Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 49, No. 5.

Achan's Treasure
Earlier text: Achan's Treasure

TO-DAY

By Frank Stark

Much stress is laid on the “to-day” of Luke 23:43, as it is supposed to refer to the time that Christ and the thief should meet in Paradise; but did either of them enter Paradise that day? Jesus told Mary two days after, that he had not yet ascended to his Father; and from the united testimony of Rev. 22:1, 2; 2:7; and 2 Cor. 12:2-4, we learn that the throne of the Father, to whom Christ had not yet ascended, is in Paradise. Here is positive evidence that Jesus did not enter Paradise the day of crucifixion. Did the thief enter Paradise that day? Scripture does not speak of him after this mention. Certainly it will not be claimed that he entered there before his death. Did he die that day? We may judge of the probabilities of the case from the length of time persons usually lived after crucifixion. Here is a testimony to the point, a comment on Mark 15:44:—
“Pilate was at first surprised at the request of Joseph, thinking it highly improbable that he [Jesus] should be dead in so short a time. He had, indeed, given orders for the soldiers to break the legs of the crucified persons; but he knew it was common for them to live many days after that operation was performed; for, though the pain they felt must have been exquisite to the last degree, yet, as the vital parts remained untouched, life would continue some time in the mortal body.”—Sacred Biography and History of the Bible, by Osmond Tiffany, p. 437.
The only reasonable explanation of Luke 23:43, is, that our Lord used the phrase “To-day” to give force to his assertion, in accordance with Scripture usage, as in Zech. 9:12. Verily, I say unto thee to-day, thou shalt be with me in Paradise [when I come into my kingdom]. FRANK STARK.

THERE ARE NO TEARS IN HEAVEN.

By Marion A. Hanson

Who would not wish to dwell where tears are shed no more, where no billows of sorrow roll over the soul, and where the heart is no longer crushed by its weight of trouble? Death will have no power to snatch the loved ones from that blessed abode. No rude storms or raging blasts sweep across those ethereal skies. There bright flowers will never fade. There will friend meet friend to part no more. What is earth compared with that glorious rest? All things of this earth are fading, and will soon pass away; but Heaven will last forever. Why is it that so many are seeking pleasures here, and are not looking above for that which is incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away? Truly, their eyes are blinded that they cannot see.
But although they may raise the siren song of peace and safety, yet there is a day coming of darkness and desolation. In that day, wealth, friends, and worldly power will avail nothing; but a well-grounded hope in God will be worth everything. There is a little space left us to seek righteousness, that we may stand in the trying time before us. Shall we neglect these precious moments? Shall the world with its glittering pleasures and its giddy mirth have power to close our eyes against the truth, and we spend the time of probation in thoughtless gayety? God forbid that such should be the case with any who have professed to be the followers of Jesus, and have looked forward with longing hearts to his appearing. But if we would escape, we must be zealous and repent. A mere profession will not save any. Doubly great will be the condemnation of those who know their Master’s will and do it not. It is my daily prayer that none of us who have named the name of Jesus may be among that number who shall call for the rocks and mountains to fall on them and hide them from the presence of the Holy One.
It will be through great sufferings and tribulation that we shall enter our Father’s home; but when we are safely there, we shall rejoice that we were made partakers of Christ’s sufferings here, that we might share the glory with him in his Father’s kingdom.
MARION A. HANSON.

THE GOSPEL APPLICATION.

By N. W. Vincent

Doth God so pure, so great and good, Love me who have his grace withstood? Can He, to whom all things are known, Claim one so guilty, vile, his own?
“We are his offspring,” wilt thou dare To think for thee he hath no care? Midst rain and sunshine freely given, Wilt thou thus doubt the grace of Heaven?
“God loved the world;” O trembling heart, Art thou not of the world a part? Christ did no sin for which to die, Why did he die? my soul, oh! why?
For all mankind was Christ made sin, Canst thou, my mind, this truth take in? Not for a part, but for the whole; Will grace like that reach thee, my soul?
“Freely for all”—yes, now I see Christ died in love for even me; My sins were on his body laid, His blood as price for me was paid.
Then I am Christ’s, to him I’ll live, Who did himself for me thus give; Praise God! Oh! may his Spirit given Draw all our hearts to Christ and Heaven.
N. W. VINCENT.

A CONSCIENTIOUS DOG.

I had this dog for several years, and had never, even in his puppyhood, known him to steal. On the contrary, he used to make an excellent guard to protect property from other animals, servants, etc., even those who were his best friends. [Mr. Romans here adds in a note: “I have seen this dog escort a donkey which had baskets on its back filled with apples. Although the dog did not know he was being observed by anybody, he did his duty with the utmost faithfulness; for every time that the donkey turned back its head to take an apple out of the basket, the dog snapped at his nose; and such was his watchfulness that, although his companion was keenly desirous of tasting some of the fruit, he never allowed him to get a single apple during the half hour they were left together. I have also seen this terrier protecting meat from other terriers (his sons), which lived in the same house with him, and with which he was on the very best of terms. Most curious still, I have seen him seize my wristbands while they were being worn by a friend to whom I had temporarily lent them.”]
Nevertheless, on one occasion he was very hungry, and in the room where I was reading, and he was sitting, there was, within easy reach, a savory mutton-chop. I was greatly surprised to see him remove this chop and take it under the sofa. However, I pretended not to observe what had occurred, and waited to see what would happen next. For fully a quarter of an hour this terrier remained under the sofa without making a sound, but doubtless enduring an agony of contending feelings. Eventually, however, conscience came off victorious, for, emerging from his place of concealment, and carrying in his mouth the stolen chop, he came across the room and laid the tempting morsel at my feet. The moment he dropped the stolen property he bolted again under the sofa, and from this retreat no coaxing could draw him for several hours afterward. Moreover, when, during that time he was spoken to or petted, he always turned away his head in a ludicrously conscience-stricken manner. Altogether, I do not think it would be possible to imagine a more satisfactory exhibition of conscience by an animal than this, for it must be remembered that the particular animal in question was never beaten in his life.—Quarterly Journal of Science.

Putting Rosy Sunshine Into Ordinary Lives

So, for my part, I said to myself as I walked home, if I can put one touch of rosy sunshine into the life of any man or woman of my care, I shall feel that I have worked with God. He is in no haste; and if I do what I may in earnest, I need not mourn if I work no great work in the earth. Let God make his sunsets, I will mottle my little, fading cloud. To brush with gentle hand the earth stain from the white of one snow-drop—such be my ambition.

Men's Three Divisions of Proper Business

MEN’S proper business in this world falls mainly into three divisions: First, to know themselves and the existing state of things they have to do with. Secondly, to be happy in themselves and in the existing state of things. Thirdly, to mend themselves and the existing state of things as far as either is marred and mendable.

THE CONSTITUTION.

By C. W. S.

The Evolution, a paper lately started in New York, proposes a convention for the revision of the Constitution of the United States. It argues that the Constitution was framed for a smaller nation than ours has now become, and that the fact, that amendments have been made, and others proposed, points to the desirableness of a general revision. It says, “Congress is but poorly fitted for the task of overhauling the Constitution, . . . and the work should be intrusted to a body composed, in the main, of a different class.”
The Christian Statesman, in commenting upon the same, says, “We do not join, however, in the demand for such a convention. Desirable as it may seem on many accounts, the nation is not ready for it. We are just entering on the most important controversy of our whole history—the discussion of the relation which we bear as a nation to the Christian religion. Until that question has been practically settled, in some decisive way, as the question of slavery was settled by the war, we do not wish to see such a convention. Perhaps, when we reach the centennial anniversary of the adoption of our present constitution, in the year 1887, we may have reached the solution of the many questions involved in this one great issue. If so, we should be glad to see that date signalized by the careful and solemn revision of the great instrument under which we have lived so long.”
Whether this revision will be delayed till 1887, we cannot say; but a powerful element is at work to bring it to pass in due time, and every year adds to its power and influence. In the same number of the Statesman is an extract from the Christian Advocate, “the great official newspaper of the Methodist Episcopal Church,” from which we quote the following:—
“Our government is Christian de facto. It is true, it does not recognize Christianity in all possible ways, but it does in ways sufficiently numerous and fundamental to make it, and label it, a ‘Christian government.’ As examples of these ‘ways’ it mentions the facts that all oaths are administered on the Bible, chaplaincies are instituted in legislatures, &c., ‘that the Christian Sabbath is recognized and protected,’ no court of justice being allowed to sit on that day, or contract made on that day being binding, &c.”
But the Statesman does not like to allow that the nation is quite as thoroughly Christian as the Advocate makes it. It says, “We deem it necessary also to say that while the American government is unquestionably Christian in a certain sense, it is by no means thoroughly or consistently so. And our Constitution or fundamental law is not distinctly Christian at all. It is the fruit and product of Christianity, as all justice and liberty in modern society are, but it contains no recognition of the source from which itself and all such beneficent instruments, have flowed. It contains no acknowledgment of the truth or the authority of the Christian religion, which alone can preserve to us these inestimable blessings. It supplies no legal basis for these very Christian features of the government, out of which the Advocate weaves its argument, and when they are assailed, as they are, constantly and bitterly, it gives them no protection. Nay, the Constitution itself is constantly employed as the great weapon of assault upon them, and with no inconsiderable success. Therefore the controversy and struggle for the maintenance of these features of our government, must eventually lead, if successful, to the religious amendment of the Constitution. This is inevitable, just because ours is a constitutional government, and all great questions must be finally settled, as was the debate between slavery and freedom, by constitutional provision. The work of the National Reform Association, which is ‘to maintain existing Christian features in the American government and to secure a religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States,’ seems to us, therefore, eminently patriotic and statesmanlike.”
The Statesman would have the Constitution so amended as to put “these very Christian features of the government” on a “legal basis,” that “when they are assailed” they may be protected by law. When the “Christian Sabbath,” the main “feature” in the case, finds itself thus protected, it will not be slow in asserting its importance, and defending its rights.
The Advocate, however, puts the case so strong as to make these “features” not particularly dependent upon the State, but the State upon the “features.” These are its closing words:—
“Christianity asks no favor of the State, any more than gravitation asks favor of matter. It can take care of itself and matter too. Christianity asks no protection. You might as well talk of protecting the ocean, the atmosphere, the light of the sun, gravitation, or electricity. They can protect themselves and their subjects too. Christianity is not dependent upon the State, but the State is dependent upon Christianity. And so we demand the admission and recognition of Christianity as the grand life-giving and conserving power, without which the State is doomed.” C. W. S.

VALUABLE TESTIMONY.

By C. S.

Perhaps the most prominent object in all the field of prophecy is the papacy. The references to it are more numerous, and the testimony concerning it more explicit, than those which pertain to many if not to any other of the prophetic themes; and the 1260 years of its continuance is the grand trunk with which many other lines of prophecy connect, both at its beginning and termination.
One of the clearest declarations of the Scriptures concerning it is that so long as paganism continued the religion of the Roman empire, it hindered the development of the papacy; but that paganism should give way before it, and give it its seat. “The dragon [paganism],” says John, “gave to the beast [the papacy] his seat [the city of Rome], and power and great authority.” Rev. 13 : 2. And Paul, predicting the rise of the papacy, presented the same fact when he said, “Only he who now letteth [hindereth, that is, paganism] will let [or hinder] till he be taken out of the way. And then shall that wicked [the papacy] be revealed,” &c. 2 Thess. 2 : 7.
It is a fact worthy of notice that papists themselves acknowledge this connection of the papacy with the preceding empire; that is, that the old Roman empire gave up its place and power to the papacy.
Damian, the monk, thus addressed Hildebrand (Gregory VII., who was pope from A. D. 1073 to 1085):— “I have committed to your hands the keys of the universal church. The king of the Roman empire being taken away, I have given to you the rights of his throne that is vacant.”—Dr. Cumming’s Apocalyptic Sketches, p. 461.
An orator of the 10th session of the 5th Lateran Council, A. D. 1512, thus addressed the pope:— “Constantine, inspired by divine grace, fully surrendered the sceptre of the empire of the world and of the city [i. e., Rome] to the true Creator, God and man, in his Roman seat, to Sylvester the Pope, in the ancient right of Christ, the eternal priest.”—Id.
Machiavel’s History of Florence says:— “When the emperor of Rome left Rome to dwell at Constantinople, the Roman empire began to decline, but the church of Rome augmented as fast. Nevertheless, after the coming in of the Lombards, all Italy lay under the dominion of emperors or kings. Bishops assumed no more power than was due to their doctrines or morals. But Theodoric the Goth fixing his seat at Ravenna, and no other prince being left at Rome, the Romans were forced to pay greater allegiance to the pope. The Lombards having invaded and reduced Italy into cantons, the pope took the opportunity and began to hold up his head.”
Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman empire, testifies on this point as follows:— “Rome had reached, about the close of the sixth century, the lowest period of her depression. Like Thebes, Babylon, or Carthage, the name of Rome might have been erased, if the clergy had not been animated by a vital principle which again restored her to honor and dominion. The temporal power of the popes gradually arose from the calamities of the times.”
Dr. Cumming of England says: “On the removal of the imperial seat from Rome to Constantinople, the restraint on the ambition of the man of sin was removed, and the Roman bishop shot up into a great temporal prince.” The early Christians understood beforehand that the great apostasy and the development of that power, the coming of which the apostle had foretold under the title of the man of sin and son of perdition, was to succeed the Roman empire, and hence, it is recorded of them, “they prayed continually that God would preserve the Roman empire, and thus delay the development of the man of sin.”—Apoc. Sketches, p. 461.
From the same work, pp. 463, 464, we take the following:— “In order to show you that the pope does take the place of Christ [that is, that he is Anti-christ, which means, in the place of Christ], let me give some such simple instances as these: Is Christ the head of his redeemed church? The pope calls himself ‘the head of the body;’ he assumes this as one of his titles. Is Christ the great High Priest? Peter of Arragon, quoted by Ranké in the Lives of the Popes, calls the pope ‘the great crowned priest.’ Has Christ the keys that open and no man shuts? The pope claims to have the keys of Heaven and of hell. Is Christ the good Shepherd? One of the most celebrated [papal] bulls begins, ‘Ego pastor bonus’ [i. e., I the good shepherd]. Is Christ the husband of the church? The pope assumes to be the same. The common name by which he is distinguished in the canon law is the ‘husband of the church;’ and when the pope is consecrated, a ring is placed on his finger, signifying that he is then wedded to the church. Does the Lamb of God take away the sins of the world? The pope assumes the prerogative of taking away or absolving men’s sins. So far I have given evidence that the apostatizing one here mentioned, the Anti-christ, is the pope of Rome.”
The pope is also called the “man of sin;” and what more appropriate title could be given to him who among other things encourages sin by granting indulgences. On the subject of indulgences, Mr. Whiteside, the celebrated barrister, who has lately visited Rome, as quoted by Dr. Cumming, says that you can scarcely enter a church in Rome, where you will not get absolution for the past and license for the future. For instance, in the church of S. Pietro in Carcere, there is this inscription: “St. Sylvester granted every day to those who visit it 1200 years of indulgence, and every day besides, the remission of the third part of sins.” Again in the church of St. Casmo and Damien: “Gregory I. granted to each visiting this church 1000 years of indulgence.” On a marble slab near the door of the church of St. Saviour di Thermis: “Indulgences conceded in perpetuity by high pontiffs in this church. Every day of the year there are 1230 years of indulgence.” On the inner wall of St. Sebastian, on marble: “Whosoever shall have entered it shall obtain plenary remission of all his sins, through the merits of 174,000 holy martyrs and 46 high pontiffs, likewise martyrs interred here.”
In the eighth century Pope Gregory II. said, “All the kings of the earth reverence the pope as God.” Charlemagne received his title and his empire as a donative from the pope. Western emperors swore to be submissive to the pope and his successors.
Adrian IV., in the year 1155, on King Henry’s petition, permitted him to subjugate Ireland on condition of his giving to the Roman see a quit rent of a penny for each house in it.
On the discovery of America, prince Henry of Portugal applied to the pope to grant to the Portuguese every country they might discover. A bull was accordingly issued, granting the petition on the ground that the heathen had been given to Christ, and the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession. Pope Nicholas I. required kings to hold the bridle of his horses, and Louis II. of France, and the emperor Barbarossa (Frederic I. of Germany) performed this and other acts of humiliation. Up to the sixteenth century kings kissed the pope’s feet.
The emperor, Henry IV. of Germany, having offended Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand), he waited three days and three nights in the depth of winter, barefooted, and clothed only with a single garment, blue with cold and howling with pain, in one of the outer courts of the pope’s palace, till the pope, at the solicitation of his mistress, more merciful than he, relented and forgave him.
Pope Celestine III. (A. D. 1191) kicked the crown off the head of the emperor Henry VI.; and Baronius states that this was to be a sign that the pope had the power of deposing, as he alone had the prerogative of making kings. Pius IV. excommunicated Queen Elizabeth, and assigned as a reason, that God had “set him up as a prince over all nations, to root up, to pull down, and to destroy.”
In the light of such testimony, who can fail to see how strikingly the prophecies are fulfilled in this great Antichristian power which stands as such a conspicuous monument in the history of the church?
C. S.

NOTES OF THE DISCUSSION IN KANSAS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

SIXTH SESSION.

Our sixth session was rather a summary of the arguments previously given. I showed the following absurdities which were involved in the position of my opponent, and of the no-law position generally:—
1. According to this position, there was no law given to anybody till the time of Moses.
2. There was never any law given to the Gentiles. Then why should God hold them guilty of violating his laws as he does in Lev. 20:22, 23; 18:25-28?
3. They can give no reason why the ten commandments were especially singled out and so highly honored as they were, because they claim that these commandments were no better than any others.
4. They make no distinction between moral and ceremonial laws.
5. It makes God abolish moral precepts which he had once carefully promulgated. Think of the absurdity of abolishing such precepts as the following: “Thou shalt not kill;” “Thou shalt not commit adultery;” “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart;” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
6. It makes the Lord abolish ten precepts, and immediately re-enact nine, in order to get rid of one.
7. According to my opponent, there was no law of any account binding on anybody from the cross to Pentecost, fifty days after the crucifixion. How absurd!
8. God gave a law in the most solemn manner, and then sent his Son to abolish it.
9. Christ died to kill the law.
10. Christ cannot die for two laws at the same time. For which law, then, did he die? the one that existed before his death, or the one since that time?
11. He died for his own law, according to them, before that law was given, thus making provision for sin before it was committed.
12. They make Jesus the Christian’s law-giver. Hence, when we sin, we sin against Christ, therefore we need an advocate with him. But the Bible says we have an Advocate with the Father, not with Christ. 1 John 2:1.
13. It makes Christ the advocate with himself, over his own law.
14. The world was in rebellion against the Father. He sent the Son to reconcile the world to himself; 2 Cor. 5:19; but the Son abolished the Father’s law, and set up a law of his own, and thus became a rebel himself!
15. No one can be judged by a dead law. This is true in all criminal laws. Those who lived previous to Christ can never be brought into judgment.
16. When a law is repealed, there must be an explicit record of the repeal; but they can show no such record.
17. Eld. Shick claimed that a new law was given, but he utterly failed to show when it was given, where it was given, who gave it, how many precepts it has, which is the first, which is the last, how it differs from the old law, what its penalty is, or upon whom it is binding. The Elder found these very difficult points to settle.
18. When he undertook to find his new law he found some precepts given before the old law was abolished.
19. And some of his new law he could not find till thirty years after the cross. Indeed, he said that the new law was dropped in here and there along, a piece at a time, and the old did not die till the new law was given. Thus he had some of his new law given before the cross, and before some of the old law had died; but most of his new law was not given till many years after the cross, and hence most of the old law was binding for at least thirty years after the resurrection!
20. We showed that the New Testament, of itself alone, is not sufficient for a rule of faith and practice in everything. There are many important moral duties upon which it is entirely silent, duties which are plainly advocated in the Old Testament. For instance, no one can determine by the New Testament whom it is lawful to marry and whom it is not, such as brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, etc. There is no law in the New Testament regulating the observance of any sacred day. We have to go to the old for that. It does not define what idolatry is. It does not forbid the use of images; it does not prohibit the taking of usury; it does not condemn polygamy; but the Old Testament does plainly forbid all these things.
21. We are scores of times in the New Testament directly referred right back to the Old Testament as authority in doctrine and practice. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Eph. 6:1-3; Rom. 13:8-10; and in scores of other places.

SECOND QUESTION.

Eld. Shick maintained that Sunday was set apart by divine example as a sacred day. According to our rules, this question was to be discussed three days. It was absolutely amusing to see the Elder endeavor to kill time by talking about everything but the question. He undertook to lug in all sorts of questions which had no bearing upon the subject. He made lengthy remarks upon Jer. 31:31-34; Isa. 2; Joel 2; and Acts 2. In order to bring him to the question, I simply admitted all that he said, as I did not care whether it was so or was not so. It is not a good plan to follow an opponent in all his little technicalities, or dodges here and there, and arguments foreign to the question. Simply notice them, and very briefly show that they do not touch the question, and then omit them. This is what I did with the Elder. By the way, I should remark that we finally consented to allow the Elder to cut down the time on this proposition from three days to a day and a half, which was then one day more than he knew how to use. Then as I had nothing else to do, I made the following points:—
I showed how important was the change that the Elder claimed,—the abolition of the seventh day and the institution of the first. All new institutions should be very plainly and explicitly stated. This is the way the Lord has always given every institution which he has required men to observe. As an illustration of this fact, see the seventh-day Sabbath, the ordinance of baptism, the Lord’s supper, &c., &c. If any new institution is given, we must be able to show the time when it was given, the place where it was given, the person who gave it, and to whom it was given, how it is to be observed, and by whom. But none of these things can be shown with regard to first-day sacredness. Furthermore, we must be able to show a law touching its observance, because the apostle directly says, “Where no law is there is no transgression.” Rom. 4:15. Again, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom. 5:13. Now if we can produce no law for Sunday observance, then it is no institution at all, it is no sin to disregard it. Sin never will be imputed to anybody for not keeping it. The Elder was not able to answer any of these important positions.
I showed that the proposition itself was an absurdity, that he had undertaken to prove that which no amount of evidence could prove. He affirmed that it was set apart. This is one definition of to sanctify. Hence he must claim that the first day was sanctified. Secondly, He claimed that it was made sacred. Then he claims equally as much for the first day as we do for the seventh, though he persistently denies it. He says all this was done simply by example. Simple example cannot make anything sacred. If he should show that the apostles met together a thousand times upon the first day of the week, it would not prove that that was a sacred day. God himself rested upon the seventh day, and yet that did not make it a sacred day. It had to be sanctified after that. Gen. 2:1-3. If, then, the example of the Almighty himself would not make a day sacred by resting upon it, then certainly the example of men would not do it.
Furthermore, Eld. Shick, on a previous question, forgetting himself, made statements which utterly killed his present proposition. Thus he said, speaking of the seventh day, “If Paul had a powerful meeting on the seventh day, it does not prove that he kept it.” Then, of course, if Eld. Shick now shows that Paul had a “powerful meeting” on the first day, it will not prove that he kept it, according to his own admission.
Again he said, “By example Paul taught them to shave their heads, and yet that did not prove that we should do it.” All right. Suppose, then, that he can show an example of Paul’s resting on the first day, it would not prove that we should do it. Referring to our great Michigan camp-meeting upon Sunday, he said a historian five hundred years in the future might take that to prove that these Adventists kept Sunday, but it would prove no such thing. All right again. But this statement is fatal to his present argument; for all he claims to prove is simply one example of one meeting of the apostles on the first day of the week. This is all the proof he has. Upon this he has to build everything; but by his own argument on the previous question, it does not prove anything.
He claimed that the Lord’s supper was always celebrated on the first day of the week; but here he squarely contradicted the Bible. The first time it was ever celebrated was certainly not upon the first day of the week. It was the day before the crucifixion, Wednesday or Thursday night. Luke 22:14-20. He has only one case where it was celebrated upon the first day of the week. Acts 20. Hence he cannot prove a custom from one example, and particularly as that was an extraordinary occasion. Acts 20:20-25. There are only two cases recorded where the time is given when the Lord’s supper was celebrated, and both of these were in the night. Luke 22; Acts 20. On the last occasion it was not only in the night, but after midnight.
The custom of every Disciple church, that of taking the Lord’s supper every first day of the week, is built upon one single example in the New Testament, and yet they never follow this example in a single instance, at least not one in a thousand, for in that example it was celebrated in the night, not in the daytime, after midnight, and not at noon. Acts 20:7-13. As he built his entire argument upon this chapter, I examined it very carefully, making the following plain points:—
1. In this text the first day of the week is not called the Sabbath, a Sabbath, the Lord’s day, a sacred day; but simply “first day of the week,” as it always had been in the Old Testament.
2. It is never said that they met upon this day before this time, nor after this time.
3. It is not said that it was their custom to meet upon this day, though it is a remarkable fact that Luke is always very particular to mention anything that had been done according to custom. Luke 1:9; 2:27, 42; 4:16; Acts 16:13; 17:2; 18:3, &c.
4. This is the only religious meeting which is mentioned to have occurred upon that day in the entire history of the Christian church.
5. And this was only an evening meeting, as we frequently have a prayer meeting.
6. There is no law given here touching it, no blessing upon the day, no curse for breaking it.
7. The Lord’s supper was always celebrated at night, so far as the record goes. Luke 22; Acts 20.
8. The Lord’s supper does not commemorate the resurrection, but commemorates the death of Christ. 1 Cor. 11:26.
9. The Lord’s supper at one time was celebrated daily. Acts 2:42, 46.
10. This meeting in Acts 20, was not an ordinary one; it was a special farewell meeting. The apostle was never to see them again, was to leave them in the morning forever. Verse 25. It lasted all night; a dead man was raised. This is what gave prominence to the meeting.
11. This meeting was held on Saturday night, not on Sunday night.
12. His whole argument from this scripture is simply an inference from beginning to end.
I showed that the resurrection of Christ was commemorated by baptism, Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:4, 5; hence we do not need another memorial for that event. We do not need Sunday-keeping. He admitted that baptism was a memorial of the resurrection. I pressed him then to show a single case in the Bible where God gave two memorials for the same event. His answer to this was amusing. He turned to Deut. 5:13, and claimed the Sabbath to be a memorial of both the creation and the deliverance from Egypt. Of course his assumption was false. But granting that it was true, what had he found? two memorials to commemorate one event? Just exactly the opposite—one memorial to commemorate two events!
He made but a faint argument upon 1 Cor. 16:2, or Rev. 1:10. He admitted that there was no evidence for Sunday observance till Pentecost, consequently he gave up all the texts in the four Gospels. He did not claim anything with regard to the meeting at Pentecost. If he had, I was prepared to show that that was upon the seventh day, and not upon the first day. A long list of the ablest Sunday authors say this themselves.
Indeed, his whole argument for Sunday was based simply upon Acts 20. Finally, in direct violation of the rules, he managed to lug in history, thus showing that he himself felt that the Bible was not sufficient to sustain him. The Campbellites are always crying, “The Bible, the Bible, the Bible alone,” but here was the “Peer of the west” utterly routed from the Bible and taking refuge in history, the same as the Catholics; but even here we showed that history was against him.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
(To be Continued.)

THE MINISTRATION OF DEATH.

By John G. Matteson

If the following remarks are correct, they may be worthy of consideration. We submit them to the test of “the law and the testimony”:—
In 2 Cor. 3, Paul does neither contrast nor compare the work of the Levitical priesthood with the ministration of the apostles. He does not speak of the ministration of the priests at all, but of “the ministration of death” and “the ministration of condemnation.” Verses 7, 9. The ministration of the priests in the sanctuary, as they offered sacrifices and made atonement in type for the sins of the people, was not performed to condemn the people, but to secure life and forgiveness of sins by pointing them to Christ, who could and did take away the sins of all who believed in that dispensation as verily as he blesses and saves believers in this dispensation. The priests and Levites were not appointed to bring condemnation upon the people, but to save them from their sins, and bring them to Christ. Gal. 3:24.
The apostle speaks of pronouncing the sentence of death upon willful transgressors of God’s holy law “engraven in stones,” and executing this condemnation upon them. Moses was the first minister of this kind among the children of Israel. He was no priest. His service is the ministration spoken of, and it was glorious, for his countenance shone with the glory of God. We find an instance of this work of condemnation in Num. 15:32–36. They found a man who presumptuously broke the fourth commandment. The Lord told Moses what should be done to him. The sentence was pronounced and the order given. All the congregation “stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.”
In the New Testament the ministers of Christ are not requested nor permitted thus to order and execute the condemnation of transgressors. The man of sin has ventured to do it, thereby greatly displeasing God. The Levitical priesthood has passed away, and the Jewish administration of justice has also passed away. If that was glorious, then the ministration of the Spirit by the servants of God in this dispensation is far more glorious. John G. MATTESON.
Continue reading: TAKE HEED