“If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down, for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.” Matt. 4:6.
In this second as well as in the first temptation of the Saviour, the enemy began by insinuating that Jesus must put forth some direct effort to prove his divinity, that he must call out some special manifestation from Heaven to show that he was truly the Son of God. But neither in this did the Saviour yield. He answered, “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.” He chose not to commit himself to danger simply to tempt God’s saving power. No such exhibition was necessary to prove him the chosen of God. “This is my beloved Son” was spoken from Heaven, while the dove descended at his baptism; and all his miracles and works of mercy to suffering humanity were to testify to the Saviour’s divinity.
This temptation also represents a class common especially to those professing to be the children of God. They are taught in God’s word to exercise faith, and have confidence in God’s protecting, saving power in all trials and difficulties; and unbelief is represented as one of the sins most displeasing to Heaven.
But many, from mistaken zeal or perverted judgment, are led to go beyond, or outside of the wise plans of Providence, and tempt the Lord, demanding an unnecessary display of his power and mercy.
How often the children of Israel tempted the Lord during their journeyings in the wilderness, doubting his promises and his leadings, and rashly demanding the frequent, unnecessary manifestation of divine power to gratify their lusts and unbelief. We have often been astonished in reading the history of so rebellious a people,—a people who witnessed such sublime displays of God’s presence and power, such wonderful miracles to deliver out of the hand of enemies, and to supply with food and water; and yet who so often soon forgot all his mercies, tempted his power and despised his promised blessings. Says God, “Your fathers tempted me, proved me, and saw my works forty years;” “so I sware in my wrath, they shall not enter into my rest.” But while we wonder at rebellious Israel, we even are exhorted, “Harden not your hearts as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness.” Do any of us need this admonition? Do we ever in unbelief and hardness of heart tempt God? Let us study some of the diversified experiences of every-day life, wherein we even may have tempted God.
When we presume to step aside from the path God has plainly marked out and plead our own choice or necessity, we say like Lot, “Oh, not so Lord.” “Is it not a little one”—this variation from thy command? Cannot God be pleased to accept this once our very necessary substitute for his all-wise plans? Nay; only cheerful and unreserved obedience can be truly pleasing in his sight.
Yet we may err in the opposite extreme. We have seen individuals in blind fanaticism or morbid indifference, give up entirely the proper exercise of their judgment and the use of the means God has given them, in the blind conception that his almighty power and mercies will be all-sufficient for their day and need. Professing to throw themselves wholly on God’s care, perhaps they even neglect to labor to secure the products of the soil, forgetting that this is God’s plan for supplying the wants of his creatures; that labor, and diligence, and economy are the essential channels through which his manifold blessings can be bestowed. All such tempt God, and they will reap merited disappointment if not actual suffering for their presumption.
Though the tempter may not directly tell us to cast ourselves down from the pinnacle of the temple, he may tempt us to a thousand follies quite as presumptuous. God’s provision and promise is to take care of his children, when, by implicitly and fully following his direction, they are brought into danger; not when they rashly plunge themselves into the pit of destruction. While a blessing is pronounced upon those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, that soul must go unblest, who, by indiscretion or the manifestation of an improper spirit, calls forth persecution and trials. Many thrust themselves into the face of persecution in a manner that dishonors God and his truth. Such may mourn in vain the fruits of foolish presumption.
It is but a blind, unreasonable faith that would wrest God’s promises, and think to separate them from their proper bearings to sustain personal wishes and inclinations.
God has seen fit, in some instances, to contravene the laws he has established in nature, allowing miracles to attest his presence, will, and power. But feeble mortals cannot safely trifle with these great laws of the universe. They must not take up deadly serpents, in order to prove God’s preserving power. They must not needlessly violate the laws of health, trusting divine mercy to prevent consequent disease, or to heal if sick. To knowingly transgress any of God’s laws, physical or moral, may be expected to bring down upon the transgressor admonition and punishment instead of interposing mercy. It may be a mistaken zeal that drives one to overtax the powers of body or mind even in doing God’s work. If so, failure and suffering may be the sad result.
Numerous and diversified are the examples of the temptation to presumption. Even when we think we are walking in the light, a humble, careful examination of the heart motives might call for the prayer, “Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins.” “Then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.” S. M. SPICER.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LIFE.
By W. W. Prescott
We are often perplexed by questions which seem to propose themselves, but which we find it very difficult to answer satisfactorily. What is the object of our existence? What is the purpose of our life? Of what benefit are we or can we be to our fellow-creatures? Why are we placed here at all? There are probably but few who have not at some time been puzzled with queries of this nature.
If, however, we look at life in its true light, not as an end, but only as a means, then do some of these questions lose their power to perplex and puzzle us, and we see and understand the real significance of life. The beauty of a landscape is often greatly marred or entirely lost because it is viewed from the wrong position; so with life: only from that height above the common level which is attained by the true Christian can be obtained that far-extending and comprehensive view of life which can indicate its source and its end.
To those who have not availed themselves of the helps which God has given to us all for understanding the meaning of our existence, what indeed is the object of life? Days, months, and years come and go, and find them the same, yet not the same; for every day brings them nearer their journey’s end. To provide for their bodily wants seems to be their only care. Food, clothing, and lodging, are with them the great objects of living; so they spend their years as a tale that is told: the morning and afternoon of life pass quickly by; the night of death is at hand, and after death is the Judgment. Now, that food and clothing are necessary things, and that the obtaining of them often demands a very large share of a man’s time, are facts not to be denied. The trouble is not here, but because in this case so often the means are made the end, and that by which we should live becomes that for which we do really live. It is right and necessary that we should attend to these things, but not to the exclusion of service to God. The two go together: “Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord.”
This life is given to us as a means of attaining the life beyond, and if we do not so use it we shall make a mistake which eternity cannot set right; nay, which even God himself (I say it reverently) cannot correct. But if we rightly employ the means thus placed at our disposal, then have we solved the great problem aright; and life will be a success, although it may not appear so for the present.
What do we say? Did not he achieve greater success in life who was in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by his own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness, than he who conquered all the then known world, and wept because there were no more worlds to conquer? The former ended his life as a prisoner, yet who would not prefer Paul’s success in life to that of Alexander?
But when we view it aright, how grand a thing it is to live! To be a man among men! To be in the service of Him who will give a crown of life! Who shall say that there is no object in life?
Not he who thus looks at it.
W. W. Prescott.
VÆ PATRIAE.
By Howard Glyndon
“We must have this! We must have that!”
Oh, lustful madness of the land!
Which leads to the dishonoring thought
And thrice dishonoring hand!
Lie soft, live well, have cates to eat,
Rare furnishings to please the eye:
For this proud names are smutched with shame,
The land’s creed made a lie!
Deaf ears and eyes that will not see—
Beckon and call and cry are vain;
Ye will stay shut till justice comes
In one full, fiery rain.
Ye will not heed the threatening skies,
The thunder’s muttering from afar;
Ye drive the goddess from the helm
And flout your guiding star.
Ye only think to gain your way—
Crawl where the gold lies, plan your ease;
Ye trade the manhood from your lives
For flimsy things like these.
Part with the clear unfaltering eye,
Part with the mind that thinks aright,
Part with the spirit undismayed
That palters not with might!
These are the heritage of him
Who cares not where his head may lie,
Rather than have his pillow soft
With bribes and flattery.
But oh! for those who buy and sell
Within the temple’s holy bound;
Barter the birthright of their race
For ease—on Freedom’s ground!
—HOWARD GLYNDON, in Independent.
Humility and Watchfulness Against Self-Righteousness
By Thomas à Kempis
Though thou seest another openly offend, or even commit some enormous sin, yet thou must not from thence take occasion to value thyself for thy superior goodness; for thou canst not tell how long thou wilt be able to persevere in the narrow path of virtue. All men are frail, but thou shouldst reckon none so frail as thyself.—Thomas à Kempis.
Wealth, Ambition, and Religion as a Lightning Rod
Many men want wealth—not a competence alone, but a five-story competence. Everything subserves this; and religion they would like as a sort of lightning rod to their houses to ward off, by and by, the bolts of divine wrath.
THE EASTERN WAR.
By Uriah Smith
A ruler stronger than Turk or Russian, more powerful than armies or empires, has bidden the belligerents of the East suspend, for a time, their active hostilities. The approach of winter is considered virtually to have closed the present campaign, and postponed all further essential movements till spring.
The close of the season’s operations finds both parties in a position that precludes all prospect of peace till the condition of one or the other shall be materially changed. Turkey will not accept mediation, since, encouraged by recent successes, she hopes for better terms in the end than mediation would now be likely to secure. And Russia will not accept of mediation, as she is unwilling to have the struggle close with the shadow of disaster and defeat in any measure resting on her arms. Meanwhile events are preparing the way for larger claims on the part of Russia as indemnity for the treasures of means and blood which the struggle has cost, when she shall gain that ascendency in the war which she seeks and expects.
Nothing has thus far occurred to throw any particular uncertainty over the issue of this gigantic contest. The results indicated in the extracts which we present below, though for a while postponed, are rendered none the less improbable.
The first is an extract from the will of Peter the Great of Russia, as published in the London Times:—
FROM THE WILL OF PETER THE GREAT.
“9. We must progress as much as possible in the direction of Constantinople and India. He who can once get possession of these places is the real ruler of the world. With this view we must provoke constant quarrels at one time with Turkey, and at another with Persia. We must establish wharfs and docks in the Euxine, and by degrees make ourselves masters of that sea as well as of the Baltic, which is a doubly important element in the success of our plan. We must hasten the downfall of Persia, push on to the Persian Gulf, and if possible re-establish the ancient commercial intercourse with the Levant through Syria, and force our way into the Indies, which are the store-houses of the world. Once there, we can dispense with the English gold.”
OPINION OF NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.
The remarks of Napoleon I. on the Turkish crisis, expressed while an exile in St. Helena, are as follows:—
“In the course of a few years, Russia will have Constantinople, part of Turkey, and all Greece. This I hold to be as certain as if it had already taken place; all the cajolery and flattery that Alexander practiced upon me was to gain my consent to effect that object. I would not give it, foreseeing that the equilibrium of Europe would be destroyed. In the natural course of things Turkey must fall to Russia; the powers it would injure, and who would oppose it, are England, France, Austria, and Prussia. Now, as to Austria, it would be very easy to secure her assistance by giving her Servia, and other provinces bordering on the Austrian dominions, reaching near to Constantinople. The only hypothesis upon which France and England will ever be allied with anything like sincerity will be to prevent this; but even this alliance will not avail. France, England, and Prussia united cannot prevent it. Russia and Austria can at any time effect it; once mistress of Constantinople, Russia gets all the commerce of the Mediterranean, becomes a great naval power, and God knows what may happen. The object of my invasion of Russia was to prevent this, by the interposition between her and Turkey of a new State which I meant to call into existence as a barrier to her eastern encroachments.”
Nothing could more plainly show the great sagacity and far-reaching policy of Napoleon, than the foregoing statements read in the light of the events now occurring in the East.
The following items of history throw some additional light on the course and aims of Russia.
RUSSIAN DESIGNS.
“In 1696, Peter the Great wrested the sea of Azof from the Turks, and kept it. Next, Catharine the Great won the Crimea. In 1812, by the peace of Bucharest, Alexander I. obtained Moldavia and the prettily named province of Bessarabia, with its apples, peaches, and cherries. Then came the great Nicholas, who won the right of the free navigation of the Black Sea, the Dardanelles and the Danube, but whose inordinate greed led him into the Crimean war, by which he lost Moldavia, and the right of navigating the Danube, and the unrestricted navigation of the Black Sea.”
“This was, no doubt, a severe repulse to Russia, but it did not extinguish the designs upon the Ottoman power, nor did it contribute in any essential degree to the stability of the Ottoman empire. Patiently biding her time, Russia has been watching and waiting, and in 1870, when all the western nations were watching the Franco-Prussian war, she announced to the powers that she would be no longer bound by the treaty of 1856, which restricted her use of the Black Sea; and since that time that sea has been as it was one thousand years ago, to all intents and purposes, a mare Russicum.”
England has every pecuniary and worldly motive to make the prospect for Turkey as favorable as possible; yet England is forced to admit that the odds are against her as shown by the following:—
TURKEY OVERMATCHED.
“LONDON, June 5.—The Times, in a leading article, says: So far as can be judged the fortune of war will be adverse to the Turks. The operations may not have the rapidity of recent wars, but the Turks are overmatched and must succumb in the end. This catastrophe Europe will accept. No nation will go to war again to support that which cannot be supported. No real statesman will cling to the dead element in a system instead of looking for its living forces. We know we must seek for that which is to replace the parting power. To this we cannot too soon direct our attention.”
Will not other powers come to the assistance of the Turks, as in 1798, in 1838, and in 1853, and help her out of her present struggle? A dispatch from London some months since foreshadowed the neutral policy of England in the following words:—
“England has never undertaken to interfere in the concerns of the continent without continental allies. There is no good ground for believing that we should have real support from any power in a war for the defense of the Turkish state.”
A later, and more official statement, as published in the San Francisco Daily Post, reads as follows:—
“It is stated that Minister Layard informed the Porte that England had guaranteed the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire only under the conditions laid down by the treaties stipulating for the exercise of control by the powers. The Porte having contested this right has forfeited the benefits guaranteed by these treaties, and England could not intervene with arms in its behalf.”
France has taken a similar position of neutrality. The prophecy says that this king of the north of Dan. 11:40–45, which many at the present time even of different denominations, agree in applying to the Turkish power, shall come to his end and none shall help him. The “help” is certainly so far withheld, and his end cannot be far in the future.
A dispatch from Washington to the Daily Graphic of New York, speaking of Russia’s operations in the East says:—
“The occupation of Armenia also means eventually the total destruction of the Ottoman power.”
U. S.
WHAT! WHAT! WHAT!
By Uriah Smith
In the Restitution of Aug. 12, 1877, occurs an obituary notice, in which the following words are found. We think the reader will agree with us that they sound strangely enough considering the connection in which they stand. After getting hurriedly through with the facts concerning the deceased usually stated in an obituary notice, the writer uncorks the pent up feelings of his soul in the following magnificent style:—
“‘Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; and their works do follow them.’ Rev. 14:13.
“A little clearer light than we at present have, is greatly desired upon this verse, and, indeed, the whole chapter. ‘From henceforth’—from a definite point of time onward. Is this the understanding of the passage? If so, when is the point of time referred to? John sees a Lamb (Christ) stand on Mount Zion, and with him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having their Father's name written in their foreheads. This is first seen in the vision. Do the rest follow in their consecutive order? If so, are they not in the future? Christ does not come to Mount Zion in any sense of the word till he appears there with his redeemed, glorified body, the church. This being the fact—and we think none will dispute it—then the first, second and third angel's messages are in the future. This view will make havoc with Mrs. White's visions. Can't help it. Truth is what we want. Well, but what about Christ's coming for his bride, the church? That is a separate and distinct event from his appearing in his public and outer manifestation to the world. Between these two events is, to my mind, just where the three angels seen in the vision will deliver their cry and perform their fearful works.”
In the same strain the writer goes on to the end, uttering the most incoherent views, and calling for more light. Let the reader remember that all this occurs as a part of an obituary notice, and then try to imagine the state of a man's mind who cannot deal with the tender memories of the dead, which should be guarded from every distracting thought, without mixing them up with so inopportune a splutter against “Mrs. White's visions”! Surely these visions must be an appalling object before his terrified spirit. They must rest like a continual incubus upon his perturbed imagination. He desires to “make havoc” of them; so much so that he valiantly unsheathes his sword and thrusts at them even over the graves of his friends, and “can't help it.”
We say nothing about such jumbling together of different lines of prophecy as to make a message of warning go forth to men on the earth, even after the Lamb is seen with his redeemed on Mount Zion, only to remark, that he evidently does stand sadly in need of more light. And we should have some heart to try to furnish that light, did it not appear that his eyes are sealed against all its rays with scales more broad and ponderous than the pound of yellow wax which the English Patent Bureau attaches to its official documents. U. S.
TO CORRESPONDENTS.
By Uriah Smith
1. Who is meant by Lucifer in Isa. 14:12; and 2. Why is Peter mentioned especially in Mark 16:7? J. F. T.
Ans. 1. It is generally supposed that Lucifer, in Isa. 14:12, is a term used to designate Satan. 2. Peter is doubtless specially mentioned on account of his pre-eminent zeal in the cause of his Master. He first ventured into the sepulcher. John 20:6.
Where do our ministers get authority for saying that the time Jesus met with the disciples on the fishing occasion, after the resurrection, John 21:1, &c., was on Sunday? A. B.
Ans. Our correspondent, we think, is laboring under a misapprehension here; as we do not think any S. D. A. preacher makes such a statement. The matter, as we apprehend it, stands thus: The advocates of Sunday sacredness say that Christ met with his disciples after his resurrection only on the first day of the week, designing thereby to elevate and honor that day. Then, we reply, if that is so, the day he met them when they were fishing, was the first day of the week; and granting this, it follows that the disciples did not know but that it was perfectly right to go a fishing on that day; and Christ by not reprimanding them, virtually sanctioned that occupation. All this, it will be seen, is simply arguing on the ground of our opponents. It is they, not we, who make out that fishing day to be the first day of the week.
Do Acts 2:46, and 20:7, 11, refer to the Lord’s supper, or simply to partaking of ordinary meals? H. M. O.
Ans. The phrase “breaking of bread” seems to refer to the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, while the word “eating” in its various forms points as clearly to the partaking of food in ordinary meals. The two forms of expression are associated together in the case of Christ with his disciples, Luke 24:30, 35, and in the passages under notice: Acts 2:46; 20:7, 11. From this fact the conclusion is drawn in Smith’s unabridged dictionary, that in the apostolic age the solemn act of breaking bread by those qualified to administer the rite, in memory of Christ’s death, was more or less commonly connected with the ordinary meal, either preceding or following the partaking of food to satisfy hunger. If this supposition is correct, it may be concluded that at Troas they partook of the Lord’s supper, and then that the apostle partook of food to supply the wants of his physical nature in his loss of sleep and rest, and in his arduous and taxing labors.
In the title of the pope, “Vicarius Filii Dei,” from which the number 666 is made out, what authority is there for calling the letter u the same as v, and counting it five? H. A. W.
Ans. The old Roman u was written in the form now adopted for the English letter v. In the Bible Dictionary issued by the American Tract Society, under the word “Penny” is shown a facsimile of a Roman coin used in the time of Cæsar Augustus; and the name is spelled as follows: “Cæsar Avgvstvs.” Again under the word “Captivity” is shown a coin struck to commemorate the capture of Judea by the Romans, and the inscription is “Ivdea capta,” the i being the same as j, and the v the same as u, so that they read it, “Judea capta.” See also Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.
What is the definition of the word, spirit, given in full? R. V.
Ans. In the volume entitled “Man’s Nature and Destiny,” there is a chapter devoted to the use and definition of the terms, soul and spirit. See pp. 46–56.
When does the new birth spoken of in John 3:3, take place? D. W.
Ans. The resurrection of the righteous to a new and immortal life, is illustrated by the figure of a birth. Conversion, or the change from a state of sin to a new spiritual life, is also illustrated by the figure of a birth. The principal question would therefore seem to be to determine which expressions, where this figure is used, refer to conversion, and which to the resurrection. John 3:3 probably refers to conversion. See the article by Eld. G. I. Butler, in REVIEW, Vol. 49, No. 8.
Which law was our school-master to bring us to Christ? J. O. F.
Ans. The whole typical or ceremonial system, the body of which is of Christ. Col. 2:17.
The tract, “Which day do you keep,” &c., says, “Find a text which says, ‘Thou shalt do no work on the first day of the week.’ How do you reconcile this with Lev. 23:35, 36?” M. H. F.
Ans. The “first day,” and the “eighth day” spoken of in those verses refer only to the first and eighth days of that feast of tabernacles, and have no reference to the first day of the week, nor to any day as a weekly sabbath, as this was only a yearly observance.
What “power” is referred to in the first part of the 13th of Romans? C. C. D.
Ans. The authority of God to which all men should be subject. The apostle goes on to show that it is by the ordinance of God, that in the present condition of our world, governments and rulers are established, and all should respect and obey them, when their requirements do not conflict with the “higher powers,” or the requirements which are binding upon us directly from God, without regard to the enactments of men.
R. Foster: See exposition of 1 Kings 17:21, 22, in Man’s Nature and Destiny, pp. 100–104.
1. Which is the greater work, creation or redemption? 2. Is it in harmony with S. D. Adventist faith or rules to play croquet? E. W.
Ans. 1. We would like to see the man who is able to comprehend the magnitude of the work of creation, and who is able also to fathom the workings of God’s mind in providing for us redemption, so as to be able to compare, and decide which is the greater work. We imagine such a person would be not much inferior to God himself. See this subject discussed in our Sabbath tracts. 2. There are some subjects upon which it does not seem necessary to legislate or make rules. We have no rules against a man’s spending his time in gathering a store of thistles for his winter’s provision, or planting for his summer crops in the fall when the winter is coming, or spending his time and means to ornament one portion of his buildings while the flames are consuming the other. But all this would not look very rational or consistent. Neither could we consider it any more consistent125for a person who professes to believe that the last message of mercy is now going to dying men, and that but a short time is left to prepare ourselves, and to work for others, to spend any portion of this precious time, in such a frivolous occupation as knocking a set of wooden balls around the yard, accompanied always with more or less empty and foolish talk, and too often with a spirit of strife and altercation. It looks to us like insanity. How a person can consent to spend any one of the few remaining invaluable moments which should be all crowded full of the most earnest and heroic work for eternity, in such a manner, is past our comprehension.
ANSWERED BY LETTER: Wm. H. Mills, W. Crittenden, M. P. Cody, H. H. Bramhall, J. S. Shrock, T. C. Howell, H. Grant, G. W. Barker, W. H. Littlejohn, Anderson Johnston, Geo. I. Butler. U. S.
AS WE MIGHT EXPECT.
By Uriah Smith
In the Boulder News, of July 21, 1876, published in Boulder, Col., we find a report of a Methodist Conference at that place, in which one of the speakers, dwelling on the temperance movement, used the following language:—
“Whatever . . . endangers the social life, or interferes with or impedes the progress of human destiny toward the goal of prosperity and happiness, must be branded as an enemy and be removed—annihilated. All hostile agencies to Christianity ally themselves with the friends of intemperance. This is true of all classes of so-called free-thinkers, and Sabbatarians and infidels. These would take from us all the hallowed and God-ordained safeguards to virtue, which have been the harbingers of all social, civil, and moral good all along the ages.”
The word “Sabbatarians” in the foregoing extract is what interests us; and the associating of this class, on the part of the speaker, with free-thinkers and infidels, and holding them up as enemies to progress, virtue, and Christianity, is an exhibition of that discrimination and good judgment for which some men are so remarkable, or else of that prejudice against the Sabbath cause which finds its best soil within the pale of the professed church of Christ.
Sabbatarians advocate, and we are happy to believe practice to a greater extent than any other denomination, the strictest morality, the purest virtue, the most radical and effectual doctrine of temperance, and the highest type of Christianity. The crime of ranking such a class with the vile and besotted company that compose the army of intemperance and infidelity admits of neither excuse nor apology. Yet such is the enmity of religious bigots against those who so rudely expose the unscriptural foundations of Sunday-keeping, as Sabbatarians do, that they will resort to any methods, however unfair and dishonest, to excite against them a storm of public odium and obloquy. We have all along predicted that such a course would be pursued, and such utterances as the foregoing give us an earnest of the fulfillment.
U. S.
THE LAW AND THE GENTILES.
By J. H. Waggoner
In my article entitled, “The Law and the Gentiles,” it was my intention to use some extracts from Alexander Campbell’s “Christian System,” but I did not have the book with me when the article was published. The reasonableness of the following extracts will strike every reader. I copy from the fourth edition, Bosworth, Cincinnati, 1870. The subject is that of patriarchal worship, and how far it was affected by the Jewish dispensation.
“Family worship was, then, the first social worship; and during the first ages of the world, for at least two thousand five hundred years, it was the only social worship, of divine authority. Though other institutions have been added, this has never been superseded. Having its foundation in the matrimonial compact, the most ancient of all religious and political institutions, and this being founded on nature itself, it never can be superseded. While the forms of this worship have always been adapted to the genius of the various revelations of God vouchsafed to mankind, it has continued through all the changes of six thousand years, and will continue till the day when men, like the angels of God, shall neither marry nor give in marriage.”
“Family worship, so long as it continued the only social worship, underwent no material change; and this is the period which is properly called the patriarchal age of the world.”
Having thus affirmed that the patriarchal system of worship is perpetual, because it was founded upon natural relations, he proceeds to show what were the peculiarities of this unrepealed system of worship.
“The moral and religious institutions of the patriarchal or family worship, which continued from the fall of Adam to the covenant of circumcision, were the Sabbath, the service of the altar, oral instruction, prayer, praise, and benediction. With the addition of circumcision in the family of one single patriarch, for special purposes, these were the parts of that system which continued for two thousand five hundred years.”
“The religious observance of weeks or Sabbaths in commemoration of creation, and prospective of an eternal rest, to arise out of the sacrificial and typical institution, was religiously observed to the giving of the law, or to the erection of the Jewish institution. Thus the law of the Sabbath commences with the words, Remember the Sabbath. The righteous always remembered the weeks, and regarded the conclusion of the week as holy to the Lord. Hence, even after the apostasy, which issued in the neglect of family worship, in consequence of the sons of God intermarrying with the daughters of men, and which brought a flood of water upon the world of the ungodly—we find Noah religiously counting his weeks even while incarcerated in the ark. In the wilderness of Sin, before the giving of the law, we also find the Jews observing the Sabbath. And to facilitate the observance of it God wrought three special miracles during the peregrinations of Israel. He gave two days’ portion of manna on the sixth day—none on the seventh—and preserved from putrefaction that portion laid up for the Sabbath.”
After noting instances of worship of various persons mentioned in the book of Genesis, and in Job, he continues:—
“From these gleanings from the book of Genesis, one may learn that the family worship institution, which was divinely instituted in the first age of the world, embraced the observance of the Sabbath, the service of the altar, oral instruction, prayer, intercession, thanksgiving, and benediction. It contemplated no other bond of union than the marriage covenant, and the relations springing out of it. Doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly with God, were enforced in all its maxims, and in the example of those whom God honored and approved.”
Mr. Campbell has surely been sufficiently cautious in his expression when he says one may learn this “from these gleanings from the book of Genesis,” for, as far as the Sabbath is concerned, the statement of Gen. 2:3 is definite and certain as to the revelation of the duty of its observance to the head of the human race. At the close of the week of creation God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. To sanctify is to set apart for observance, or to make known the duty to observe. The day could not be set apart for observance and man, who was to observe it, be left ignorant of the duty. An essential part of the act of setting it apart to be religiously observed was to inform man that it was so to be observed, and this information carried with it the force of explicit precept or law. This, and this only, meets the meaning of the word sanctified.
All that may be learned from Genesis, either as to principles or to particular facts, justifies the conclusion arrived at by Mr. Campbell. Certainly all the families of the earth were amenable to God before the flood, and before the calling of Abraham. Both Noah and Abraham were called because they paid more regard to God’s revealed method of worship than did others. And the calling of Abraham, and laying special duties upon him, did not supersede the general duties to which he and all others were under obligation, nor release others from those duties. And thus Mr. Campbell continues on another page:—
“In calling Abraham, and in making him the father of many nations, and the depositary of still more precious promises and revelations, God did not supersede the family worship. He only added to the stock of religious knowledge, strengthened the faith, and enlarged the hopes of that single family. The family institution continued without the slightest change, except in one particular specified in the covenant of circumcision, as respected the single family of Abraham, for four hundred and thirty years after the charter concerning his seed and that concerning the Messiah were secured to this renowned patriarch.”
“The Jewish institution commenced and continued about one thousand five hundred years before the reign of Heaven began. It was not substituted for the family worship but added to it; affecting, however, the patriarchal institution in some respects, as far as concerned the single family of Abraham. The individual families of the Jews, as such, had still their family worship,—still the worship of God was heard in the dwellings of the righteous; and, like Joshua, every good Israelite said, ‘As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.’”
“In four hundred years the family of Abraham had, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, in fulfillment of the first promise, grown up into millions. Not less than two millions came up out of Egypt under the conduct of Moses. The Heavenly Father, in progressive development of his plan of blessing all nations, leaves all the world under the family worship institution, and erects the whole progeny of Abraham, that came up out of Egypt, into one great national institution.”
This is the only rational view that can be taken of the facts gathered from the book of Genesis. It is only absurd to suppose that the whole world were sinners in the absence of law, as some now presume to teach; and that God chose the seed of Abraham and made known his law to them alone, leaving all the nations beside them without any rule of life and actually, therefore, without any accountability to God. And Mr. Campbell’s conclusion that all the nations or families of earth were left amenable to the original revelation of God’s will or law, is fully sustained by Paul in his letter to the Romans.
And this leads, unavoidably, to the conclusion that all the nations of the earth were under obligation to keep the Sabbath. It is more than a mere conclusion, at least so far as Mr. Campbell’s statement is concerned; for he says directly that at the erection of the Jewish system all the families or nations outside of Abraham’s posterity were left under that system of worship which contained the Sabbath of the Lord, which system, as it grows out of natural relations, will continue till men, as angels, neither marry nor give in marriage. These natural relations were no more interfered with by the gospel than by the Jewish system. So far from it, the gospel was designed to restore and to bring man back to those natural and moral relations which he had disregarded. For sin consisted in disregarding these original relations. No one can take any other view unless he loses sight of the remedial nature of the gospel, which, indeed, is its real nature—its very essence. For if the gospel is not a remedy, what is it? We think the remarks of Mr. Campbell will commend themselves to every thoughtful, candid mind. J. H. WAGGONER.