, when, in the garden of Eden, he first awoke to all the glories of this creation which the redeemed so joyfully remember! Fresh from the hand of his Creator, he springs to life in all the vigor of perfect manhood. With an intellect capable of appreciating the glories of Eden, and comprehending the grandeur and dignity of his position, and with a heart unsullied by sin, how must he have turned in gratitude and adoration toward the mighty Maker of himself and all these glories! If the redeemed could cast their crowns before Jehovah in reverent worship, in view of a creation accomplished over six thousand years before their song of praise was uttered, how must every fiber of Adam's being have thrilled with emotions of thanksgiving and adoration to the beneficent Author of his creation, as he stood there in Eden, enraptured with the strange delight of a new existence! And how could he best express the emotions of his heart? Would it not be by celebrating, amid all the surrounding glories of his Eden home, a day of rest in honor of his God? Say not that Adam had no occasion for the Sabbath in Eden. It was the very means by which he would rise into communion with his Maker, and offer the service of a grateful heart to him from whom he had just received the gift of life and all its blessings. And if the Sabbath was thus appropriate, thus necessary in Eden, what shall we say of it since the fall? With sin came man's estrangement from God, and his proneness to forget his Maker, and wander away from him. How much more needful the Sabbath, then, that he might not entirely break away from the moorings which held him to the heavenly world. The flood of sin and crime has rolled broader and deeper with each succeeding year; and the further we come from Paradise, the weaker and more prone to sin do we find the race, and hence more in need of God's great memorial. Did Adam, while yet unfallen in Eden, surrounded with all its heavenly influences, and in free and open converse with his Maker, need the Sabbath? How much more, when, with the gates of Paradise forever closed against him, he could no longer speak face to face with his Creator, but must henceforth grapple with the sinful promptings of his own heart, and grope his way amid the moral darkness that began to settle upon the world when the glorious light of Eden was obscured by sin! And if needed then by Adam, how much more still by Abel, whose eyes had never looked upon the beautiful garden, and who had never personally experienced the nearness to Heaven which Adam there enjoyed! And it was still more essential to the spiritual wants of the race in the days of Enoch and the more degenerate age of Noah, when the influence of Eden, like the last rays of twilight from the setting sun, were fading from the hearts of men. Abraham needed it still more to save him from the idolatry of his father's house; and Moses and the Jewish nation, yet more, to keep them from the open apostasy of the heathen nations around them. But more than to Abraham, to Moses, or to the Jews, was the holy Sabbath a necessity to the church in the gospel dispensation, when the Man of Sin was to arise, and oppose, and exalt himself above all that is called God; when there should be a tendency to multiply feasts and festivals, uncalled for by the Scriptures, in honor of Christ, and to rank the Sabbath of Jehovah with Jewish ceremonies, and sweep it away with them. And now we have come down nearly six thousand years from the gates of Paradise. Through all this time, has sin reigned, and iniquity abounded, and the hearts of men grown less and less susceptible of divine impressions, and in the same proportion more prone to forget the Creator. And can we dispense with the Sabbath now? True, the dawn of Eden restored, is visibly approaching; but the world is farther from God than ever before. Infidelity and atheism run riot, and seemingly the race would fain banish all thoughts and love of God from mind and heart. More than ever, then, is the Sabbath now needed, to save men from utter apostasy. With all the original reasons for the institution, the accumulated necessities of six thousand years of sin, now call upon us to throw all possible safeguards around this sacred institution. If ever a memorial of the great God and a golden link to bind man to Heaven, was needed, it is needed now. And the necessity of this institution will even yet increase through the few remaining days of peril. Can we dispense with it? Never. More and more sacredly should we cherish it, while with earnest hearts we breathe the prayer, "Let earth, O Lord, again be thine,
As ere with vengeance cursed;
And let the holy Sabbath shine
As glorious as at first." Smoky Farces and Smoky Sermons.
Charles Lamb once wrote a farce to be acted on the stage, but it proved a failure. The next day he wrote a letter to his friend Hazlitt, in which he said: “We are determined not to be cast down. I am going to leave off tobacco, and then we must thrive. A smoky man must write smoky farces.” Lamb was right. He never uttered a truer word; and he might have added, A smoky preacher must preach smoky sermons. We have listened to sermons when one could fairly smell the tobacco smoke. Some kinds of smoke may add to the flavor of ham and bacon, but tobacco smoke certainly adds nothing to the flavor of a sermon. The only way to cure an old pipe of its indescribably offensive odor is to throw it into the fire and burn it. We would suggest the same treatment for sermons saturated with tobacco. There is a very quick way of getting rid of smoky farces, as poor Lamb found to his sorrow, when the curtain fell amid a storm of hisses; but smoky sermons kill the people, because a due respect for the day and the place will not allow the people to hiss and kill them. What a mercy if smoky sermons could be hissed out of the pulpit as quickly as smoky farces are hissed from the boards of the theater! It might bring preachers to their senses as it did Charles Lamb.—Exchange. If you intend to do a mean thing, wait till tomorrow. If you are to do a noble thing, do it now. Notes on the Lesson.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
“ THERE arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” — We should not confound “Grecians” with “Greeks;” a distinction is made between them in the Bible. The latter term applies to those who were natives of Greece; it is used also as synonymous with Gentile. Rom. 1:16. The former term is used to designate those Jews who lived in foreign countries, and spoke the Greek language. The word occurs but in two other places in the New Testament — Acts 9:29, and 11:20. In the latter instance the preceding verse clearly shows that this distinction is made. The Assyrian and Babylonian captivities had scattered the Jews into various countries. Alexander, it will be remembered, settled many of them in Egypt. These spoke the Greek language, and it was for their use that the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament, was made. The Revised Version gives them their proper title — “Grecian Jews.” BETWEEN the native and foreign Jews there would naturally exist some of that jealousy that existed between Jews and Gentiles. This adds force to the statement in the second chapter, that “all that believed were together,” and in the fourth chapter that “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul.” The religion of Christ had broken down all sectional differences; and all classes, both native and foreign Jews, rich and poor, were as one in the belief in a crucified and risen Saviour. “The daily ministration” refers to the daily distribution to the poor, from the common fund. Up to this time the apostles had had charge of this business, Acts 4:37, although we cannot suppose that they attended to it in person, as in that case they could hardly have had time for anything else. The fact that the murmuring was against the “Hebrews” instead of against the apostles, shows that others were deputed to do the work. The “neglect” of which the Grecians complained might have happened in one of two ways: The national jealousy between the two parties may have caused some partiality to be shown, perhaps not from deliberate design, but from long habit. But it is probable that this neglect was unintentional. The number of Grecian Jews must have been small in comparison with the natives of Judaea, and their widows would be easily overlooked. The fact that they spoke a different language would add to their natural timidity, and would prevent them from coming forward to claim that which was their due. This unintentional neglect of their widows was quickly noticed by the Grecians, and they began to complain. This murmuring would soon have caused a division in the church, if left unchecked. The apostles did not claim the power to “lord it” over the believers, but called “the multitude of the disciples together,” and proposed a remedy for the difficulty. They were not willing that there should be even the appearance of injustice to any one. “It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.” — The apostles did not intimate that it was inconsistent with their dignity for them to perform this service. They were not above even physical labor, and they remembered the words of Christ, “Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister.” But they saw that the care of these matters would detract from their usefulness as ministers of the word. There were others who could do this work, who did not have the important work of preaching to do. The minister of the gospel has to do with high and exalted themes; and while he should be willing to perform any service, he should not allow a round of petty cares to distract his mind. The seven who were chosen to have the charge of this business are usually termed “deacons,” although they are not called by that name in the Bible, but are designated as “the seven,” Acts 21:8. And it is worthy of note that in the Greek there is no verbal difference between the “ministration” that was daily, and the “ministry” of the word. Both words are from the same Greek word, the one from which we get our word deacon; it means an “attendant” or “waiter.” The “twelve” and the “seven” had different duties to perform, but both were servants. And so well did the new arrangement work, so well did both classes serve, that “the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied in Jerusalem greatly; and a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.” It is worth our while also to notice the order of the work which the apostles laid out for themselves: “But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.” First they would get from God, and then they would give to men. They felt the need of constant prayer in connection with their teaching. They had been filled with the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, but that would not suffice for all time. They had a daily work to do, and needed to be continually filled with the Spirit; but as the Spirit was given at Pentecost only in answer to fervent and united prayer, so it was necessary that they should “pray always,” in order to keep it with them. And if this was necessary for them, how much more so for us! If the apostles could not teach without constant prayer, what can be expected of the Sabbath-school teacher who does not “pray without ceasing”? “The seven” were also men of prayer, for they were “full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom.” Their business was not merely to act as clerks, to distribute food and clothing, but to visit the poor, especially the sick and afflicted, and to give relief to them whenever it was in their power. Although all the seven were full of the Holy Ghost, Stephen had the pre-eminence in this respect. He was “full of faith and power.” He had unbounded confidence in the willingness of God to answer prayer, and as a consequence, like Jacob he had “power with God.” As he saw the afflicted ones, his heart was drawn out in sympathy for them, and by means of his faith and power, he performed mighty miracles. From this we may learn that even those whose duty it is to “serve tables” may attain the greatest piety, and that God can work through any one, the only requisite being that he shall be “full of faith and of the Holy Ghost.” This work in which Stephen was engaged naturally attracted much attention. As was the case when Peter and John healed the lame man, the people would naturally inquire by what power these miracles were done, and this gave Stephen an opportunity to teach the resurrection of Christ. The foreign Jews who still clung to their traditions “disputed” with him. This does not imply angry dispute, but simply discussion of the truth which Stephen taught. But Stephen spoke with wisdom from above, and the Spirit of God. This they could not answer. They were put to silence and forced to confess to themselves that Stephen was right. But there is always one resource left for those who are honestly beaten in argument yet are too set in their ways to yield to the truth, and that is treachery and force. This they used in the case of Stephen. First they “suborned men;” that is they privately caused the idea to go forth that Stephen was a blasphemer. This they did, not by direct means, but in an underhanded manner, by perverting his doctrine. It is very easy to set an evil report afloat. This report stirred up “the people and the elders and the scribes” to bring Stephen before the Sanhedrim. Then to complete their work they hired false witnesses to testify against him. With their testimony before the bigoted members of the council, Stephen was virtually condemned to death before he had uttered a word. Stephen’s sermon, while it contained nothing that would show a spirit of fear, was admirably adapted to disprove the charges that were made against him. He spoke of God with the utmost reverence, and proceeded to rehearse the history of the Jewish nation, a history which no Jew ever tired of hearing. And here is a point worth noting, in regard to all these sermons; and that is the use the speakers made of the Old Testament. If they had been as fearful of seeming to indorse all that it said as some of our modern preachers are, they would have been in a bad condition, for they had nothing else from which to preach. Another thing worthy of note is that when these early teachers were put on trial for their lives; they invariably preached Jesus. Their own safety was a secondary matter with them. Verse 5 of chapter seven is a very important one. Stephen has told how God called Abraham out of his own country to go into the land of Canaan, and that he finally came into it. But he says, “And he [God] gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on; yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.” God did not forget his promise to Abraham; and Abraham was not disappointed because he did not receive the land. It will not do to say that the promise was fulfilled in giving the land to his descendants, for the promise was that Abraham himself should inherit it; and besides, the land was never fully owned by the Jews. The subject is made plain when we read in Rom. 4:13 that it included not merely Palestine, but the world; that the “seed” to whom the promise was made was Christ (Gal. 3:16); and that if we are children of God, then we also are heirs. See also Gal. 3:29; James 2:5. Abraham did not expect to see the promise immediately fulfilled; he received the inheritance through faith. He looked forward to the time when the earth should be made new (Isa. 65:17); and we are to look forward to the same time for our reward. Till that time, if we are really heirs, we will be content to be merely “strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” We expect that “all the earth will yet be filled with the glory of the Lord,” and that the Lord will rule as “Governor among the nations;” but it will not be until he has dashed in pieces the wicked nations of the earth like a potter’s vessel. The Lord will see to this part of the work himself, and will not ask any assistance from men, in the way of votes or political influence. E. J. W. Lesson for the Pacific Coast—June 2.
Daily Reading in Connection with the Lesson.
The Teachers' Meeting.
By Editor
The following from the S. S. Times is just what we have many times repeated, and what we intend to repeat many times more:— "A teachers' meeting can never do its best work unless the teachers who attend it have studied their lesson before they come to it. No leader of a teachers' meeting can fit the teachers for their teaching work, nor can the teachers gain the benefit which a teachers' meeting is designed to give, if they bring empty minds and hearts. Each teacher ought to study the lesson beforehand, and bring to the teachers' meeting the results of his study, to put into the common stock for the benefit of all. Then each teacher can carry away all that he brought—that is worth carrying away; and a great deal more besides." A promising boy, not more than five years old, hearing a gentleman at his father's table discussing the familiar line, "An honest man's the noblest work of God," said he knew it wasn't true; his mother was better than any man that ever was made. God's sweet dews and the showers of grace slide off the mountain of pride and fall on low valleys of humble hearts, making them pleasant and fertile. A WISE man reflects before he speaks; a fool speaks and reflects on what he has uttered. J. S. Green's Pretended Exposure.
By Editor
WITH much regret we have seen in circulation a printed article signed J. S. Green, under the pretentious title of "Expose of Oppression." The article contains two points: (1) That Seventh-day Adventists are oppressed by the tithing system, etc., and (2) That Eld. White may have misappropriated the funds left in his hands by Bro. James Harvey, to be used for the cause. 1. No one is oppressed by the tithing system. If a person makes nothing, according to the tithing system he has to give nothing; if he makes but little he gives but little—or rather, pays but little; for in the Scriptures the tithes are always counted as the Lord's and are truly paid, not given. We think it will be difficult to convince any reasonable person that there is any oppression in the system, for the Lord is the author of it, and he who said the Lord was a "hard master," was styled a "wicked and slothful servant." We hope that Bro. Green will recede from a position by which he takes to himself such a character. And the system is approved by the most devoted in all churches. We have often seen regrets expressed in religious papers of various denominations that they could not carry out the system in their churches, and they attributed the failure to the selfishness and worldliness of the members. And yet again, there can be no oppression among Seventh-day Adventists in this respect, for they only direct their members to the teaching of the Scriptures, and leave it to their own consciences to comply or not. We regret to say that there are quite a number among us of the_same mind of J. S. G., who do not give the Lord his due according to his own word. We do not oppress them, for we leave them to settle it with the Lord who instituted the system—not with us. As for gifts, we have known Bro. White, and others having charge of our institutions, to return money given to the cause, when the circumstances of the donors so changed as to make it appear an act of justice to them. In some cases the money was taken back, and in other cases it was refused, because the persons consecrated it to the cause of God when their circumstances made it an easy matter, and they preferred to leave it there. But in no case have we ever known anything taken in a spirit of oppression. 2. Bro. Harvey went into despair some years ago, from which state he was rescued by a message from Sister White. He ever had the utmost confidence in the devotion and integrity of Brother and Sister White, and in his latter days was oppressed with fears that he had not done justice to the cause of present truth, in regard to the bestowal of means for its support. Consequently he placed a large proportion of his means in the hands of Bro. White, to be used at his discretion as he thought the cause most needed from time to time. He did this because he knew, as we all knew, that Bro. White had always been faithful to trusts of means committed to his hands. We have, in years past, had occasion to trace up reports raised up against him by the enemies of our cause, of his unfaithfulness in money trusts, and we found them to be false every time. Sister Harvey thought that her husband had not given to her as liberally as was her due, and so expressed herself; but in regard to Bro. White's action she has recently published the following card in the Review and Herald:— My attention has been called to a tract written by J. S. Green, in which he seeks to convey the impression that Eld. James White appropriated to his own use and benefit a certain portion of the property which my husband assigned to him with the understanding that it should be used exclusively for the benefit of the cause. I wish it distinctly understood that I have no sympathy with the writer of that tract in his attack upon Eld. White and wife, and that I am perfectly satisfied with the disposition which has been made of my husband's estate, believing as I do, that it has been disposed of as nearly in harmony with the wish of my deceased husband as was possible under the circumstances. The time was when, through a misapprehension of the facts in the case, I was led to do and say things which I very much regret at the present time. That which causes me the most pain is the circumstance that the name of my husband is employed to injure a cause which was dearer to him than his life, and to scandalize those whom he loved, and in whom he had the most implicit confidence. So far as my personal interest in the estate of my husband is concerned, I wish to say that I have not the slightest cause for complaint, as I have been dealt with even more liberally by those who have managed his estate than was provided for by the terms of his will. It would be well for the reader to understand that Sister Harvey was the second wife of Bro. H., married after he had acquired his property and retired from business. Yet some others thought as she did, that it would have been well for him to leave her more than he did, and it appears from Sister Harvey's card that they who managed his donation thought so too, as she has received more than the will called for. Mr. Green says: "Rumor has it that the estate was worth from eight to twenty thousand dollars." Quite a large margin to guess on! Were not Sister Harvey in comfortable circumstances we presume she would have received still more than she has. But where the "oppression" was we cannot see. Were J. S. Green acting with the Seventh-day Adventists, instead of with their enemies, there would seem to be more propriety in his course. But occupying the position that he does, he is not an interested party in any sense. We give more honor to Eld. Long in his recent article against the Seventh-day Adventists, because he is open and avowed in his opposition to us and to the Third Angel's Message. Mr. Green occupies a far more unenviable position, by professing to love the truth, and acting with those who oppose it. We would be glad to see him confess his error. If he does not, we cannot believe he is actuated by a love of either the truth or justice; but he is endeavoring to bring about that "disruption" of the church, of which he speaks, and which we fear he would rejoice to see. We do not often admit such subjects in the SIGNS, but as certain parties are trying to produce disaffection among our people on this coast by such means, we consider it our duty to place our brethren on their guard, by exposing the nature of the effort they are making.