p. 257 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 6, No. 22. (6/10/1880)

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM

THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM—NO. 9.

SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM.

THE saying is very old—"There are two sides to every question," and no one will contradict it. But when we come to examine the two sides, we find that they resolve themselves into a right side and a wrong side. There cannot be two sides equally right to any question.

We have said, and firmly believe, that in Biblical questions, the path of safety lies in keeping as strictly as possible to the exact terms of the Scriptures. But besides those who adhere to this principle and rest only on evidence positive or direct, there is, unfortunately, another class who place strong reliance upon that which is suppositive or inferential. Few Bible doctrines are difficult to understand if we confine ourselves to that which is revealed. They become difficult, and the ground of confusion, when inference takes the place of statement.

In regard to the subjects of baptism, we have some plain, undeniable statements in the Scriptures.

1. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Belief is here presented as preceding and prerequisite to baptism. Over this text there is no chance for dispute.

2. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized." Here repentance also precedes and is prerequisite to baptism. With so plain a statement, denial is impossible.

No text of Scripture is to be taken alone when others speak on the same subject. The two here quoted, one in the great commission and the other in its fulfillment, agree in their testimony, and they teach us that,—

3. Penitent believers are proper subjects of baptism.

But the texts quoted are given in an authoritative manner, and come with the power of a precept or law; and therefore we learn from them that,—

4. The requirement of baptism is a command; it is presented as a duty to be performed. Of course to be performed by the parties to whom reference is made,—penitent believers.

Thus far we stand on safe ground. The testimony challenges the approval of every reader. No one can, with the least show of reason or of reverence for the Scriptures, say that baptism is not a duty to those who believe the gospel; or that baptism is not a duty to those who repent; or that baptism is not a precept, and does not demand obedience. No one dares to assume these positions.

But now comes a class of persons who say they do not deny these statements; they only go beyond them, and insist that baptism is appropriately administered also to those who cannot believe, who cannot repent, and who cannot obey a precept. No direct or positive evidence is offered in favor of these positions; and we are called upon to examine whether the suppositions or inferences presented in their favor are just and necessary, or unjust and unnecessary. We think that, in the execution of a law, we have no more warrant to go beyond than to come short of its requirements. It is presumption, and opens the way to every usurpation of authority.

First in the order of inferential arguments in favor of the baptism of infants is this, that baptism stands related in the gospel as circumcision did in the first covenant; and as that related to infants, so must this. But the premise is defective, and the argument has no foundation in fact. A positive duty of the gospel must have some direct testimony in its favor. A small work in our possession lays down as the foundation of the argument for infant baptism this proposition: "Baptism is both a sign and a seal." No Scripture proof is offered to establish this proposition.

The argument proceeds on the hypothesis that as circumcision, which was a sign and seal, was applicable to infants to bring them into covenant relation to God, so baptism, which is a sign and seal, and thus answers to circumcision, is also necessary to bring infants into like covenant relation in this dispensation. The serious and fatal defect in this argument is, that baptism does not occupy, in the new covenant, the place which circumcision occupied in the old covenant. The advocates of that idea are justly held to bring some Scripture evidence to support it, as a supposed likeness of one to the other is no proof at all in such a case; but the Scriptures afford direct and positive disproof of it, by plainly declaring that the circumcision or seal of the new covenant is something else, namely, the Spirit of God in the heart of the believer.

We are well aware that in these statements we come into conflict with the feelings of many parents whose early training and constant thought in that direction, together with the idea that a real benefit is imparted to children in the rite, causes them to feel very deeply on the subject.

Said an aged friend, while the tears were starting from his eyes, "Would you not let us seal our children to the Lord?" We should readily answer in the affirmative if two necessary conditions were proved or could be proved: 1. That it is possible for us to seal our children, and, 2. That it is required of us in the Scriptures. It is not enough to show that it gratifies even our pious feelings, or to claim a pious use for the rite. All this has been urged in favor of every innovation and every error that has been brought into the church from the days of Tertullian and of Constantine to the present time. When we learn that the sign, or seal, of the new covenant is not outward, but is the circumcision of the heart by the operation of the Spirit, we perceive that it is impossible for us to affix the seal to any one. As we are not required to do that which is impossible, the Scriptures never intimate that any duty exists in that direction; but all religious observances, in absence of Scripture requirement, are will-worship.

Paul makes an important statement in regard to the relation of the seal, which is in perfect harmony with all the evidence that has been presented, but fatal to the idea of sealing infants. He says, "After that ye believed, ye were sealed." Eph. 1:13, 14. This is the only order admissible according to the Scriptures. And this text at once reverses the conclusion, and destroys the premise, of those who contend for infant baptismal sealing; it says: "After that ye believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance," the same as the sign or token, which outward circumcision was in the old covenant. No scripture says, Ye received the sign, or seal, or token, or earnest, of baptism; and no scripture says, Ye were sealed before ye believed. All that kind of talk is sheer assumption, and all assumptions on Bible doctrines are only hindrances to the progress of simple revealed truth.

The statements of the Scriptures in regard to the two rites of circumcision and baptism, are so different as to preclude any reasoning from one to the other. Were there no conditions stated concerning baptism,—were it left on conditions previously given, or were there any reasons given why the facts relating to one rite could be referred to the other,—the case would be quite different. It is distinctly stated that circumcision is to be performed when the subject is eight days old, and, of course, repentance and faith are not given as prerequisites to circumcision. It is never stated that baptism is to be administered at the age of eight days, or any number of days or years, but when the subjects receive the word preached, and repent of their sins. All efforts to enforce baptism, or to define the extent of its relations and application because of its supposed likeness to circumcision, are not only without any warrant of Scripture, but directly against the plainest statements of the Bible, where the two rites are defined.

Second in this line of inferences is the supposed reference to infants in certain promises made to your children, especially in Acts 2:38, 39: "The promise is unto you and to your children." But this argument is defective also, and the conclusion of gratuitous. The term children need not refer to infants, and in this and kindred texts does not refer to them, as may easily be shown.

"To you and to your children" refers to the Jewish people then present and to their posterity; while "all that are afar off" refers to the Gentiles. The first statement is proved by such texts as Gen. 45:21; "the children of Israel" referred only to the adult sons of Jacob who went into Egypt to buy food; and so in numerous instances. So also in the New Testament. "They which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham." Gal. 3:7. "Ye are the children of the prophets." Acts 3:25, and others. The second statement, that the Gentiles are referred to as "afar off," is proved by Eph. 2; the apostle declares to the Gentiles that the gospel was preached "to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh," by which means Jews and Gentiles are made both one, the Gentiles being also "made nigh by the blood of Christ." Nothing may be inferred from Acts 2:39, in reference to infants, or to irresponsible little children.

The inference is not only unnecessary, but is actually forbidden by the connection.

The promise is so related to conditions to be fulfilled that an application to infants is out of the question.

1. The promise is made to those whom the Lord our God shall call. But infants are not subjects of any calling.

2. The promise is on condition of repentance. But infants cannot repent.

3. The promise is on condition of obeying the precept to be baptized. But infants cannot obey any precept.

4. The requirement to repent refers only to sinners, and that to be baptized is for the remission of sin. But infants have no sins of which to repent, or to have remitted. The last two propositions call for more extended notice.

No one can possibly deny that baptism is always presented in the New Testament as a commandment to be obeyed, and never as a blessing to be passively received. The writer once asked an aged friend if the duty to be baptized is not that found in a commandment. The answer was promptly given in the affirmative. Next the question, "Does an infant when it is baptized (if it were baptized), obey the commandment?" The answer was, "No; it is not the obedience of the child; it is obedience on the part of the parent." Then followed the important question, "When the child grows up to manhood and personally accepts the Saviour, will you baptize him in your church, if he asks for baptism?" "No," was the answer; "for he was once baptized, and it is wrong to repeat it."

The conclusion is evident; it is even in the answer. It was not obedience on the part of the child, and if he grows to age, and believes and repents, the church will not permit him to obey; the action of the parent having forestalled his obedience! Can this be right? How can it be defended? Can a church lawfully adopt rules which are not laid down in the Scriptures, which prevent obedience to those which are given in the Scriptures? But this is exactly the case with infant baptism. Religious duties cannot be discharged—commandments cannot be obeyed—by proxy. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you," is the authoritative precept which sounds in every sinner's ears; and no action of man, either priest or parent, can absolve from the duty to obey this precept. Here is an indictment of infant baptism from which its friends can never rescue it.

Again, as baptism stands related to repentance on the part of the subject, and the remission of sin, it cannot be appropriately administered to infants; for they have neither ability nor need to repent. Repentance is for sin committed, and remission is for those only who have committed sin; and these do not apply to innocents. To relieve the practice from this difficulty, the weak pretext has been framed that they are baptized because of the sin of Adam! for to this amounts the assertion that they are baptized for original sin, or to obviate natural depravity. This idea has led further to a wrong estimate of, and false dependence on, baptism. The idea of baptismal regeneration is inseparably connected with infant baptism. They are not only connected by logical sequence, but they stand connected in the writings of the advocates of the practice. On this point we must make some quotations.

I LOOK at time as one who sees A pale leaf floating on the breeze Amid a grove of noble trees. It fills awhile a little nook; To-day it is—to-morrow, look! The great white throne! the open book! We stand upon a narrow space, Eternity rolls on apace— Where next shall be our resting-place?

THE eye of true faith is so quick-sighted that it can see through all the mists and fogs of difficulties. The faith that is grounded on the promises of God, discovers that in prison there is liberty; in trouble, peace; in affliction, comfort; in death, life; in the cross, a crown; and in a manger, the Lord Jesus.

Actions, Looks, Words, and Steps

ACTIONS, looks, words, steps, form the alphabet by which you may spell character.

Habits

HABITS.—"There are habits," says Paley, "not only of drinking, swearing, and lying and of some other things which are commonly acknowledged to be habits, but of every modification of action, speech, and thought. Man is a bundle of habits. There are habits of industry, attention, vigilance, advertency; of a prompt obedience to the judgment occurring, or of yielding to the first impulse of passion; of extending our views to the future, or of resting upon the present; of apprehending, methodizing, reasoning; of indolence, dilatoriness; of vanity, self-conceit, melancholy, partiality; of fretfulness, suspicion; captiousness, censoriousness; of pride, ambition, covetousness; of overreaching, intriguing, projecting; in a word, there is not a quality or function, either of body or mind, which does not feel the influence of this great law of animated nature."

The Sabbath School.

By William Clarence White

TIME TO STUDY.

WHEN urging our scholars to a more thorough study of the lessons, we are often told that it is impossible to find time, and we as often think of the little boy who after a severe whipping, was asked if he would be good answered "I can't find time." We often make this an excuse for neglecting these things we do not especially enjoy; and we too often find time to do those things which do not benefit us and are not necessary. This is well illustrated by the following paragraph from the S. S. Times:—

We always find time to do the one thing which we feel is most important of all to be done. We are always ready to do one thing more for the person who is dearer to us than all the world besides. Whatever and whoever are left unattended to, in our daily life, are crowded out by something, or some one, deemed worthier of our first attention. All our activities, therefore, and all our endeavors, are materially shaped by our desires and our affections. How important then that we give the first place in our love and longings to the persons who, and the things which, ought to be foremost. The old German symbolist tells of a lock shown to Gotthold, which was constructed of separate rings, on each of which was a letter, and the lock could be opened only when those rings were arranged to spell a word to which they had been set by him who closed it. This made Gotthold long to have a lock on his heart set to the name of Jesus; and his prayer was, "Lord Jesus, engrave thou thy name with thine own finger upon my heart, that it may remain closed to worldly joy and worldly pleasure, self-interest, fading honor, and low revenge, and open only to thee." How many of our hearts are so set that they will open readiest of all to that name.

W. C. White.

THE RELAPSE OF FAITH.

PETER was in prison. Herod meant to kill him after the Passover. But the Christian friends of Peter did not forget him. "Ceaseless prayer" was offered up for his deliverance. A special prayer-meeting was held at the house of Mary Mark for that purpose. It was a solemn time. James was dead; his blood even then reddened the ground. Was Peter to die too? His precious life hung in the balance. Unless God stepped beyond the operation of natural laws to interfere in his behalf, his useful years must end. They believed God could do it. They had not yet learned that God was a slave to the laws himself hath made, and could not suspend their operation, or go beyond it for man's good, and in answer to prayer. It was left for the unbelief of a succeeding age to shut God up in a network of law, from which he could not escape.

They asked God, in the simplicity of their faith, to deliver Peter from jail; and God did it. While they were praying and believing, there was a knock at the door. Rhoda, a young girl who was there with them praying, tripped softly to the door, and asked, "Who is there?" "It is I—Peter."

Immediately her soul overflowed with joy. "Glory to God! He has heard our prayers; Peter is free!"

She did not even think to open the door, but ran back crying to the others, "Peter is free; he is out of jail!"

Did they rejoice, praising God, too? No; they would not believe her word, but said, "Thou art mad!" Strange relapse into unbelief! Had been praying in faith for this very thing, and now when their prayer was answered in full, and one of their number reported Peter standing at the outer gate, free and well, they swung back into unbelief, and said it could not be. How natural is unbelief! Thus, you young convert, when under conviction of sin, prayed God to forgive you, and convert your soul. It was done. You were filled with the light of the morning. Joy, like a flood, poured in upon your soul, and testified of God's grace.

But in a little while, the tempter suggested that it was a delusion, and you said "Oh, I am afraid that I was mistaken!" You relapsed again into unbelief.

Mother, your child was sick. The crisis came; you knelt by the bedside; how you prayed God to raise your child; it was done. Next morning, when the physician came, he said the child was better, and would recover. Did you praise God for it? No; you hardly remembered that you had prayed to him in behalf of your child. You praised the physician, recommending him to all your acquaintances, but said nothing about the Great Physician, to whom you had applied in your trouble; you suffered relapse of faith.

Or, you were sick yourself. The tide of life ran far down. Physicians gave you up. Some dear friend knelt at your side as knelt Luther at the side of the sick Melancthon, and wrestled with God for you. You felt in your soul that his prayer saved you.

But as you got better, you became ashamed of that impression, and spake not of it, lest some one should consider you a fanatic; for that kind of faith is not fashionable in the churches. You relapsed into unbelief.

Or, you were in a financial strait; your note in bank was maturing. You had asked help all around among your friends. No help was found; ruin stared you full in the face. You got down on your knees, and asked God to help you in some way; and, in a most unlooked-for way, the help came, and you were out of jail.

But did you glorify God for deliverance? No; you almost forgot that you had prayed, or if you remembered it, perhaps you were ready to think your deliverance as much due to your own perseverance and skill, and to luck, as to any interference on the part of God. So you yielded to unbelief.—Methodist Home Journal.

God’s Two Thrones

God has two thrones: one in the highest heavens; the other in the lowliest hearts.

THE POWER OF DEATH.

THERE is no empire so vast as the empire of death. Kings and conquerors, emperors and nobles, men of wisdom, valor, and strength, all bow their head at the touch of the grim destroyer. Over the human family he rules with a sceptre of supreme and unmitigated despotism. He breaks the strong and crushes the weak. He drives the plowshare of distruction through families and homes. He severs the tenderest ties, and treads beneath his iron hoof the broken hearts of stricken and desolate humanity. Every flower fades at his touch. Beauty vanishes at his breath. Pride and glory go down into common and undistinguishable ruin before him. He reaches for the highest, he slays the mightiest, he brings low the honored and the exalted.

Even Christ himself, the Son of God and heir of all things, the Anointed of the Lord, bowed his head beneath the dominion of the king of terrors. But at last the Conqueror of death had appeared. He who died on Calvary lives at God's right hand. He who entered Joseph's tomb burst asunder the bars of death, and flung wide the gates of hell. He says, "I am he that liveth and was dead, and behold I am alive for-evermore, and have the keys of death and of hell." He breaks the sceptre of the tyrant, he snaps his chains asunder. He says to his disciples, "Because I live, ye shall live also." He leaves a shining pathway through the valley of the shadow of death, and calls his people to follow him in resurrection life. Even in this world, dying to sin, buried with him by baptism, quickened by his grace, raised to walk in newness of life, they prefigure and anticipate that victory over death which shall leave the king of terrors without a captive or a subject, to be cast by the Almighty hand into the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. Christ through death destroyed him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; and delivers those who through fear of death were all their life time subject to bondage. Their wails of sorrow are changed to songs of triumph; their fears and anxieties give place to hopes that find anchorage within the veil. They sing amid the deathshades, and they sink to their rest with a smile of victory playing on their pallid faces. All things are theirs, whether life or death; and they wait the morning when He who abolished death in his own body, shall interpose on behalf of his people, and shall swallow up death in full and final and eternal victory.

Christian soldiers, partakers of the resurrection life of a risen and ascended Lord, be strong in God. Fear not; your conflicts are brief, your trials are but for a little while, your light affliction is but for a moment. Bereavements and mournings and separations will soon be over, and then shall come the final victory, the eternal psalm, the palms that never wither, the crowns that never fade, the harps of gladness, the garments of praise, and the life eternal in the kingdom of our God.—Christian.

BOOKS FOR TEACHERS AND BIBLE STUDENTS.

By William Clarence White

We are glad to notice an increasing desire among our teachers, to become better skilled in the methods of teaching, and to provide themselves with the best aids for collecting the right matter to present to their classes. Many teachers have secured the few good books recommended in the SIGNS, and the result of thorough preparation begins to manifest itself in better teaching.

This week we make a valuable addition to our list of books for students and teachers, in Case's Bible Atlas. This book fills an important place in the Bible students' library. We have examined many books of this kind which were too expensive and yet too limited. This Atlas though quite comprehensive is of light expense.

Next to an understanding of Scripture narrative, it is important to know where the events of Bible history transpired. A general knowledge of Bible geography is essential to a full appreciation and understanding of the history under examination.

It is true that a knowledge of geography is a mere skeleton without the narrative, and equally true that sacred history is often a shapeless mass of events in the mind of the student who has not studied carefully the relative position and surroundings of the places with which the history deals. Bible history and Bible geography should be studied together, they cannot be separated.

Let a general outline of the geography of Bible lands be firmly fixed in the mind, and a new interest attaches to all Bible history. As we locate each event it seems more real. Parents should instruct their children more thoroughly in this branch of Bible knowledge. W. C. WHITE.

VALUABLE BOOKS FOR BIBLE STUDENTS.

Case's Bible Atlas. A new and comprehensive atlas to illustrate the Old and New Testaments, containing fifteen maps with explanatory notes on each map, and a full and accurate index. Also an article on the Jewish and Roman modes of computing time mentioned in the Scriptures. List of maps:—

Distribution of Nations after the Deluge.
Gentile Countries, and Nations of the Old Testament.
The Exodus, or Journeyings of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan.
Modern Egypt and Sinai (Physical).
Holy Land as allotted by Joshua to the Twelve Tribes of Israel.
Kingdoms of Judah and Israel.
United Kingdom of Saul, David, and Solomon.
Lands of the Jewish Captivities.
Plan of Ancient Jerusalem.
Solomon's Temple and the Tabernacle (Bird's-eye View).
Palestine in the time of our Lord.
Modern Palestine (Physical).
Sea of Galilee and Environs of Jerusalem.
St. Paul's Journeys.
Modern Jerusalem.
Prevailing Religions of the World.

The maps are clearly lettered and distinctly printed, and the index is more complete and perfect than we have seen in any other Bible Atlas. Over a thousand places are given in alphabetical order, with figures showing the map in which it is given and letters indicating the latitude and longitude near which the place will be found.

Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal.

DOCTOR BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.

By Editor

THERE are two expressions in the quotations we gave last week which call for notice. One is, that the "earnest Christians of the different churches" are "the sinners saved by their ministry." We are not going to deny that there are many sinners in the different churches who greatly need to be saved. The Lord says, "Cry aloud, spare not, . . . show my people their transgressions." "Sin is the transgression of the law," and when God's professed people "make void the law," or teach "for doctrines the commandments of men," and "make the commandment of God of none effect by their tradition," this cry ought to be heard. God's truth must be vindicated. But if the Doctor intends to insinuate, as we think he does, that none but members of other churches are converted by our ministry, then his words are unjust. It is a misrepresentation. It is a matter of personal experience with us that the preaching of the fulfillment of prophecy (too much neglected by the popular ministry), has power to convert unbelievers now, as it had in the days of the apostles. In those days appeals were made to the "sure word of prophecy," and preaching consisted in expounding the words which the prophets have spoken. Essays on everything but the Bible, styled sermons, were not then in vogue. And the prophecies are yet being fulfilled. Therefore it is still "present truth" to proclaim their fulfillment. We have seen many infidels led to a belief in the Bible, and to lives of faith and prayer, by the preaching of Seventh-day Adventists. We regret that the Doctor has suffered his prejudice to lead him to do us such injustice.

The other expression is found in the following words:— "The day kept is holy because of the act of obedience; and the moral quality of the act, as in all cases, is found in the intention."

The first part of this quotation was noticed, and its falsity exposed, last week. The last part he does not use lawfully. It is true that intention determines, to a large extent, the quality of an action. But we would ask him, Does the sanctity of the Sabbath depend on the intention of the keeper or breaker thereof? If it does, as he intimates, then if all should unite in desecrating the Sabbath, as an institution it would cease to exist! Thus man could utterly annihilate one of the ten commandments by disregarding it! This is surely so if "the day kept is holy because of the act of obedience." If there were no obedience there would be no holy day—no holy Sabbath, and the commandment would refer to a myth. Does the Doctor really believe this? Are his eminent indorsers prepared to accept it? We venture that not one of them dares to accept this conclusion, and yet they take this very position in their zeal to put down the seventh day. Such declarations are unworthy of review; notice of them is only called for by the prominence given to them by bodies of learned men, and editors of religious papers. We sincerely wish that some of the admirers of such arguments would try to vindicate the conclusions to which they logically tend. It would furnish a rare treat in "theology."

We come now to chapter 2. The burden of this chapter is to make it appear that a new Sabbath was instituted in the wilderness of Sin, according to Ex. 16. (We incline to the opinion that all the theories of new Sabbaths, as substitutes for the Lord's Sabbath, take their origin in "the wilderness of sin," but not that one in Arabia.) We quote his words:—

"In this chapter we have a historical account of the institution of the Jewish Sabbath. The manna fell on the morning of the 16th, and fell regularly for six consecutive nights. On the morning of the 22d of the month, as Moses had foretold them, there was no manna. It was the Sabbath. Had it been on the day of the Patriarchal Sabbath, the seventh day preceding (which was the 15th day of the month) would also have been the Sabbath; but, as the record shows, the fifteenth day, just one week previous to the day on which no manna was found, was a secular day. Had it been holy, the pillar of cloud would have hovered over the camp, and the people would have remained in their tents all day. Now one of two hypotheses must be true; either this Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin is a new institution, or the day of the Patriarchal Sabbath was changed. That it was a Jewish Sabbath day, ordained for a single purpose, is evident from the record."

If Dr. Benson had made it his endeavor to crowd many errors into a small space he might be proud of his achievement. Let the reader carefully note the record, and see if he can find any evidence that the Sabbath of Ex. 16 was then first given. If the record shows it, then why did Dr. Clarke use the following language on this chapter?—

"There is nothing either in the text or context, that seems to intimate that the Sabbath was now first given to the Israelites, as some have supposed; on the contrary, it is here spoken of as being perfectly well known, from its having been generally observed."

That is to say, the Sabbath of Ex. 16 was one well known and not a new one. What light has Dr. Benson got on this chapter that Dr. Clarke did not have?

We will state a few points, which we wish the reader to carefully note, and then examine the ground of the Dr.'s conclusion.

1. There is no intimation in Ex. 16 of a Sabbath being then instituted. If any one dissents, we will thank him to point to the verse or sentence which will show our error.

2. The Sabbath of Ex. 16 is every time called "the seventh day," without any explanation, which would be necessary if it was different from that seventh day, namely, of the week, which God sanctified from creation.

3. There is no reason given in Ex. 16 why the seventh day, or any day, is the Sabbath. That information we gather elsewhere. As Dr. Clarke truthfully said, there is no intimation of the introduction of a new Sabbath in Ex. 16.

4. There is no act recorded in Ex. 16 which bears resemblance to erecting or introducing a new institution. No day was then sanctified for any purpose or reason.

5. The manna was withheld on the seventh day, not to constitute it a Sabbath, but, because it was the Sabbath. The fact of its having been constituted a Sabbath, long before that time, we learn in Gen. 2:3, and Ex. 20:8-11.

Again we invite any one to point to one sentence in the record which will invalidate these positions. Now we will notice what Dr. Benson assumes to arrive at his conclusion, for which he has not offered one particle of proof.

1. He assumes that all the murmuring of the people, as recorded in this chapter, occurred on the very day of their arrival in the wilderness of Sin. If this is not true his fabric falls to the ground. But he offers no proof that it is true, for he has none.

2. He assumes that the quails fell on their encampment the very day of their arrival there. We say of this as we said of the first. We wait for the proof.

3. He assumes that the manna began to fall on the 16th day of the month. We want something more than his assertion to be assured of any such fact. He cannot possibly know that it is so.

4. He assumes that the manna fell a full week, or six successive days before the Sabbath. For ought he or any one knows it may have first fallen in the middle of the week. It would not affect the Sabbath in either case. He only asserts; let him bring his proof.

5. He assumes that a new Sabbath was set up in the wilderness of Sin; of which no intimation is given in the sacred record.

6. He assumes that the Sabbath of Ex. 16 was not the Patriarchal Sabbath, though it is introduced, as Dr. Clarke remarks, as a new institution, but as one well known.

7. To meet the demands of this assumption he further assumes that the Sabbath of Ex. 16 was on the sixth day of the week, the record positively and repeatedly says it was the seventh day. There is no intimation in all the Bible that any other day was ever blessed, hallowed, or constituted a weekly Sabbath than that seventh day upon which Jehovah rested when he made the heavens and the earth.

And to prove by his own showing that he does not know the day of the week on which they came to the wilderness of Sin, and how long the manna fell before that Sabbath mentioned in Ex. 16, we have only to refer to his mention of their leaving Rameses on the 15th day of the first month. He says: "It was probably on the sixth day of the week, Friday." He does not even give a reason why that is probable. But if he cannot establish that, how can he establish the day of the week of the 15th of the next month? Any reader can see that his conclusions are based on conjectures and assumptions contrary to the direct words of the sacred record.

He concedes that the Sabbath was regarded before the exode. He says they could not have left Egypt "on the seventh day, as that was the Patriarchal Sabbath. God would not have his people enter upon a long and laborious journey on that day which he himself had hallowed."

This contradicts all that he has said about the holiness of the day depending on the act of obedience. He acknowledges here that God had hallowed it previously, and independently of their obedience. And this every one knows is truth. The only wonder is that he had the temerity to deny it. But according to his statements and calculations, the 16th day of the second month was on the Patriarchal Sabbath, and this day they first gathered manna (he says), which the Lord would not permit them to do on the Sabbath! "Your ways are not equal."

We come now to the climax of absurdities, and errors. He knows that his calculation thus far would leave the Israelites with two weekly Sabbaths—one on the sixth day, and one on the seventh day. In this manner he disposes of this difficulty, speaking of giving the law:—

"The deliverance from captivity is not mentioned. The day of the Jewish Sabbath, however, was retained, the two Sabbaths were blended and kept on the same day. The two-fold memorial was kept, the Patriarchal day dropping back to the time of the Jewish Sabbath, the day was to be as long as the dispensation continued."

By the day of the Jewish Sabbath he means the sixth day, or the day preceding the "Patriarchal Sabbath" which was the seventh day. And the seventh day Sabbath then dropped back upon the sixth day Sabbath, and the seventh day and the sixth day were one and the same thereafter! Or, God's sanctified seventh day was thereafter observed on the sixth day, which is precisely the same thing. Here a couplet of Dr. Young's rises to our mind:—

"If anger rise, let anger be my praise, And sin the grateful indignation raise."

We are not sure that reverence will permit us to altogether restrain our indignation at such an abuse of the word and institutions of the Most High. Where did the Doctor learn all this? Not from the Bible, for there is no intimation there of such a thing as the "dropping back" of the Lord's Sabbath to a day which was not his Sabbath—which he had not sanctified. He does not venture to give a line of proof to justify this bold assertion. It rests solely upon his word. Did the Jews themselves ever know anything of the instituting of a sixth-day Sabbath? They never heard of it. Did they know that the seventh-day Sabbath was dropped back to the sixth day? They did not. Moses and the prophets "died without the sight," and it was reserved to Dr. Benson to make the grand discovery, which throws all the inventions of Edison into the shade,—before which even the electric light grows dim. Where did the Doctor find this wondrous light, concerning which the Bible is silent, and of which the people to whom "were committed the oracles of God" were ignorant? Reader, we can tell you. He found it in the necessity of his Sunday theory! It was "hard up" for arguments. The Seventh-day Adventists had taken the word of God and demolished its traditional citadels. They had convinced "good, honest, earnest Christians" that Sabbath-keeping and Sunday-keeping are not the same thing—that to keep "the Sabbath day according to the commandment," we must keep the seventh day, and not the first day of the week. To save "the venerable day of the sun," these flimsy conjectures are invented, of which the Bible does afford the faintest shadow of proof.

We have now examined all there is of the foundation of his argument. We will notice his conclusions hereafter.

The Measure of Self-Denial

If we are willing to do what nobody else will do, to go where nobody else will go, to bear what nobody else will bear, it is then we are arriving at the point of self-denial required in the Scriptures.

Continue reading: THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT