Earlier text: General ArticlesTHOSE who keep Sunday claim that the first day of the week should be observed in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ on that day. But there is no Bible authority for this claim. The first day is never called the Sabbath, the Christian Sabbath, the Lord's day, or a holy day, of any kind. There is not even a reference to such an institution as a Christian Sabbath, nor an intimation of it in the Bible. Neither Jesus nor the apostles ever kept it. No command is given for any one to keep it. God never rested upon it, nor blessed it, nor sanctified it. There is no penalty for its violation, nor regulation for its observance. Reader, think of these facts. What do they mean? Paul says, "Where no law is, there is no transgression." Rom. 4:15. As there is no law of God for keeping the first day, there can be no sin in working on it; for Paul says again, "Sin is not imputed when there is no law." Rom. 5:13. Then why keep Sunday? God does not leave men to guess at their duty, but he states plainly whatever he wishes done. Does he wish men to keep the seventh day? How explicity he has said so. Ex. 20:8-11. How plainly baptism and the Lord's supper are enjoined. Mark 16:15, 16; 1 Cor. 11:23-26. So if the Lord wished us to keep the first day, would he not have plainly said so? Certainly; but he has said no such thing. Let us examine every text in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament, and we shall thus learn all the Lord has said about it. There are but eight texts. Here is the first: "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. This is all that Matthew says about it. He relates that the angel opened the tomb; that the women saw him, ran to tell the apostles, and met Jesus on the way; but not a hint is given that there is to be any change of the Sabbath, nor a word is said about keeping the first day in honor of the resurrection. Think of this. Next, Mark mentions the first day twice. "And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene." Chap. 16:2, 9. This is all the mention he makes of the day. Here, again, there is a profound silence as to any change of the Sabbath or any sacredness for the first day. There is not the slightest intimation of any such thing. Read the whole chapter and see for yourself. Luke mentions the first day only once. "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Chap. 24:1. What does this say about the change of the Sabbath? Nothing. They had kept the Sabbath according to the commandment the day before. Chap. 23:56. What intimation is there here that the first day then became a holy day? The candid reader will admit that there is not the slightest reference to such a thing. Yet these are the texts always relied upon by Sunday-keepers to sustain their position. Luke does state that two of the disciples went that day seven and a half miles, on foot, to Emmaus. Verse 13. What were they going there for? The circumstances indicate that they resided there, and they were going home. Jesus walked with them and made himself known to them. Verses 15-31. Then they went back to Jerusalem to tell the others. Fifteen miles they walked that day. Not much of a Sabbath! It was nearly night when they got back, verse 29; yet, as late as that, few of the apostles believed in the resurrection of Jesus. Mark 16:12, 13. While they were eating supper, and doubting and disputing about the resurrection, Jesus came in and upbraided them for their unbelief. He took fish and honey from the table, and ate before them, to convince them. Luke 24:38-43. Certainly, then, they were not keeping that day to commemorate an event in which they did not yet believe! The absurdity of such a view is too evident to need further notice. John mentions the first day twice stating substantially the same facts as the others. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." Chap. 20:1. She ran and told Peter and John. Then they went to see if it was so. Later, Jesus appeared to Mary, and sent her to tell the others. Verses 11-18. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Verse 19. This is all that John says of the first day. Reader, how much do you find here about the change of the Sabbath? Like others, John is silent upon this subject. He makes no reference to it; he simply states the events that occurred at the resurrection of Jesus. There he leaves it. But were not the apostles assembled together when Jesus met them? Yes, at their own home, eating supper. John 20:10; Mark 16:14. And where else should they be? So there is no evidence of any religious meeting held on that day. John mentions the first day twice, but does not call it the Sabbath, the Lord's day, nor by any other sacred title. He says nothing about the disciples' keeping it, nor does he record any intimation from the Lord that they should keep it. There is not even an inference to that effect in the four gospels, and the whole argument in favor of it is pure assumption. Another Sunday meeting is claimed from verse 26: "And after eight days, again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors were shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." This did not occur on Sunday, but as late as Monday evening. Verse 19. After eight days is not on the eighth day. Count from Sunday evening. After one day would take us to Monday evening; after two days, to Tuesday evening; and so on, till "after eight days" brings us to the next Monday evening. Hence this was on Monday evening. Just one week is "after seven days," as the reader will see by 1 Chron. 9:25, 32. Then "after eight days" is one day more than a week. But suppose it had been the first day of the week; that does not prove that it was the Sabbath, nor that there was any sacredness to the day. The disciples were not even holding a meeting. They were "within" that is, at home. Verse 10: "Then the disciples went away again unto their own home." This is where they were when the event occured which is recorded in verse 26. See Acts 1:13. Jesus came because Thomas was there; but there is not a word, or even a hint, that the day was sacred. The next time Jesus met them was on a fishing day. John 21:1-6. They all went fishing, and toiled all night, but caught nothing. In the morning Jesus stood on the shore and told them where to cast the net to get a good draught. Was this on Sunday? Then it is a working day. If it were not on Sunday, then Jesus met them on any day, just as it happened. So we see from Acts 1:1-4, that his farewell meeting with them was on Thursday. This was on the fortieth day after his resurrection. Verse 3. By a moment's reckoning it will be seen that it fell on Thursday, as all agree. Thursday is ascension-day the world over. So the claim that Jesus always met with his disciples on the first day of the week is utterly false. As we have seen, the day of his resurrection was one of the greatest confusion among his disciples; the next time he met them was on Monday evening, the next time he met them was on a fishing day, and the last time was on Thursday. So much for the example of Christ in favor of Sunday-keeping. A desperate endeavor is made to find evidence for Sunday-keeping from the day of Pentecost; Acts 2:1-4; but there is not the remotest hint of it here. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing of mighty wind." Verses 1, 2. Then the Holy Spirit rested upon them. But what has that to do with Sunday-keeping? Sunday observance is not mentioned, nor even referred to. It is not stated what day of the week it was, as that was a matter of no importance. It was the Pentecost that was to be signalized, and not the day of the week. The very best scholars, even among the observers of Sunday, admit that Pentecost fell that year upon the Sabbath, or Saturday. Prof. Hackett says, "It is generally supposed that this Pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, or Saturday."—Com. on Original Text. Barnes says, "If the views of the Pharisees were followed, . . . then the day of Pentecost would have occured on the Jewish Sabbath, that is, on Saturday."—Kuinöel, Lightfoot. Olshausen says, "The fiftieth fell, therefore, it appears, upon Saturday." Dean Alford, in his New Testament for English Readers, remarks, "It is probable, however, that it was on the Sabbath, i. e., if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan." If the day of the week on which Pentecost fell was to be observed, we should at least expect that we should be informed which day it was. But we are not. Next, Acts 20:7-11 is supposed to furnish some little proof for first-day observance. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." Then a young man fell from a window, and being taken up dead, was restored to life by Paul. And when he "had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." We notice these facts: 1. The first day is not called the Sabbath, Lord's day, or by any other sacred title. 2. This is the only religious meeting upon the first day of the week of which we have any record in the New Testament. This is remarkable, if that were the common day of meeting. But we have a record of eighty-four Sabbaths which Paul kept, and on which he preached. See Acts 13:14, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:1-4, 11. 3. Nothing is said about its being their custom to meet on that day. 4. There is no record that they ever met on that day before this occasion or afterward. 5. But what settles the whole matter is the simple fact that it was only an evening meeting. When they assembled, Paul began to preach to them, and "continued his speech till midnight." After breaking bread, he again talked "till break of day," and then went on his journey. Evening meetings are frequently held on all days of the week. No one thinks of calling a day holy for this reason. So in the above case; this meeting does not furnish the slightest evidence that Sunday was a holy day. Moreover, this was not an ordinary meeting, but a very uncommon one. It was Paul's farewell meeting, verse 25; hence it lasted all night. A dead man was raised. It was for these reasons that it was mentioned, and not because of any sacredness belonging to the day. Then there is not a particle of evidence here for Sunday observance. Only one more text mentions the first day; viz., 1 Cor. 16:2: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." From this a public meeting for Sabbath worship on the first day is inferred. But what is said here about keeping the day as the Sabbath, or even holding meetings on that day? Not an intimation of such a thing is given. Paul does not say that when they came together for meetings they should bring their gifts, nor that they should put them into the public collection box, nor anything of that nature. "Let every one of you lay by him in store," is the direction; that is, at home, by himself. The original Greek term means by himself, as the best critics say on this passage.173 Now, reader, you have before you all the texts in the New Testament that mention the first day of the week in any manner. You must see that they do not intimate that the day has any sacredness, or that there is an example for keeping it, or any commandment that any one should observe it. The "Lord's day" of Rev. 1:10 is the seventh day, as may be seen by Ex. 20:8-11; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28. But should we not, then, celebrate the resurrection of Christ? Yes; but the Lord never told us to keep Sunday for that purpose. God has given us baptism, burial in water, as the fitting memorial of this. "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism." Rom. 6:4. We are buried in the water just as Jesus was in the earth. Then we are raised up out of the water "also in the likeness of his resurrection." Verse 5. Again, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him." Col. 2:12. Baptism, then, is the divinely-appointed memorial of the burial and resurrection of Jesus. It is appropriate. To be buried in the water and raised out of it, resembles the burial and resurrection of Christ, which it commemorates. Then why do you keep the first day? It is simply because you have been brought up to do it. It is a Catholic tradition, received from the pagans, without any foundation in the word of God. Be careful how you make void the law of God by your traditions. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Lesson for the Pacific Coast—April 21.
THIS was one of the three feasts of the Jews, at which all the males were required to appear before the Lord, at the place of his sanctuary. Ex. 23 : 14, 17; Deut. 16 : 16. The name is the English form of the Greek word pentekostos, meaning fiftieth. The feast received this name because it was celebrated on the fiftieth day from the second day of the Passover. It was also called "the feast of weeks." Ex. 34 : 22; Deut. 16 : 10. The particulars in regard to the time and object of this feast, and the ceremonies connected with it, are given in Lev. 23 : 15-21; but in order to understand it thoroughly it must be studied in connection with the Passover, the time from which the fifty days are reckoned. And since some have a difficulty in tracing this connection, from a misunderstanding of the use of the word "Sabbath" in this chapter, we will refer to the points in regard to these two feasts. 1. The Passover commenced at the close of the fourteenth day of the first month. Lev. 23 : 5; at this time the paschal lamb was slain. Ex. 12 : 6. 2. The feast of unleavened bread commenced the next morning, the fifteenth day of the first month, and continued seven days. Lev. 23 : 6; Ex. 12 : 15, 18, 19. 3. This first day of unleavened bread was to be a holy convocation, in which no servile work could be done. Lev. 23 : 6, 7; Ex. 12 : 15, 16. It was a sabbath (a rest) because they did no work in it; but it was entirely distinct from the weekly "Sabbath of the Lord" (Lev. 23 : 38), for it came only once a year, and on a fixed day of the month, and consequently would not fall on the same day of the week for two years in succession. The people were also allowed to prepare food upon this annual sabbath, a thing which they were forbidden to do on the weekly Sabbath. Compare Ex. 12 : 16 with Ex. 16 : 23, etc. 4. On the second day of unleavened bread, the day following the "holy convocation," the priest waved a sheaf of the first-fruits of the harvest, before the Lord. Lev. 23 : 10, 11. 5. It was from this second day of the feast—"the morrow after the Sabbath"—that the fifty days were counted. From these points it will be readily seen that the feast of Pentecost was a movable feast, being celebrated each year on a different day of the week from what it was the year before. It will also be seen that Pentecost fell on the same day of the week as the second day of unleavened bread, but fifty days later. So when the fourteenth day of the first month fell on Monday, the Passover sabbath would come on Tuesday, Wednesday would be the second day of the feast—"the morrow after the Sabbath"—and Pentecost would come on Wednesday, fifty days later. Thus, knowing what day of the week the Passover began in any given year, any one can tell on what day of the week Pentecost came that same year. To avoid all confusion, it should be remembered that the word "sabbath," in Lev. 23 : 15, 16, is used with two different significations. In the first instance, where we read, "the morrow after the sabbath," the Passover sabbath is referred to—the first day of unleavened bread. In the second instance, where it says, "seven sabbaths shall be complete," the word means "week," viz., "seven weeks shall be complete." On this passage, Gesenius, in his Hebrew Lexicon, says: "Sometimes a sabbath is nearly equivalent to a week." Then he quotes verse 16, and says: "Here the seven complete sabbaths are parallel to the seven weeks of Deut. 16 : 9." First-day writers give as one of their chief reasons for Sunday observance the supposed fact that the Pentecost of our lesson came on the first day of the week. Whether it did or not is a matter of no special importance, and we will not take space to discuss the question. There is, and doubtlessly always will be, a difference of opinion in regard to the time when the Passover commenced, because there is a disagreement as to the time when the Passover commenced that year. Some claim that the lamb was slain on Thursday night, thus making Friday the first day of the feast, in which case Pentecost would have occurred on Sabbath. Others claim that Friday was the fourteenth day of the month, the proper time for slaying the lamb, in which case Pentecost would have fallen on Sunday. If any one is curious to form an opinion for himself, let him decide from the Bible account, on what day the Passover began, and count forward. If it could be proved that it fell on Saturday, it would not add one whit to the sacredness of that day. The Sabbath depends on no such inference for its sacredness, but on the direct commandment of God. If it fell on Sunday, that day gains nothing by it, in the utter absence of any Scripture testimony for Sunday sacredness. After giving different opinions as to when this Pentecost came, Dr. Barnes says: "It is impossible to determine the truth on this subject. Nor is it of much importance." And this is the truth. Rev. C. H. Parkhurst, commenting on this point, artlessly says: "There is not an agreement of opinion as to whether the Pentecost of our chapter fell on Saturday or on Sunday. There is in the church an old tradition that it fell on Sunday. It certainly would be pleasant to suppose that such was the case." Before any argument for Sunday observance can be reasonably based on the Pentecost, it must first be proved beyond a doubt that the Pentecost fell on Sunday, and then it must be shown from the Bible that the descent of the Holy Ghost made the day on which it occurred a holy day. As neither of these can be shown, the sacredness of Sunday exists only in the imagination of its devotees. AMONG the multitude that assembled on the day of Pentecost there were two classes of hearers placed in strong contrast. First, there were "devout men;" men who were not merely pious, but were thoughtful, cautious, and circumspect. They were full of reverence toward God, and desirous of serving him; yet they would not jump at conclusions. When they served the Lord they did it understandingly. So when they saw the wonderful manifestation of the Holy Spirit, they inquired, "What meaneth this?" There was in this question nothing of ridicule or of obstinate doubt; but there was a spirit of earnest seeking for the truth. There can be no question but that they were, among the three thousand converts, for the Saviour said, "If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine." But "others mocking said, these men are full of new wine." These persons are fitly represented by the seed sown by the wayside. Matt. 13 : 4, 19. Satan caught away the seed almost before it fell on the hard ground of their hearts. They were unthinking persons, whose strongest argument was a coarse jest. Their representatives are very numerous to-day. They oftener frequent bar-rooms than churches. Sometimes, like Ingersoll, they are found in high positions, but they rarely lose the characteristic of their class. They have little influence over sober, thoughtful, intelligent people; they are active agents for Satan, for there is a large class who are, deceived by them, thinking that their light, flippant way of treating things is a mark of superior wisdom. They themselves imagine that they have logical minds, too great to stoop to entertain for a moment so foolish a thing as religion. To carefully and candidly weigh a matter is a mark of a truly great mind. When a man stoops to ridicule and cast slurs upon that which he does not understand, he stamps himself at once as a man of feeble intellect. THERE are some points in the portion of the prophecy of Joel quoted by Peter, that are worthy of note. It proves conclusively that we are living in the last days; for if in the last days when Peter was preaching, how much more applicable must the term be now? The "last days" may include many days before the last day; that we are now in the very last days may be learned from other scriptures. It proves also that the gifts of the Spirit will be manifested, to a greater or less degree, even until the end of time; for the "last days" must include the last day. If it is true, as some claim, these peculiar manifestations of the Spirit ceased at the death of the apostles, then the Scripture has failed; but "the Scripture cannot be broken," we may still look for the out-pouring of the Spirit. We must then expect prophesying and visions even until the end; and this is just what Paul brings to view in Eph. 4 : 8-13. It is not said that every one shall prophesy, or see visions, or dream dreams, but the Spirit will operate this way upon some, "till we all come into the unity of the faith." There will always be many, as there were then, who will jeer and ridicule; but the "devout," candid persons will search to know what these things mean. OTHERS mocking said, "These men are full of new wine." There is a difference of opinion among authorities as to whether or not this "new wine" was intoxicating. Those who claim that it was, seem to derive their argument from Peter's defense—that they were not drunk. If it were true that the wine mentioned was of an intoxicating nature, the charge of drunkenness was most successfully refuted by Peter; for (1) it was not customary to be drunk in the daytime. See 1 Thess. 5 : 7; and (2) it was a regular practice with the Jews not to eat or drink anything until after the third hour of the day, on the Sabbath, and on all festival occasions. Sometimes they abstained from food and drink even till noon. So then it was impossible that they were drunk. But the weight of evidence favors the idea that the wine of which they spoke was the unfermented juice of the grape. See article on page 177. But if the "new wine" was not intoxicating, wherein lay the force of the charge? Bear in mind that no formal charge of drunkenness was made against the disciples. "Others mocking said," etc. The original word occurs but in one other place in the New Testament, Acts 17 : 32. It means, to jest, to joke, to jeer, to ridicule, to laugh at. In this case the ridicule consisted, as Prof. Isaac Hall says, in the implication that the new wine would be too much for the weak heads that were turned with the new doctrine. The Syriac version favors this view, rendering the passage thus: "Others however ridiculed them, saying: They have drunken new wine, and are intoxicated." This would indeed be ridicule; but if we understand that they really charged the disciples with being drunk, then it ceases to be ridicule, and becomes a serious matter, especially as this was a solemn feast-day. But there is no reason to suppose that these persons meant to make any charge against the disciples; they were merely light-headed fellows who were unable to resist the temptation to a joke, in order that they might laugh at their own cheap wit. Why, then, did Peter proceed to gravely refute the implied charge? Why did he not pass it by, or treat it as a joke? Because he was "filled with the Holy Ghost," and it did not become him to answer a fool according to his folly. The time was too solemn for jesting. Besides, the merest jest is often taken in earnest, and repeated as a fact. Their words might reach some who were not present, and seriously prejudice them against the apostles' work. So with becoming dignity, Peter settles the matter beyond dispute, and then goes on with his discourse. Preachers in modern times, who are handling sacred themes, may safely follow Peter's example on this occasion. The Day of Pentecost
By H. Clay Trumbull
'"WHEN the day of Pentecost was now come.' God's plans may seem to ripen slowly, but they ripen surely. The time of fulfilling every promise of his, and every type and symbol of his word, will not fail, however the days meanwhile may drag. The world waited long, from the first promise of the Messiah in Eden, to the birth of the Messiah-babe in Bethlehem. But in the fullness of time, the Messiah was here according to promise. It was a long time from the days of the prophet Joel to the day of Pentecost; but the day of Pentecost came, and with it all its foretold blessings. So now, the promised day of Christ's second coming will not fail, however it may seem to tarry. 'The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness. The day of the Lord will come.'" —H. Clay Trumbull, D. D. THE statement that justification by faith is counting one just, not by virtue of his own obedience, but by what another does for him, is strictly correct as far as it goes, but was not offered as giving a full and complete idea of the effects of justification in the gospel. It has been noticed that a guilty person may be guilty still, notwithstanding another may suffer because of his violation of the law. This is and has been the condition of the great majority of those for whom Christ died. Now if a person were set free merely on the ground that the penalty had been executed on a substitute, though the authority and integrity of the law would be vindicated, the government would have no security against his resuming a course of lawlessness; and the community would have no assurance that he would not again trample upon their rights. It is therefore evident that before a pardon can safely be granted to the transgressor, there must be given some guarantee in regard to his future conduct. To guard all interests; with mercy to unite justice to all parties, we shall need to inquire for a broader definition of justification by faith than that which we have considered. We should then define it as follows:— It is that change both in man's relations and condition by virtue of which (1) He is counted just as regards his past life, though his life has not been just; (2) The government and its subjects are guaranteed against future depredations; and (3) God may consistently accept his service as that of a loyal subject. By this it will be seen that it is necessary, not only to do a work for man but, also, in him, in order to his complete justification. While the act of laying the penalty upon a substitute vindicates the majesty of the law, a change of heart or of disposition, a thorough amendment of life, can only give that guarantee which is demanded for the future. And this is called conversion. Justification by faith embraces all this. With anything less than this we cannot imagine that any one would stand justified before God. The first point in the above list has been considered. The second needs no argument to sustain it; every one can see at a glance the reasonableness of the statement that both the government and the subjects are entitled to guarantees against future acts of lawlessness. But the third point will not be so apparent to every one, and will therefore need to be examined; for some may think it is consistent for God to accept the service of any one, at any time it may be offered, no matter what his past life may have been. We must differ with them. It would be a reproach to God and to his government to accept the service of any one except under proper conditions. Suppose a person who was born in a foreign land comes to the United States and proposes to take part in the execution of our laws. Of course his proposal is promptly rejected. But he urges his case in the following manner:— "In my native land I carefully examined the principles of your government, and admired them; therefore I am come to this country. I have read your laws; I think they are just. I am anxious to bear a part in executing them. I have an education superior to that of many who hold office in this country. I claim to have as good ability as they, and to love your government as well as they. Why, then, am I rejected from holding an office ?" "By birth you are a citizen of another government which is entirely different from this; and as such you are held under obligation to seek its welfare and to further its interests. We cannot know but you are even now acting under instructions from your sovereign. You must publicly renounce allegiance to him, and declare your allegiance to this government. You must be naturalized. Then you will no longer be regarded as an alien, but as an American citizen, and be entitled to all the privileges of one born in this country." This all can understand; its reasonableness all can see. Without such a safeguard as this enemies might come in and undermine our government by abusing and perverting its laws under pretence of executing them. And it is truly strange that any who love justice and good government, and who know that evil is in the world, and in the hearts of men, should stand in doubt as to the necessity of the gospel, to bring us into acceptance with God, and to fit us by a transformation of heart and life for a place in his service and at last in his kingdom. In the above illustration, so striking in every feature, we have only used the ideas given to us by the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians. He had before said to the Romans that of all the world, Jew and Gentile, there is none righteous, no, not one. Destruction and misery are in their ways. All stand guilty before God. In harmony with this he speaks of himself and of his brethren as being "by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Eph. 2. And of the brethren, Gentiles in the flesh, he says: "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." They who were the children of wrath, aliens and strangers, have their condition entirely changed through faith in Christ and by his blood. "Now therefore," continued the apostle, "ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." The gospel of Christ is the law of naturalization, by means of which aliens or foreigners are inducted into the household of God, and are made citizens of the commonwealth of Israel,—the Israel of God. In illustrations it is permitted to represent spiritual things by those which are natural; we have no other means of making comparisons which our minds can appreciate. But we must always remember that there is a depth to spiritual things which the natural cannot reach. A foreigner, dwelling in his native land, may have a high regard for the principles and the rulers of our government without disparagement to his loyalty to his own; because the two governments maintain friendly relations with each other. Each has its own territory, and each has paramount right and jurisdiction in its own dominion. But the very nature of the government of God forbids that there shall, in it, be any parallel to this condition. 1. His dominion, his right of jurisdiction, is universal. No contrary government has any right to exist. 2. His law, the rule of his government, is a moral law. It takes cognizance, not of actions alone, but of motives and intentions. 3. As no contrary rule has any right to exist, there can of right be no neutrality in case of usurpation or rebellion. When war is waged against a government, every good and loyal citizen is bound to support the government. A refusal to do so is equivalent to giving aid to the enemy. Now inasmuch as all have gone astray—all have departed from God—the world is in the condition of a mighty rebellion against its rightful ruler. There is a general disregard of his authority and of the rights of his subjects. And no one is on neutral ground; says the Governor, "He that is not for me is against me." And so far has man fallen from his "first estate," that it is declared that "the carnal mind," the natural, unchanged heart, "is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8:7. Hence, all are by nature the children of wrath, because all are aliens, or more properly, in a state of rebellion against the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Can any doubt the necessity of naturalization, or of the acceptance of the amnesty offered, that we may be brought into friendly and loyal relations to the one Lawgiver? Can any deny the reasonableness of the declaration, "Ye must be born again"? No one, we think, can now fail to see the correctness of our proposition that God cannot consistently accept or approve the action of any one in his natural state, or in carnal mindedness. Such a state being one of enmity against God, every action springing from the carnal or natural heart is an act of rebellion, because it is done in utter disregard of the authority of our rightful Sovereign. Every act has its spring in self-will; it proceeds from a spirit, which, if it could have undisputed sway, would dethrone Jehovah and substitute its own will for his. If any one has a remaining doubt of the truthfulness of this statement, let him look abroad upon the earth, and see its millions sunken to every depth of iniquity, "hateful, and hating one another." In truth, "the dark places of the earth are full of the habitations of cruelty." We might heighten the darkness of the picture should we stop to consider the infinite holiness of the character of God, and of the purity and spirituality of the divine law, of which we are all transgressors. But even with a very partial view the scene is dark enough to cause us to wonder at the forbearance of God, that he does not blot this rebellious province, made filthy by the evil practices of its inhabitants, out of existence.