A CORRESPONDENT objects to the view that being under the law, Rom. 6:14, 15, means “under the condemnation of the law.” He thinks that to claim this is “adding something not expressed” to the text. We believe that the reasoning powers which God has given us were intended to be used in reading and understanding his word; and that to use them adds nothing to, and takes nothing from, that word.
What is meant by the grace of God? It is simply his favor. How is this favor obtained? Through the propitiatory sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for our sins. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” Show us a man that has not sinned, and he is one that has no need of this favor which comes only through Jesus Christ; but he is one who keeps, and ever has kept, every precept of the law; otherwise he would be a sinner, a transgressor of the law.
But when the sinner, as are all the human race, finds favor through Jesus Christ, he certainly passes out of a state of condemnation into a state of favor. He is not now under the condemnation of the law, because he has found pardon and favor through our Lord Jesus Christ. He is now “delivered from the law, that being dead” which held him under its threatened penalty. And what was that? It was sin. The law has no demand against him who is not guilty of its violation, but keeps its every precept. Such a one is free. Said David, “I will walk at liberty.” Why? Not because he was at liberty to transgress the precepts of the law, but, said he, “Because I seek thy precepts.” Ps. 119:45.
Let us read the text which is offered as proof that the law of which it speaks has been abolished, being superseded by the favor or grace of God. “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!” Rom. 6:14, 15.
This is quoted to prove that one precept, at least, of the law spoken of may be transgressed with impunity. And but for that one precept, which is generally transgressed, the text never would have been quoted for such a purpose. But if it proves one precept of the law abolished, it proves the same of every one of them; for there is no distinction. Now if the law has been superseded, as they claim, no human being is bound to keep one of its precepts; because it has ceased to be law. In that case it can be truly said to all men, “Ye are not under the law.” But all to whom the apostle spoke were under grace. As truly as they were not under the law, so truly they were under grace. Are all men now under grace? Do all enjoy the favor of God? If so, all are in a very happy condition. None are accounted sinners in the sight of God; for sin is ever condemned by him; the sinner cannot enjoy his favor,
Are there now no servants of sin? Said the apostle to those who, he said, were under grace, “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Verse 16. “Sin is the transgression of the law”—this and only this; for this is a perfect definition. Sin is not the transgression of grace. Read the text with this inspired and therefore perfect definition in the place of the word defined. There can be no valid objection to this. Thus we read: “For the transgression of the law shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? Shall we transgress the law, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!”
Our friends do not hold with Paul; for they claim the liberty to transgress the law, because they are not under the law, but under grace. But let us read again from the apostle: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in the transgression of the law that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we who are dead to the transgression of the law, live any longer therein?” See verses 1 and 2.
Now I submit it to the candid reader: Does Paul teach those of whom he says, “Ye are not under the law,” that they may transgress that law? Does he not, on the contrary, teach obedience to it, that they may live no longer in sin. Every candid mind, unwarped by prejudice from the prevailing custom of transgressing one of the precepts of the moral law as given by God himself at Sinai, must admit that the apostle, in these very scriptures, teaches obedience to that law which is the subject of his discourse. Then what does he mean by being delivered from the law, and not being under it, but under grace? Simply that by the favor of God through the sacrifice of his Son they had been pardoned of their past transgressions, and hence the law had no demand against them in reference to its penalty, so long as they were dead to sin, living no longer in it.
Justified by the law? No, indeed. The law has no power, nor ever had, to justify its transgressor. The sinner can only be justified from his sins through faith in Jesus Christ. But being set free from sin, by the sacrifice and righteousness of Christ, he obtains a righteous character, that is, the character of a doer of the law; and in the day that God shall judge the secrets of men, according to the gospel, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” See Rom. 2:12–16.
BODY AND SPIRIT.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.
In Acts 7:59, we read: “And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Stephen simply committed his life, his spirit, to the Lord. He was dying, giving up his life for Christ; and hence with his last breath he committed that life to his Saviour. The next verse adds, “And when he had said this, he fell asleep.” Who fell asleep? Stephen. It was not the house that Stephen lived in, but Stephen himself, that fell asleep; and “devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.” Acts 8:2. When Stephen fell asleep, he was buried. Was there another Stephen that went off? Stephen was here, but our opponents affirm that Stephen had gone to Heaven. But the text says nothing about Stephen’s going to Heaven or being conscious. It is a little remarkable that every one of these passages, when examined, fails at the very point where help is expected from them. None of them says a word about going to Heaven or being conscious between death and the resurrection. On the other hand, they affirm that these saints fell asleep, are asleep, and are to be raised at the resurrection.
It is claimed that 2 Cor. 5:1–8 shows that upon the dissolution of the body by death, the real man lives on, and goes to be with the Lord in Heaven. But let us see. “For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from Heaven; if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the self-same thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we walk by faith, not by sight). We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.”
Evidently the earthly house which is dissolved is the mortal body, and its dissolution is death. So far all are agreed. But there is another house spoken of with which we are to be clothed after leaving the first house. This is evidently another body. Here, again, all are agreed. This new body is to be obtained when mortality is “swallowed up of life.” Verse 4. We claim that this new body is the immortal body which the saints receive at the resurrection. It is to be “eternal.” Verse 1. If it is not the resurrection body, then each saint, after the resurrection, will have two immortal bodies! But this is absurd. Notice carefully that it is not death that the apostle desires, but it is to put on the new body. He says: “For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened; not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” Verse 4. The Syriac gives this beautiful rendering: “Ye desire not to throw it off, but to be clothed over it, so that its mortality may be absorbed in life.” Sawyer translates it, “We do not wish to put it off, but to put on [the other].”
But when will the new, immortal body be put on? At the resurrection. 1 Cor. 15:51–54. Paul says what he longs for is, “that mortality might be swallowed up of life.” But when is mortality swallowed up of life? Certainly not at death; for at that time mortality, all that is mortal of a man, is swallowed up of death instead of by life. All must admit this. Our opponents claim that the immortal soul goes to Heaven at death, while only the mortal part of man goes down under the power of the destroyer. But this is not what Paul was desiring; for he was looking to the time when mortality should put on immortality.
Turning to his previous letter to these same Corinthians, we find that he plainly told them that this exchange of the mortal for the immortal body is to take place at the resurrection, when the Lord comes, “Behold, I show you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” 1 Cor. 15:51–54.
Here we have the same subject and nearly the same words as in the passage we are examining. This explains the other. In this mortal body Paul was groaning, anxiously longing for the time when he should exchange it for the immortal one at the resurrection. While he was in this mortal, corruptible body he could not go to be with the Lord; for “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor. 15:50. Hence he truly says that while we are at home in this body, we are absent from the Lord. But when we shall have put off this mortal body, and shall have been “clothed upon with our house which is from Heaven,” viz., the immortal or eternal body, then we shall “be present with the Lord;” for this is the very way men go to be with the Lord, as Paul himself122testifies: “For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” 1 Thess. 4:16, 17.
Editorial Notes.
By Editor
Since the discovery of America, the production of the precious metals has increased from about three millions of dollars a year to more than one hundred millions. And over two-thirds of this amount, or about seventy millions a year, is produced in this country, which is fast making this nation the richest on the face of the globe. History has uniformly shown that with riches comes luxury, degeneracy, immorality, and destruction. Will this be the order here?
Southern Iowa, it seems, has a “Sabbath [Sunday] Association,” which is working vigorously to carry forward its objects. The secretary of this organization writes to the Christian Statesman that they have drawn up a petition to the C., B. and Q. Railway to suspend all business on their line on Sunday. This has been extensively circulated, numerously signed, and forwarded to the company. The President briefly replied, pledging himself to bring the petition before the Board.
A NEW TIME.
A BROTHER in Arkansas informs us that a Disciple paper published in Fayetteville, in that State, contains an article from one R. Bard, fixing a time for the flood of fire mentioned in 2 Peter 3. He assumes that there will be a great change at the end of the 6000 years of this world’s history, and claims to prove that the year 1880 is the year 5881 of the world’s existence; consequently that 120 years remain before the 6000 years will be completed, and the end come, when the earth will be destroyed by fire. The time he sets for the coming of Christ is therefore the year 2000 A. D. These speculations as to time are certainly all folly; but the article will serve a good purpose in one respect: it will make it appear inconsistent in Disciples to oppose the investigation of the prophecies.
A PETITION AGAINST SUNDAY MAIL SERVICE.
The “International Sabbath [Sunday] Association” has prepared a petition to the “Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled,” praying those “Honorable Bodies to pass a law instructing the Postmaster-General to make no further contracts which shall include the carriage of the mails on the Sabbath [Sunday], and to provide that hereafter no mail matter shall be collected or distributed on that day.”
This petition is being extensively circulated; and the Christian Statesman thinks it “marks the beginning of an agitation which will not cease until the nation has yielded its allegiance in this matter to the law of God.”
INGERSOLL, NOT MOSES, THE BLUNDERER.
It was our privilege, Feb. 15, at the Presbyterian church in this city, to listen to a lecture by Gen. Saml. F. Cary, of Cincinnati, O., on the subject of the mistakes of Ingersoll about Moses. The lecture was one of thrilling interest from the commencement to the close. The record of Genesis was thoroughly vindicated as the word of God and in strict accord with all true science; while the baseless, credulous, presumptuous system of skeptics and atheists (if it can be called a system) was set forth in its true colors. The lecture abounded in passages of the highest sublimity, set home with the power of true eloquence. Such efforts as this are needed when infidelity is rearing its shallow but brazen head so confidently in the land. We wish that every man, woman, and child in all the country could listen to Gen. Cary on this subject, especially those exposed to the blighting influence of men who like Ingersoll go about committing the unprovoked outrage of trying to tear from the heart of the happy believer faith in our blessed Bible and its divine Author.
FORBEARING AND FORGIVING.
By A. S. Hutchins
BY ELD. A. S. HUTCHINS.
While sin and human frailties exist, forbearance and forgiveness must be exercised, otherwise love, union, and Christian fellowship could only exist in name, either in society, in the family circle, or in the church of God. The exercise of these graces must be mutual. Hence the injunction, “Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any; even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.” Col. 3:13.
“If any man have a quarrel against any.” The marginal reading is, “a complaint against any.” Then if any man have a complaint, or accusation, against any, he should exercise a spirit of forbearance and of forgiveness toward this person. And none need to stumble or stop here to ask how or how far they shall exercise patience and long-suffering toward the erring, or those whom they hold as such, for the rule lies directly before us: “Even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.”
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom. 5:8. With these and similar scriptures before us as a lamp to our feet and a light to our path, how can the Christian, the man of God, the one who holds continued communion with Heaven, hold an erring brother, or one whom he so considers, at arm’s length, placing himself in almost an unapproachable attitude? Should two parties act thus with reference to each other, when would their hearts beat in unison? When could it be said of two thus arrayed with respect each to the other, Behold, how these brethren love each other?
Christ does not stand in this attitude with respect to the sinner. In accents of love and mercy his voice is heard: “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.”
Should the Saviour hold us at a distance until we could see, and should confess all our sins, or until our ways are all pleasing to him, who, oh! who would be saved? Ministers and leaders in our churches may be profited, as may others, by prayerfully reading and reducing to practice the wholesome instruction in Heb. 5:1-3 and Gal. 6:1, 2.
Mistakes and misunderstandings will occur; but what shall be done? Shall we take them by the blade, wounding ourselves, adding grief to grief by imagining another has wounded us? Or shall long-suffering, gentleness, and goodness actuate us, embellishing a Christian profession?
The following from Gow’s “Good Morals and Gentle Manners” shows how mistakes may occur, even while guarding against them: “To illustrate to his school the necessity of absolute precision in the statement of words, and the difficulty of acquiring it, a gentleman selected from the high school six of his most capable boys, whose average age was, perhaps, seventeen years. He explained the experiment he was about to make, and desired them to give it their close attention, in order, if possible, to repeat the words he was about to give them. The plan was to show Master A a short sentence written on a piece of paper, which he was requested to memorize and whisper to Master B, who, in turn, was to communicate it to Master C, and so on, till the last of the six should receive it, and write it upon the blackboard.
“The boys were anxious to prove that they could tell a straight story when they applied their minds to it, especially since a failure on this trial would show them inaccurate, and consequently so in all ordinary statements, where no unusual efforts were made to rejoin the words split at the column seam: report correctly. The following sentence was prepared for the trial: ‘Maternal affection is an instinct which most animals possess in common with man.’ After each boy had communicated the sentence to his neighbor, the last one wrote the following, as his version: ‘Maternal affection is an instinct which all animals possess except man.’”
By comparing these two sentences, we find the last boy states the very reverse of the sentiment expressed by the first one. This proves that it is a difficult feat of memory to repeat, even under favorable circumstances, any words uttered by another. A mind sufficiently penetrating and powerful to decide positively which of these boys was most in fault in this experiment, might be a good one to assist in the settlement of difficulties growing out of a mutual misunderstanding of words.
But the word of God does not leave the followers of Jesus dependent alone upon human wisdom here. It is our privilege to have a converted heart, a sanctified judgment, and fellowship with the great Head of the church. Such will walk in the light and not in darkness.
The record of the beloved disciple is: “If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7.
Here is an antidote for all church trials, yea, a preventive of them. “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity.”
Blaspheming the Holy Spirit: Refusing God's Approach
By Jos. May
—To blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is not to utter mere ribald words of profane import. It is to outrage the Spirit by refusing it admission. It is to turn away God from the heart’s doors with contumelious rejection of his loving and saving approach. To be accepted is all God really asks from his children: their childish, ignorant, and perverse denials and aspersions of his majesty, with all other wickedness, he can forgive, for his accepted presence will purge all away; but he cannot bless with forgiveness the soul which persists in an attitude of hostile alienation; for he cannot reach it with his healing, reconciling influences.—Jos. May.
TEMPERANCE ITEMS.
By A. S. Hutchins
BY ELD. A. S. HUTCHINS.
One lady asked another, “Did you sign the temperance pledge?” “Yes,” was the emphatic reply; “I should be ashamed not to sign the pledge. Do you think a little tea would prevent me from signing the teetotal pledge?”
Bro. and Sr. A. signed the teetotal pledge months ago. They rejoice that they did; they say they feel better for it, and recommend others to sign also.
Another sister, a tea-nervous woman, hardly felt able to attend camp-meeting; but she did attend, and signed the pledge. She came home rejoicing, and feels so much better, health-wise, that her husband told her she better write an article for publication on her experience as a teetotaler.
An old and respected brother, a tea-sipper, says, “When that pledge was presented, I went for it as a hungry dog would go for a piece of fresh meat.” In leaving off tea, he says, “My love of and desire for tobacco went also.” That is a good victory. Now he wants his wife to sign the pledge, and I hope she will.
Sabbatarian C. was urged to sign the pledge, but “No, sir,” he was not going to. Just then the solicitor asked the neighbor of Sabbatarian to sign. He would if Sabbath-keeper would, and Sabbath-keeper would if neighbor would, so both signed. One signed that the other might do so and give up his tea; and the tea-drinker signed that the tobacco-chewer might give up his tobacco.
Some are not going to sign any pledge, because they do not want to sign away their liberty, and yet they are going to be temperance men. A good rule to be governed by is, “If it is no sacrifice to you, sign the pledge for the good of others; if it is a sacrifice, sign it for your own good.”
There is power in example. Can it be possible that a man with correct views of his duty to God and his fellow-men is afraid to cast his influence on the right side?
Motives Behind Our Brilliant Actions
—We should often have reason to be ashamed of our most brilliant actions, if the world could see the motives from which they spring.
Sweet Experiences Amid Affliction
By Bunyan
—In times of affliction we commonly meet with the sweetest experiences of the things of God.—Bunyan.
SPECIAL MENTION.
THE PROSPECT IN EUROPE.
The political outlook in Europe is growing darker. Russia has decided to increase the number of her war forces by 150,000 men. No worse sign of stormy weather can appear on the political horizon of the old world than the intelligence just received that “Bismarck has resumed his functions with all his old energy.” The prospect of a war with Russia is earnestly discussed in the military circles of Germany, where the staff officers, with that ultra-confidence which characterized the French generals in 1870, show to their own satisfaction that they would occupy St. Petersburg and Moscow in less than six weeks. They deride the idea of anything like the possibility of a serious resistance to their triumphal march by the Russian troops, which they affect to consider as being of no more importance than an undisciplined army of African savages.
The financial writers of Berlin endeavor also to show that Russia is not in a condition to fight. Her last war with Turkey, they say, has added 60,000,000 of roubles per annum to her budget for interest upon new loans alone; the total interest to be paid in 1880 on the Imperial State debt will be 180,000,000 of roubles, or 30,000,000 more than in 1878; and the sentiment of the Berlin Bourse is that it would be folly for Russia to engage in such a financial enterprise as a war with Germany and Austria must be, when she has no credit and can scarcely meet her present obligations. But the German bankers forget that principles of wisdom do not always govern potentates or even republics; that good credit and abundance of money are seldom a guarantee of military success; that the French republic, for instance, was bankrupt when she conquered Europe, while the French empire had its coffers full of gold, and Germany could not borrow a thaler in London when Napoleon III. surrendered; and lastly, they forget also that it may be cheaper and safer for the Czar to muster his Nihilists against Bismarck and have them slaughtered by German armies than to keep them at home under the surveillance of German police.
The contempt professed by the military authorities of Berlin for the supposed inefficiency of the Russian troops is unwise, even if justified by the facts, which is not the case. General Todleben, who defended Sebastopol against the combined forces of France and England, and changed the fortunes of war as soon as he took command of the Russian armies in front of Plevna, proved himself the peer of Moltke as an engineer and an organizer. It is not likely that military forces trained by him may have so suddenly become the “clumsy accumulations of badly armed and badly drilled soldiers” which they are represented to be. It has been the good luck of Germany in her previous quarrels with France and Austria to find an enemy as presumptuous as she seems to be now, and entirely unprepared for a great conflict. But Russia is not to be surprised, although she may be defeated. According to the St. Petersburg Viedomosti, the numbers of her population, which have been greatly underestimated by foreigners, were in 1879, 97,000,000, and she could easily put in the field 3,000,000 of soldiers. As Germany would necessarily have to keep a large force on the left bank of the Rhine to watch France, it is evident that a war with Russia would tax to their utmost her military resources. —America, Feb. 7, 1880.
The Civil and Ecclesiastical Contest in Belgium.
THE old contest—the contest of centuries—as to whether government or the priesthood shall be supreme, is being waged in Belgium. By the existing Constitution full religious liberty is granted, and ministers of all denominations may draw part of their stipends from the national treasury. The sums thus granted by a recent budget were 4,500,000 francs to the Roman Catholics, who comprise over 99 per cent of the population; 69,366 francs to Protestants, who number 13,000; and 11,220 francs to Jews, who number about 1,500. The Romish clergy have sullenly acquiesced in this toleration of the comparatively few heretics, and revenged themselves by securing almost the entire monopoly of education. Yet elementary education is by no means general or efficient. As usual, the priests have been chiefly solicitous to consolidate and extend their own power. The Minister of Justice recently stated in the Belgian Chamber that the clergy are too numerous, and pass their time in political agitation. Other speakers demanded the suppression of all the illegal privileges hitherto granted to the clergy, such as the corporate rights of certain religious communities, the payment of subsidies to the great seminaries, foundations for the saying of masses, and the exemption of seminaries from military service.
The immediate occasion of this debate was the high-handed procedure of the Belgian bishops with regard to the recent education law, which curtails the clerical power. They threatened with excommunication all teachers who accepted the new enactment; and no fewer than 2,472 teachers have already resigned their posts, and the number is daily increasing. The government has not been slow to accept the gage of battle thrown down by the priests, and has declared that this is only part of a much larger question that has to be fought out, involving the entire relations of Belgium with the Vatican. It declares that for eight years, under a Catholic cabinet, and encouraged by Pius IX., the clergy had been engaged in a movement hostile to Belgian national institutions. The priests and the bishops furnished up and used, as far as they dared, the old weapons of persecution, until the government were constrained, in the speech from the throne, at the opening of the session of 1877, to express a determination to uphold the Constitution and to defend the popular liberties. The legation was withdrawn from the Vatican; and with a view of raising an internal barrier against attacks upon civil rights, a Ministry of Public Instruction was created, This precipitated a crisis. The clerical party found it convenient to proclaim that the appointment was intended as a declaration of war against Catholics; because it was seen that the priests would no longer have the supreme control of education. Some of the Belgian bishops rendered themselves conspicuous by their fierce denunciations of the new educational law, and by their attitude of antagonism to the government. But their superiors at Rome discerned danger in this defiant attitude. The Vatican has usually been astute enough to be politic and crafty, when such a course was more likely to secure its ends. The Papal Secretary of State told the Belgian representative so long ago as July, 1878, that he deplored and disapproved of the attacks on the national liberties made by certain Catholic journalists. Later on, Cardinal Nina, the new Secretary of State, said that the present pope had instructed him to give the most absolute assurance that such attacks would receive no encouragement or support at Rome. But here the characteristic subtlety of Romanism appeared. A diplomatic document was sent to the Belgian cabinet stating that while the Vatican recognized that the bishops were correct as to doctrine, they had drawn inopportune deductions from principles which were in themselves just, and had pushed those conclusions too far. In other words, the Ultramontane claim to be supreme over civil affairs was just and valid; only this was not the time or the occasion to enforce it.
All this was publicly stated by the Belgian Premier in his place in Parliament. The zealots among the clerical factions are furious, but for the most part they have taken the cue from Rome, and now protest their admiration of and their fidelity to the Constitution, which, until a few weeks ago, they declared to be the direct work of Satan. On the other hand, the advanced Liberals of the country hold that the pope has really made no concessions, but has only temporized before a threatening storm. One thing, however, is certain. The events of the last year or two, and especially the debates in the Chamber, will encourage and reinforce the ranks of those who have long been demanding a complete separation between the State and the subsidized churches. The absolute and irreconcilable incompatibility between a dominant priesthood and freedom is also brought out in bold relief, for the warning of modern statesmen. The battle for supremacy is deferred, not ended; and the sooner it is fought out the better will it be, not only for Belgium but for humanity and the cause of true progress. Romanism in that country is strong by reason of its numbers and wealth; but it is not so strong as to triumph over public rights and liberties, if only the nation is true to itself. Certain it is, that these events cannot fail to hasten on the dawn of full religious equality.—Christian at Work.
THE ORIGIN OF THE WEEKLY CYCLE.
By Scott
GEN. 2:3: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work, which God created and made.”
This is evidently historical, and not by anticipation; for the reason subsisted from the beginning, and was more cogent immediately than it could be at a distance of more than two thousand years, when the command was solemnly renewed from Mount Sinai, long after sin had marred the beauty of the great Creator’s works; and it concerns the whole human race, as much as the nation of Israel. This is confirmed by the custom of measuring time by weeks, which has generally prevailed in the world, and which is most reasonably accounted for by supposing it to have arisen from an original tradition, handed down from Adam and Noah to all their posterity. And the silence of Moses concerning the observance of the Sabbath by the patriarchs, so far from proving that they were not commanded to observe it, will not render it so much as probable that they did not actually keep it, to those who attentively consider how much darkness rests on many similar subjects, in the Scriptural history of the church. Yet some intimations are given in this book, which show that the patriarchs divided time into weeks, and regarded the seventh day. (Gen. 8:6-14; 29:27.)
The “Sabbath, being made for man,” was no doubt coeval with his creation.
Even in the state of innocence, Adam and Eve were employed in dressing and keeping the garden; and though exempt from sin and suffering, yet their rational nature was capable of a far more exalted state, and they were taught to consider themselves as preparing for it by progressive improvement. The seventh day, therefore, being blessed and sanctified by God, separated from common employments, and consecrated to religious worship, on it especially they were required to remember their Creator, to contemplate his works, and to render him their tribute of thankful praise; and this would, even in Paradise, be conducive to the glory of God, and beneficial to them; perhaps absolutely necessary to their safety and felicity. Ex. 16:22-27; 20:8-11.—Scott.
Aid for Freedpeople's Exodus and Christian Duty
—The inspired word bidding us bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ, was seldom more timely than now. The cry of help for Ireland comes to us across the sea with piercing emphasis. The response does honor to the heart of Americans. At the same time, another cry of distress and want, and a most pathetic appeal for instant help, comes to us from colored “refugees” in our own land. Be it wise, or otherwise, the exodus of colored people from their Southern homes is a fact, and one that is assuming large proportions. It is one of those profound and partly mysterious racial disturbances, which occasionally seize a people and stir in them like the resistless movings of a mighty instinct, and impel them to seek to better their condition by migrations. Judge of the correctness of the instinctive impulse as we may, the facts are as they are, and every impulse of Christian sympathy gives force to the appeals made for help. Nearly five million Afric-Americans, yesterday slaves, sold off the auction-block, ruled by the lash, whom it was a State-prison offense to teach the alphabet, to-day admitted to freedom and thrust into citizenship,—this suggests a tremendous fact to be dealt with. In the word of Christ himself, Do we know the time? Do we discern the significance of the case? Do we appreciate the “obligations of nobility,” in our relations to this people? Beyond question, there is a momentous Providence in all this movement and in this grave opportunity; and one, too, which relates itself to our own future welfare, not less, perhaps, than to theirs. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto Me,” is a word by no means grown out of date!—Advance.
Expanding American Commerce Through an Efficient Diplomatic Service
—The sudden and rapid increase of our commercial relations with every foreign country, has attracted the attention of the national government to the necessity of increasing in the same proportion the efficiency of our diplomatic service. The policy adopted by Secretary Evarts with this end in view is beginning to bear its fruits. From all parts of the world reports are sent to the State Department by our Consuls and Ministers, full of valuable information concerning the needs of the countries to which they are respectively accredited, and the prospects of American commerce in those countries. . . . Our representative in Colombia believes that intelligent action on our part would soon gain for us the entire control of her foreign commerce, amounting in imports to ten million dollars. It is gratifying to see that under an intelligent administration, our foreign service, which has been until recently for the most part a costly ornament, is fast becoming what it should be, a powerful instrument of prosperity.—America,
THE CHRISTIAN ERA.
A CORRESPONDENT says: “Please explain that statement in the pamphlet entitled, Prophecy of Daniel, which says that Christ was anointed A. D. 27, being about 30 years old. I always understood that he was 30 years old A. D. 30.”
The difficulty of our correspondent lies in the fact of his supposing that the year A. D. 1 coincides with the birth of Christ. This, however, is not the case. The Christian era was the invention of Dionysius Exiguus, A. D. 532. The era did not begin to be used much till A. D. 730, and did not come into general use till A. D. 1141. Dionysius, from the best evidence he could obtain, placed our Lord’s nativity in the year 753 of the Roman era, at that time in use. It has since been ascertained that Christ was born about four years previous to this date. But as it makes no material difference in the reckoning of time, the point fixed by Dionysius has never been disturbed. Thus by taking a certain number of years B. C. and a certain number A. D., and adding them together, we get the exact number of years between the two points, although the birth of Christ is not within about four years of the line which separates the two divisions. It will thus be seen that this does not in the least affect the accuracy of the chronological reckoning.
NEW YORK.
Keene, Essex Co.—At this place a few are holding on to God and his word. They keep up their meetings, and have a very interesting Sabbath-school. We obtained two new subscribers for the REVIEW (besides renewals) and a club of twenty-seven copies of the Signs, organized a health and temperance club, sold $12 worth of books, and received from friends there $50 for various enterprises connected with the cause of present truth. They were much encouraged, and intend to take hold of the T. and M. work with renewed zeal and energy.
A. H. HALL.
JACOB WILBUR.
Pulaski, Greenboro, and Vermillion.—We attended a meeting of the Pulaski church at Pineville, Jan. 24, 25. Nearly all were ready to work in connection with the various enterprises now being carried on among us.
Held a two-days’ meeting at Greenboro, Jan. 31. The friends are still holding on to the truth. The director of the district, Bro. Wm. H. Brown, was with me, and we partially organized a T. and M. society. They all seemed willing and anxious to take hold in every department of the work, and we left them greatly encouraged.
The church in Vermillion needs help. Our meeting, however, was a very encouraging one, brethren being present from Roosevelt, West Monroe, and Parish. Bro. Wheeler rendered us timely assistance. A forward movement was made in introducing the volumes of Spirit of Prophecy and in the T. and M. work and health and temperance work, and in securing more fully the adoption of the tithing system. We think the truth gained a signal victory at this meeting, and that if a proper course is pursued by those now in trial, the clouds will soon be lifted and a better day will dawn.
Officers of the church were elected, and the business meetings were harmonious. M. H. BROWN.