Earlier text: The Jesuits’ Estates BillBEING IN THE WAY THE LORD BLESSED HER.
By W. S. D.
“AND a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshiped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.” Acts 16: 14, 15. There are some matters for reflection, which, although they lie on the surface of Lydia’s history, are not the less entitled to our attention. First, observe the very remarkable providence of God in regard to this woman. She was a native of, and probably had been long a resident in, a city of that very region in which Paul had been forbidden to preach the gospel. But in the course of worldly business, she is brought to the strange city of Philippi, and there she hears from that same Paul the word of life. The providence of God, as it always appoints, so it often removes the bounds of our habitation, and not seldom makes the change of our outward condition, or place of abode, materially subservient to the designs of his grace respecting our salvation. That the heart of Lydia was “opened,” intimates that it had till then been shut. Nor was this any singular or peculiar case. The human heart is naturally shut against gospel truth by spiritual blindness and casual affections. The natural mind is incapable of perceiving its excellence, and instinctively recoils from it, because its doctrines are humbling to pride, and its requirements involve the sacrifice of many of man’s cherished principles of action, and many objects of his ambition and desire. External means are wholly insufficient to overcome these obstacles to a reception of the gospel. We may describe colors to the blind, or we may define sounds with great precision to the deaf; but information can impart no distinct want of the seeing eye or the hearing ear. The opening of Lydia’s heart was her Lord’s doing; whatever is done in Heaven’s great work with the love of man, is the Lord’s own work. We do not know that any hand but his can even touch the heart; and sure we are that none but he can open the heart, and, being opened, can cleanse it, fill it, satisfy it. He opens not only the receptive organ—the heart—but he opens even the perceptive organs. He opens the eyes, he enlightens the understanding, he changes the heart, he makes us willing, he fulfills in us all the good pleasure of his grace, and the works of faith with powers—all is of him; and everyone who has in any age been savingly drawn to Christ will rejoice to give God the undivided glory of every onward step in that great work—the conversion of a ruined soul. He who begins the good work in any of us is he who will also perform it—until the day of Jesus Christ. But while we see that the opening of Lydia’s heart was not Lydia’s own work, nor Paul’s work, but the work of the Lord, we feel no surprise that he should distinguish this woman by his blessing. She had sought out those who had worshiped God, and had gone with them to the place of prayer. She was not so engrossed with worldly affairs as to neglect all other things. She was not in Jerusalem or Judah, where the Sabbath would be observed by all; but she was in a heathen city, where it would be observed by none but Jewish residents. She might therefore have carried on her trade and sold her purple cloth; but she had been brought to the knowledge of that God who, when he made the world, blessed the Sabbath-day and hallowed it; and therefore we find her not in the market, nor offering her purple to passers-by, but joining a party which had gone out of the city, by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made.—W. S. D. I know a young Englishman and his wife who were once both of them active Christians and consistent church-members. Their little daughter, three years old, died, and this heart-breaking grief had exactly an opposite effect upon the natures of the two parents. The father was made worse; he abandoned his faith and became an ardent follower of the infidel Bradlaugh. The mother’s heart was softened by the affliction which had visited the household, and developed a most beautiful Christian character. One can see in this case the clear working of a principle illustrated by Henry Drummond. When a plant is alive, it finds both the sun and the rain beneficial, and they both co-operate in making it grow; but if it is dead, the very sun and rain which before nourished it now rot it. If the love of God is in a soul, whatever comes, be it the sunshine of prosperity or the rain of calamity (for as Longfellow says, “Into all lives some rain must fall”), all things work together for good; but if the soul is dead, the dealings of God with it seem only harmful. Blessings bestowed awaken no gratitude, and affliction only hardens and embitters.—Selected. The Central Truth of Christianity
By N. Y. Evangelist
The great central truth of Christianity is the atonement. If men are not clear on this, they will not be clear on any Christian doctrine, for all others depend on this. We believe that the doctrine should be preached a great deal more than it is. THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WE come now to notice some of the works which Christ does as God, and in this we shall find additional proof of his divinity. In one talk with the Jews, he used the following language, which shows his position of equality with the Father:— "For neither doth the Father judge any man, but he hath given all judgment unto the Son; that all may honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He that honoreth not the Son, honoreth not the Father which sent him." John 5:22, 23, Revised Version. The first way in which God is revealed to us as demanding honor, is as Creator. Paul says that the heathen who know not God are without excuse, because God has revealed unto them that which may be known of him; for ever since the creation of the world, the invisible things of God, that is, his eternal power and Godhead, are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made. Rom. 1:19, 20. Now since Christ is to be honored by all, just as they honor the Father, it follows that he is to be honored as Creator; and so, according to Paul's words to the Romans, the visible creation affords proof of the "eternal power and Godhead" of Christ. Let us note a few texts which speak of Christ as Creator. John 1:1, 2 has already been quoted, showing that Christ is God. Verse 3 says: "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made." In Hebrews 1:8-10 we have the record of language which the Father addressed to the Son. The first, in verses 8, 9, in which the Father addresses the Son as God, we have already quoted. But in verse 10 we are told that he said further to him: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thy hands." So whenever we look abroad upon the earth, or view the shining heavens, we may know that they show the power and love of our Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. Without him was not anything made. The apostle Paul makes this most emphatic, in his epistle to the Colossians, of Christ, through whose love we have redemption. He says:— "Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature; for by him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist." Col. 1:15-17. From the words, "the first-born of every creature," some have argued that Christ himself is a created being. But that is not only a hasty conclusion, but one directly opposed to the text itself. Note the following points: 1. The same being could not be both creature and Creator. But this text affirms in the most emphatic terms, what other texts teach, that Christ is Creator. 2. Verse 16 shows that he was not created, for, "by him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible," etc. Says John, also, "All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made." John 1:3. This excludes Christ from the list of created beings; for everything that was made was made by him. In Rev. 5:13, also, it is stated that "every creature which is in Heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth," gave honor and glory to him. 3. The term "first-born of every creature" cannot by any possibility indicate that he is a created being, standing related to other creatures simply as first, and highest in rank, because he is "the only begotten Son of God." There is none other in the universe that stands related to God the Father as he does. The term first-born does not in this case, at least, imply that others were born after him. It only shows his pre-eminence above all things, as stated in verse 18. 4. Verse 17 says that "he is before all things, and by him all things consist." This again separates him from the creation, except as creation's Lord; and this is what the text teaches. In him creation had its beginning, as stated in Rev. 3:14. Creation existed in him, in embryo, as it were; "for it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell." Col. 1:19. No language could more perfectly show the pre-existence and the creative power of Christ, than does the language of Col. 1:15-17. "By him all things consist." Literally, "by him all things hold, or stay, together." This is equivalent to Heb. 1:3, which speaks of him as "upholding all things by the word of his power." He brought all things into existence, and he preserves them in existence. His word caused them to exist, and his word upholds them. In all these things he acts, not independently, but conjointly with the Father. Said he: "I and my Father are one." John 10:30. Not a thought does one have that is not the thought of the other. Their unity in creation is shown in the words, "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Gen. 1:26. This union of the Father and the Son serves to explain why the Hebrew word which is rendered "God" is in the plural number. "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." John 1:18. All that we know of God, we learn through Christ. Let no one, therefore, say that in exalting Christ we are in danger of lowering our ideas of God. That is impossible, for the more exalted ideas we have of Christ, the more exalted must be our ideas of the Father. "AGGRESSIVE ADVENTISM."
By Editor
THE above is the heading of an article in the Western Christian Union of March 22, a paper edited and published by the Rev. G. W. Bothwell, D. D., pastor of the Second Congregationalist Church, Oakland. We give the article entire, that the readers of the Signs of the Times may see what "Aggressive Adventism" is defined to be, and how it is to be dealt with. The Sentinel referred to is the American Sentinel:— "Our neighbor, the Sentinel, has worked itself into a feverish state of excitement lest the Blair Sunday-Rest bill may become a law. If this bill should become a law it will be the formulated sentiments of nine-tenths of all of the evangelical churches of the country. It will be indorsed by the faculties of all of the leading colleges and universities in the land. Intelligent Christian sentiment throughout the world, ever in sympathy with every step toward conformity with the oracles of God, will cordially approve all the main features of this bill. "Against these majorities, constituted as they are, why are our Adventist friends continuously protesting? We are weary of Ishmaelitism in theology and upon questions of public morals. The methods employed in securing many of the 31,000 names of alleged citizens of California, recently presented in Congress, were not creditable to any people calling themselves religious. We refer to their practice of button-holing unsuspecting citizens in the railroad waiting-rooms and on the street corners—not a few of whom were wholly unfamiliar with the question, and of inducing them to sign a narrow sectarian protest under the specious plea that the Constitution of the United States was threatened. We had entertained a high opinion of this people until we were forced to observe how they secured signatures to their recent petition. We will charitably suppose that the Sentinel did not know the methods resorted to by some of their over-zealous canvassers, but that does not affect the fact that they have placed the leaders of the church in very bad company. Every infidel, every dram seller—all desecrators of holy day—will applaud them for what they have tried to do, for reasons too obvious and too ignoble for mention. "This continuous discussion of the Constitution—this hiding behind it—is one of the most transparent guises we have ever known a professedly religious people to resort to in order to gain other ends. "The treatment, or the disrespect, shown the framers of the Sunday-Rest bill, recently presented in Sacramento, affords a large class of lawless and immoral people an opportunity for gloating over the defeat of a bill urged and petitioned for by a great majority of the best people in California. "Again, the Sentinel, by its rejoicing, is in bad company. We have no desire to persecute our neighbor, but we think it should look a little more closely after the injudicious people who support it and advocate its interests. It should read them some lectures upon their peculiar methods of proselytism, and then, perhaps, if it did not find favor in the sight of all of the people, it would, at least, have the respect of a worthy conservative class who heartily second every effort to secure fair play. "Most of the States make provision for the exercise of the peculiar tenets of belief which are entertained by the Adventists. They can worship on Saturday and call it the Sabbath if they choose, but there let their privileges end. Instead of thankfully making use of concessions granted them, and then going off quietly and attending to their own business, as they ought, they start out making unholy alliances that they may defeat the purpose of their benefactors. None of these bills are aimed at them, but if they fail to appreciate the fact they may yet call down upon themselves such a measure of public disfavor as that legislation embarrassing to them may result." Although the American Sentinel is the paper specially referred to, inasmuch as the article deals with Adventists, and is directed against Adventists, we will notice its various points in order. In the first place we will say for the Sentinel, that it has not worked itself into a feverish state of anxiety lest the Blair Sunday-Rest bill may become a law. It certainly cannot, but another similar one may; and from the lordly tone of those who are working for such a law, we think a little anxiety becomes those who love liberty. The statement that such a law would be "the formulated sentiments of nine-tenths of all the churches of the country," shows that there is danger ahead, for, as Hon. Richard M. Johnson well said: "Extensive religious combinations to effect a political object" are "always dangerous." "Among all the religious persecutions with which almost every page of modern history is stained, no victim ever suffered but for the violation of what government denominated the law of God.231 As to the method employed in securing the signatures to the petition asking Congress not to pass any Sunday law; the canvassers went in person to the persons whose names appear; those persons were invariably adults, capable of judging for themselves; and they always signed the petition with their own hand. Besides, special pains was taken to let everyone know just what the petition called for. Why, then, do the Sunday-law workers cry fraud? Simply to turn the attention of people away from their own course in securing indorsement to a Sunday-law petition which was marked by fraud at every step. Following are a few of the crooked steps taken:— 1. Instead of obtaining individual signatures, they counted the indorsement of the petition by the vote of a few representative men, as the indorsement of an entire denomination or society. 2. Although the petition specified that each petitioner should be "21 years of age or more," they counted in whole churches, children and all, and in some instances obtained the indorsement of Sunday-schools. 3. Persons that had been counted once in the membership of their local church, were counted again with the membership of the entire denomination, and sometimes still again with some other society; so that some persons were counted no less than six times, as favoring the bill. 4. A letter from Cardinal Gibbons, expressing his own personal approval of the measure, was counted as the indorsement of 7,200,000 Catholics, each one of whom was there certified to be "21 years of age or more." In view of these things, it is no wonder that they wish to divert attention from themselves. But a more manly, not to say Christian, way would be to acknowledge the fraud, and bring forth works meet for repentance. Now as to the final paragraph. We doubt if many of our readers have read any recent utterance that savored more of Russian despotism or the Inquisition than it does. Notice that Mr. Bothwell does not say that Adventists should be content with the privilege of being exempt from the penalties of a Sunday law. No; he does not contemplate anything of the kind; but he thinks that they ought to be very grateful to their "benefactors," the Sunday people, for allowing them to rest on Saturday. He thinks that they ought to be so grateful that they would not say a word by way of exhortation and warning to those whom they regard as in danger because of disregarding God's law. And he intimates that if they do not show a proper sense of gratitude to those who permit them to live in this land of the free, and to worship God as he has commanded them, even this privilege will be taken away. In other words, he plainly intimates that if Seventh-day Adventists do not stop telling the people the truth about the Sabbath and the Sunday, they will soon be deprived of the privilege, not only of preaching the word, but of keeping the Sabbath. That the Sunday-law movement will yet develop into this, is becoming quite evident. In Arkansas an effort has been made to repeal the amendment that was made to the Sunday law in 1887, exempting observers of the seventh day from the penalties of the law. Previous to that they had been greatly persecuted, and that amendment gave them as individuals equal rights with others. But now it is proposed to take this away. The framer of the bill acknowledges that it may drive the Seventh-day people from the State; but he says that they are too "aggressive," and his people are getting tired. That is, they are preaching what they conscientiously believe to be truth, and the people don't want to hear it. Well, if the movement is successful, it will not be the first time that "the church" has made use of the civil power to put an end to "heresy" which it could not silence by Bible arguments. The end is not yet, but the signs of the times indicate that it cannot be far off. W. SUNDAY-LAW ROBBERY.
By Alonzo T. Jones
NATIONAL REFORMERS and those who are in favor of Sunday laws are, according to their own statements, always very fair, very liberal, and very tolerant. Yet they demand a Sunday "law that shall make itself effective by small exceptions and large penalties." So the "American Sabbath Union," on the Blair Sunday bill. They desire no exemption to any religious class whatever, and in this they are true to the traditions of their fathers—the Roman hierarchy. The Sunday is a religious institution, and legislation on religious institutions is wrong and only wrong. But it is not this phase of the question which we wish to discuss at this time. A civil Sunday law, if enforced, not only infringes upon the rights of all who may desire to spend Sunday in a different way than that prescribed by the law, but it works positive hardship and robbery to that class of citizens who observe religiously any other day than Sunday. "Oh, but we grant them the privilege of observing any day they choose," say these tolerant reformers; "we only ask that they shall not desecrate Sunday. We deprive them of no rights; we only compel them to respect ours." Let us examine this. The only divine law which we have for a Sabbath is that found in Ex. 20: 8-11. Laying aside the question as to what day is enjoined, all will agree that permission is given to work six days. The Jew, the Seventh-day Adventist, and the Seventh-day Baptist believe that the law of God demands the observance of the seventh day, or Saturday. They cannot conscientiously do otherwise than observe the day which the commandment enjoins and conscience dictates. Thousands would die rather than labor on the seventh day. But the members of these religious bodies also avail themselves of the privilege of working six days. God grants it, the Constitution permits it, justice and equality and necessity demand it. Thousands of them cannot support and educate their families if the privilege of working the six days is taken from them. They hold, and justly, too, that they have the same right to observe the seventh day as others have the first day. Numbers do not and cannot regulate worship to God. If this were so, no Christian would have the right to worship Jehovah in a heathen land. Just as long as the seventh-day man does not work any ill to the life, property, chastity, or reputation of his first-day neighbor, or interfere with his worship, he has as much right to labor on the first day as the first-day man has to labor on the seventh day. This is simple right and justice, and it would be just the same if the large majority were seventh-day keepers. But how would a Sunday-law affect these Sabbatarians?—It would take from them one-sixth of their time. In effect, it levies a tax of sixteen and two-thirds per cent. upon the seventh-day man, which it does not upon the first-day man. In all other respects, except that of the day to be observed, both classes sustain the same relation to the Government. But civil laws which designate a day to be kept by all when there is difference in faith and practice, thereby discriminate between class and class, elevating and favoring one, and correspondingly depressing and oppressing the other. Such laws are in favor of a particular religion and particular dogmas. The State, therefore, is responsible for the hardship, and not the Sabbatarian, unless the Roman Catholic claim is true, that the individual has no right to choose his religion. As a natural result of his religion, the Jew would suffer no more hardship than the Sunday-keeping Christian. Each could work six days, each would observe one. But if Sunday is protected by law, hardship does come to the seventh-day keeper as the result of such legislation solely. Therefore we are just in saying that the State in enforcing Sunday laws places a tax upon the seventh-day keeper of sixteen and two-thirds per cent. which it does not place upon the first-day keeper. But what is the trouble with the Sabbatarian that he should thus be discriminated against? He is God-fearing, conscientious, honest, sober, upright. He only asks what is taught by the golden rule, "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them." To this class the Sunday law is a robbery, a robbery that enriches no one, that benefits no one; but a robbery the only effect of which is to increase the arrogance of what is rapidly becoming a dominant and proud hierarchy. Can any Christian or man even indorse such injustice? DOES PROHIBITION INFRINGE PERSONAL LIBERTY?
By C. P. B.
A LATE picture published in the interests of the liquor traffic is thus described by the publishers:— "Prohibition is represented in a clerical garb, showing its cloven foot resting upon the emblems of liberty in the attempt to crush our beloved bird of freedom and trample it to the ground, the open wings of the struggling bird representing the different States and Territories of the Union. The other foot of the usurper rests upon the Declaration of Independence, attempting to trample our vested rights into the dirt. The diadem of the usurper contains the feathers plucked from the bird of freedom and captured by Prohibition. In the right hand of Prohibition is flounted in a threatening manner 'CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT,' arrogantly referring to embodiment in the Constitution of the United States of Puritanical Sunday laws, sumptuary laws, and national prohibition." Such is the liquor dealer's idea of prohibition, but that there is scarcely an element of truth in it will appear from an examination of the subject. In the first place there is nothing in common between Sunday laws and laws prohibiting or restricting the liquor traffic. Many pious people who revere Sunday through a mistaken zeal desire laws compelling all to observe it by resting from ordinary labor upon that day, and they also demand the prohibition of the liquor traffic, but generally from widely different reasons; and the fact that religious people are in favor of two measures does not by any means prove that they are equally good, or equally evil, or that they are of the same nature. Prohibition is in no sense religious. Very many infidels and liberals are in favor of prohibition as a matter of public policy, and as necessary for the protection of life and property. The evil effects of liquor drinking are not confined to those who drink. Every drunkard, yea, every intoxicated man, is a menace to life and property, not his own life and property only, but the lives and property of others; and can it be that society has no right to protect itself against the danger? We place violently insane persons in asylums even when there is no hope of their recovery, in order to restrain them; and shall we not restrain those who would make themselves temporarily insane by the use of intoxicating liquors? Crime and poverty are the legitimate fruits of the liquor traffic. No informed man doubts that liquor drinking is responsible for most of the crime committed in our land; and has the State no just right to prohibit a traffic which enriches a few by degrading the many? As a rule the man who drinks neglects his family and leaves them to be supported by charity, while he spends for liquor the money which should go to their maintenance; and not only so, but in his drunken frenzy he beats and abuses his helpless family. And has the State no right to restrain him? Certainly, right and justice demand the prohibition of a business whose very prosperity depends upon the misery of thousands, and whose coffers are filled at the expense of the most helpless in the land. But suppose for a moment that the State has no right to prevent a man from drinking what and when he pleases, does it follow that it has no just right to say that other men shall not for the sake of enriching themselves entice men to drink, and thus not only lure them to destruction but beggar their families and turn them out paupers, to be supported by those who, by honest industry, have accumulated property which bears its just proportion of taxation? The cry of personal liberty does not come, as a rule, from the men who drink, but from those who grow rich by ministering to the most depraved appetites of their fellow-men. The liberty which they demand is liberty to put the bottle to their neighbor's lips, to make him drunken also that they may see his shame and despoil him of his goods. To talk about vested rights, and the foot of the usurper resting upon the Declaration of Independence, simply because prohibition is demanded, is the merest twaddle. Men who talk and write that way do not themselves believe what they say. Did they for a moment believe that their business was as legitimate as any other, they would demand, not license as they now do, but the absolute freedom that is accorded to other branches of business. But while prohibitory laws are purely civil, and the enacting of them not only the right but the duty of the State, Sunday laws are of an entirely different character. Sunday is a religious institution; its friends call it the Christian Sabbath, and most of them insist that it ought to be kept in obedience to the fourth commandment. It is therefore no more the right of the State to enforce its observance than it would be to enforce baptism, or the Lord's Supper. Laws forbidding the sale of intoxicating liquors to be used as beverages, violate no man's conscience. Nobody sells whisky as a religious duty. The liquor dealer's only motive is the hope of gain, and the whole traffic is demoralizing and fraught with danger to life and property. But a failure to religiously keep Sunday does not endanger life and property; it does not cause a man to abuse his family. Many good citizens and earnest Christians do not regard Sunday because they know that there is no divine law requiring its observance, and they exercise their God-given right to labor upon that day, but in so doing they do not prey upon others, they do not fill their own pockets by ministering to the depraved appetites and passions of those who are too weak to resist temptation; in short, there is no similarity whatever between Sunday work and business and the liquor traffic. A REASON FOR SUNDAY KEEPING.
By M. C. W.
AMONG advocates for Sunday sacredness, the following passage is made to play quite an important part: "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 mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:1-4. The claim that is made, is that the first day was set apart by Christ as a holy day in honor of his resurrection, which is proved by his repeatedly meeting with them on that day; and that this is further confirmed by the above passage, which declares that that day was honored by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. As to the first claim, that the disciples met repeatedly to worship on that day, we have before shown it to be without foundation. But one meeting is recorded as occurring on the first day, and that was at the very close of the day on which Jesus rose from the dead. The disciples had gathered to their own abode to eat supper, and Jesus appeared among them. See John 20:19; Luke 24:36-40; Mark 16:9-14; Acts 1:13. Certainly no one could say that they were met to celebrate a day in honor of an event when they did not believe that the event had taken place, and were terrified when Jesus appeared. The next time Jesus met with them, was as late as Monday or Tuesday of the next week (John 20:26); while the third meeting was a fishing occasion, which might have occurred Sunday. John 21. The fourth was forty days after the resurrection, which must have taken place on Thursday. Acts 1:3-11. Not one of these meetings took place on Sunday except the first, and that just as the day was vanishing. Does Acts 2:1-4 furnish any proof of first-day sacredness? No more than what has gone before. The record does not reveal on what day of the week the day of pentecost came that year. It is impossible to tell definitely. If Jesus and his disciples ate the passover at the proper time (Matt. 26), the day of pentecost fell on the Sabbath; if the Jews ate it at the proper time, it fell on Sunday. This cannot be decided, for the Scriptures do not inform us. Eminent scholars are divided. Says Horatio B. Hackett, D. D., Professor of biblical literature in Newton Theological Institution:— "It is generally supposed that this pentecost, signalized by the outpouring of the Spirit, fell on the Jewish Sabbath, our Saturday."—Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts, pp. 50, 51. Olshauzen also admits the same. But it must be evident to every candid mind that the Sabbath or any other day of the week was not the day which God designed to honor by the outpouring of the Spirit; for if it was,— 1. That day would have been mentioned. But no mention whatever is made of any day of the week, while the day of pentecost is explicitly named. 2. If the Lord had designed to honor Sunday, why did he pass over a Sunday between his ascension and pentecost? His ascension was forty days after his resurrection; the pentecost was forty-eight days after his resurrection, or fifty days after the passover. A period of eight or nine days came between, in which occurred one first day. But this is passed over in silence, and the Spirit is given on the day of pentecost. There is a reason why it should be given then. Pentecost was the feast of the first-fruits of the harvest. Lev. 23:15-17. It typified the first-fruits of the Christian church, which were given on the day of pentecost. The passover met its antitype in the crucifixion of Jesus, the wave sheaf in his resurrection, the first-fruits in the pentecost. The Holy Spirit was poured out then, because it must have been. Type must meet antitype in the offering of first-fruits as well as in the case of the passover. Whether that day fell on Sunday or Thursday, the second or first day of the week, the Spirit would have fallen just when it did, fifty days after the passover. The outpouring of the Spirit on the day of pentecost, therefore, furnishes no proof for Sunday sacredness, and that use of the text reveals the weakness of the cause which resorts to such measures for support. TWO PRECIOUS ASSURANCES.
By M. C. W.
THERE are to the Christian no greater assurances of God's wondrous mercy than are found in the thirty-third and thirty-fourth verses of the eighth chapter of Romans. These assurances are so expressed that they are generally passed over by the ordinary reader; but they are none the less precious on that account. The verses are as follows:— "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us." Why did not Paul reply to the first question, "It is God," and to the second, "It is Christ"? This would have answered the questions, but there would be no ground of hope in the answers. So the apostle says, "It is God that justifieth." God can rightly bring charges. His infinite purity and knowledge can detect mistakes and failures in the most perfect; but he who can mark sins also justifies from sin. Our Adversary is our Friend. He points out the disease, but presents a remedy. He reveals through his law the sin. He applies through his gospel his righteousness. And so with the second reply. He who can condemn because he is one with the Father, Creator, and Lawgiver, died for us, to redeem us from that in which he condemns us. But more than this (he is not a dead Redeemer), he liveth again, and pleads, at the right hand of God, the virtues of his blood in behalf of his people. He lived God's law in the weakness of sinful flesh, and man stands condemned before him. But he who can condemn is our blessed Advocate, the propitiation for our sins. We come to him, trembling under our sin, expecting to meet a stern, inexorable judge, yet desiring to hope in his mercy, and find only love and compassion beaming upon us from his countenance. Falling prostrate at his feet, he lifts us up with the merciful message, "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee; go in peace." Christian, do not be discouraged at your failures and defects. There is mercy in God. But do not take his mercy as an excuse for sin, or God will be to you a consuming fire. He who forsakes sin will find that God's mercy endures forever. His promises will be as unfailing as his precepts. The One who brings charges will justify, the One who condemns pleads for us his own precious blood. Work in his strength, believe in his mercy, rest in his love.