THOSE who will have the patience to read the writers of the early centuries in their controversies over the doctrine of the Trinity, must agree in this, that very much which was then written on the subject was an interminable jargon, a bitter contention over words to no profit; made up more largely of invectives and personal criminations than of argument; showing more zeal for party success than piety.
Bingham speaks of the vague views held by some in the following significant terms:—
"There were some very early that turned the doctrine of the Trinity into Tritheism, and, instead of three divine persons under the economy of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, brought in three collateral, co-ordinate, and self-originated beings, making them three absolute and independent principles, without any relation of Father or Son, which is the most proper notion of three gods. And having made this change in the doctrine of the Trinity, they made another change answerable to it in the form of baptism."—Antiquities, book 11, chap. 3, § 4.
Who can distinguish between this form of expression and that put forth by the council of Constantinople in A. D. 381, wherein the true faith is declared to be that of "an uncreated and consubstantial and co-eternal Trinity"? The truth is that we find the same idea which is here described by Bingham running through much of the orthodox literature of the second and third centuries. There is no proper "relation of Father and Son" to be found in the words of the council, above quoted. And we willingly leave it with the good judgment of every unprejudiced reader that three baptisms are more consistent with the idea of "three collateral, co-ordinate, and self-originated beings," than with the idea of baptism into the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and in the likeness of the Saviour's death and resurrection.
Bingham says this error in regard to a Trinity of three co-ordinate and self-originated and independent beings arose in the church very early; and so we find it in the earliest authors after the days of the apostles. He said that a change was made in the form of baptism corresponding to this form of belief; and so we find that three baptisms were announced by the same writers. Three baptisms are contrary to the express words of the Scripture and contrary to the Scripture ideas of baptism into the death and resurrection of Christ. We must determine, and that to a certainty, that three baptisms is that erroneous form which was made to correspond to the doctrine of three co-eternal beings, which did not regard the true relation of Father and Son, and which gave rise to a rejection of the baptism of the gospel, into the death of Christ.
Eld. Moore says:—
"We have shown conclusively that Justin was baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' and by trine immersion, which traces trine immersion in an unbroken line to within thirty-three years of the close of the apostolic age."
We quote this to show with what surpassing confidence he claims to have proved conclusively that of which he has not given one particle of evidence. And this seems to be characteristic of that class. The most absurd and improbable things are put forth with as much assurance as if they were demonstrated. Again he says:—
"The origin of single immersion can be found among the innovations of the fourth century, while sprinkling and pouring, as well as infant baptism, can boast of no better birth."
We say that single immersion has not been and cannot be traced to the innovations of the fourth century. It is according to the plain teachings of the New Testament; and the historian or tradition-monger who seeks to elevate another form to its place only proves that he does not follow the light of divine truth. And, if Eld. Moore means to say that sprinkling and pouring and infant baptism are also among the innovations of the fourth century, then he states what every one knows to be untrue who does not take all his historical knowledge at second-hand. Or, if he means to say that sprinkling and pouring and infant baptism, and, we may add, infant communion, have not as good historical evidence in their favor as trine immersion has, he then speaks against his own knowledge, or shows that his knowledge of history is very limited. Let this be specially noticed: While history is the chief dependence of trine immersion, it is not one whit more strongly fortified by history than are sprinkling, infant baptism, and infant communion. On this point we are willing to rest the case on the evidence herein presented.
Chrystal, who is quoted so largely by the advocates of trine immersion, advocates infant baptism as strongly as he does trine immersion. And he defends tradition, because it by it he proves these dogmas. But it is a suspicious circumstance that he is silent in regard to infant communion, which, he must know, is as strongly entrenched in tradition, as are infant baptism and trine immersion. Infant baptism and infant communion are logically inseparable; they stand or fall together, so far as reason and traditional evidence are concerned.
THE CONSEQUENCES.
Some may be led to inquire, Does it not invalidate the Christian faith, or raise a doubt of the accuracy and sufficiency of the New Testament, to thus prove that the writers of the second and third centuries were so divided in sentiment, or so completely followers of traditions? We answer, not at all. It proves the correctness of the New Testament, which pointed out this very state of things as soon to exist after the days of the apostles. Even in their own times they had to labor against this spirit of contention and division, which already began to distract the churches. Paul at Ephesus said:—
"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them."
This fitly represents the condition of the poor, distracted church, under the leadership of ambitious men, such as obtained the controlling influence in the early centuries. We have no doubt that many honest souls mourned over this declension, but the willful and the ambitious are the ones who are heard, and who leave their impress on the multitude, and stand out most prominent in history. This contentious and ambitious spirit gave rise to the Roman hierarchy, a dominion in the church of Christ such as the Scriptures never sanctioned, and Christ himself forbade. The Papacy, as a power among the kingdoms of earth, was erected in the sixth century; but we shall greatly mistake if we think it arose so late as that. Paul, speaking of the "falling away" and the revealing of the "man of sin," said, "The mystery of iniquity doth already work." We must bear in mind that this mystery of iniquity was working in the church; it was by a falling away that the man of sin was developed.
Such being the case, is it any credit to any system or doctrine that it found advocates and followers in that age? If we pay proper regard to the warnings of the apostles, and respect to the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice, we shall rather avoid quoting the opinions of "the fathers" in favor of any dogma, knowing that they lived in an age of darkness and great confusion. We pass no judgment upon their sincerity of purpose or honesty of intention. But we do affirm that it is not safe to follow every one who, we think, intends well; we must remember their liability to be deceived. We contend for "the Bible and the Bible alone." Centuries ago this was declared to be "the religion of Protestants." But alas for the day! Protestants, or those calling themselves by this name, are turning again to the fog of tradition for support, and rejoice when they can find the testimony of the fathers on their side, as if they had found great treasures.
We do not consider it necessary to consume time and space to show why the writings of the fathers have not been preserved as free from corruptions and interpolations as the Holy Scriptures. Reasons, good and sufficient, may be given. We never feel more thankful that we have the Bible, given by inspiration of God, and wonderfully preserved by the providence of God, than when we are reading the writings of the successors of the apostles. They present a labyrinth of contradictions and superstitions, from which we turn to find glad relief in the writings of those who "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
"Should all the forms that men devise
Assault my faith with treacherous art,
I'd call them vanity and lies,
And bind the gospel to my heart."
J. H. W.
A SEVENTH PART OF TIME.
By William Henry Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
THIRDLY, it makes the law contradictory in its provisions. Nothing is more manifest than that a rule emanating from the Infinite must be characterized by harmony in all of its parts. In fact, should a document claiming this honor appear to be deficient in this respect, it would be all which would be necessary to disprove its heavenly origin. God never stultifies himself by introducing into the same law conflicting provisions. He never enjoins in one clause a duty in which is implied the right of choice as to the time and manner of its fulfillment, and in the next prevents you, either from enjoying this franchise yourself, or requires, at your hands, that which would render it impossible for others to do so. In other words, applying the principle to the case in hand, God either meant to confer upon all the right of deciding for themselves which day they would keep, or else he intended to withhold it from them altogether. If the latter be true, it was done for good and sufficient cause; if the former, then he was moved to this course by considerations equally weighty. There is no half-way ground in this matter. The right of choice in this thing is either a positive good or a positive evil. If the latter, then he has, unquestionably, guarded against it in every reasonable manner; if the former, then he has, doubtless, shielded it with the most scrupulous care, in order that the greatest good might be accomplished; by leaving to the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the master and the servant, the right, as against every other man, of saying, not only that they would keep the Sabbath, but that which was equally God-given, of determining when they would do so. But this is just what our friends argue that he intended to do in the decalogue. If they are right we shall, undoubtedly, find it constructed upon this principle throughout. Let us test the matter. Perhaps the best method of doing this would be that of allowing some one of their number to attempt,41practically, to carry out his conception of this doctrine.
(1) Let him be a man of family, say a farmer, a portion of whose children are grown up; and who is surrounded by much hired help; also, a man who is not only conscientious in his notions, as doubtless many of that faith are, but a somewhat ardent advocate of them; and one who would spurn the idea of depriving others of that which he believed to be their rightful prerogative.
Having kept Sunday for the whole of his life thus far, he concludes that a sentiment which can never be enjoyed is hardly worth the holding, and decides to deviate from the practice of years, so far as to substitute Wednesday for it in the future. His wife consenting, they gather the household about them, and make known their intentions. While he invites all, as far as they can consistently do so, to unite with himself and wife in this thing, he nevertheless gives them to understand that he shall by no means attempt to coerce compliance, since that would be an infringement on their undoubted freedom to consult their own wishes in such matters. However, it would be exceedingly gratifying if all would make the change with them. The young people, seeing that such a step would be very inconvenient, and many times in the way of their enjoying society as they otherwise would, decide not to take it. The hired help, also, for one cause or another, determine not to depart from the custom of their fathers.
Wednesday arrives at last, and with it the appointed rest. Our venerable friend, true to his convictions of duty, having previously assigned, to all who thus desired, the field of their labor during his Sabbath, in order that his mind might not be turned away from its devotions by the intrusion of matters of a secular nature, withdrawing, in company with his wife, to a retired portion of the house, and congratulating himself upon the liberality of sentiments which, instead of holding all to the same inflexible rule, furnishes so much scope to the gratification of personal tastes and the consulting of individual interests, enters upon his rest. In this mood, the Bible is taken from the shelf, and opened to the 20th chapter of Exodus. The gray-haired man reads: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." Yes, Lord, he replies, we are endeavoring thus to do. "Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work." This, he responds, we have already done. "But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Once more he ejaculates, This has reference to one day in seven, and means that it should be celebrated as we are celebrating this. He begins back a little: "In it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates." He pauses. A new idea strikes his mind. He again reads the passage. He is not mistaken. In the light of those words he is a Sabbath-breaker. For, waving all question in regard to time, he is guilty in respect to the manner of keeping the Sabbath; as, by every rule of fair construction, these words clearly imply that his sons, his daughters, his man-servant, his maid-servant, his cattle, and even the stranger that is within his gates, are to abstain from labor on the same hours on which he does; and yet, by his own direction, his daughters and his maid-servants are hard at work in the kitchen; his sons are employed in like manner in one field, while, in another, his oxen, under the goad of a hired man, are pressing their weary shoulders against the yoke, in order that in due time their master may reap in a rich harvest of golden grain—the reward of their Sabbath toil.
Do you say that we are begging the question in saying that the words in controversy, when rightly understood, teach what we claim? We reply, The verdict of all ages and races is in our favor in this matter. From Sinai to the present time it has been the practice of both Jews and Gentiles to hold church members responsible, under the principle enunciated in this language, for the conduct of those under their roof on the Sabbath day. So general, and so deep-seated, is the conviction that this practice is in every way commendable, we venture the prediction that should a conscientious Sabbatarian in search of labor among equally sincere Sunday-keepers, who needed his services ever so much, propose the idea of working for them on the latter and resting on the former day, his proposition would be spurned with contempt by nine out of ten, on the ground that they could not grant it without sin.
(2) The understanding of the clause which you suggest involves absurdities too great to be entertained for a moment. Take, for example, the first two classes mentioned, i. e., sons and daughters. In the majority of cases, they would include children of immature years. Does it seem probable that God would subject a father to the humiliating necessity of consulting the whims and caprices of boys and girls, as to when they should observe the Sabbath on his premises and under his roof? Yet he has done so, unless the language in question confers upon him the power of compelling them to rest at a time either fixed by the Almighty, or to be fixed by himself.
(3) The third class produces an illustration of the folly of such a sentiment, as clearly marked as does that of the second. For it cannot, with any show of reason, be urged that the servant should be made superior to the master by conferring upon him the privilege of deciding in reference to the day upon which he will rest, and, at the same time, the latter be held responsible for the manner in which he passes it. And, besides, is it not manifest that the workings of such a system would be disastrous in the extreme, and that the efforts of every family conducted upon this principle would inevitably be marked by confusion and failure? Surely, nothing is more indispensable to success than the presence of the leading mind at the time when the subordinate ones are to carry out the plans of operation which he has formed. But this, in the case under consideration, would be rendered impossible for at least one day in every week. Not only so, but the sentiment in question, in the hands of skillful shirks, especially where the service, as among the Jews, was many times for life, would prove the never-failing source of vexation and trial; for a change of Sabbath would ever afford a plausible pretext for absence, whenever extraordinary or unpleasant labor was to be performed.
(4) Again, the fact that cattle are mentioned in this connection in common with sons, daughters, men-servants, maid-servants, and strangers, throws light upon the intention of the Lawgiver; for, as it is said of them, in common with the others, that they shall do no work in it (i. e., the seventh day), it becomes too plain to admit of argument that the words "in it," as here read and applied to them in common with the other classes, does not refer to the day of their choice—but must be understood as alluding to the one in which the master himself refrains from labor.
Thus we think we have established that which we at first assumed to be true, namely, that the head of a family does not wholly comply with the law by simply resting on the Sabbath day. He must do more than this. He must compel those about him to follow his example. The bearing of this fact upon the general issue is too plain to require comment; for you will remember that the "seventh-part-of-time theory" is but the enunciation of the principle that God has clothed every man with authority to decide for himself when he will hallow the Sabbath; and yet we discover that, by a decree of the same God, three-fourths of the race, or at least all embraced in the various orders of children abiding at home, men-servants, maid-servants, and strangers, are most effectually debarred from the benefits of this provision. One of two things, therefore, is true: Either the Lord has, in the details of his law, defeated its general purpose and plan, or else this theory does not accord with his original intention. The reader will not be slow to decide which of these hypotheses he will adopt.
ANTE-MORTEM RELIGION.
By Dr. Talmage
In his Sunday morning sermon, January 2, 1881, Dr. Talmage said:—
The papers are already made out, and to-morrow some of you will enter into business partnerships, and others of you will take higher position in the commercial establishment where you are now engaged, and others will enter upon new enterprises and there will be in these cities ten thousand business changes. You are expecting prosperity, and I am determined, so far as I have anything to do with it, that you shall not be disappointed, and therefore I propose, as God may help me this morning, to project upon your attention a new element of success. You will have in the business firm, frugality, patience, industry, perseverance, economy—a very strong business firm; but there needs to be one member added, mightier than them all, and not a silent partner either—the one introduced by my text: "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come."
I suppose you are all willing to admit that godliness is important in its eternal relations; but perhaps some of you say, "All I want is an opportunity to say a prayer before I die and all will be well." There are a great many people who suppose that if they can finally get safely out of this world into a better world, they will have exhausted the entire advantage of our holy religion. They talk as though religion were a mere nod of recognition which we are to give to the Lord Jesus on our way up to a heavenly mansion; as though it were an admission ticket of no use except to give in at the door of Heaven. And there are thousands of people who have great admiration for a religion of the shroud, and a religion of the coffin, and a religion of the hearse, and a religion of the cemetery, who have no appreciation of a religion for the bank, for the factory, for the warehouse, for the jeweler's shop, for the broker's office.
Now, while I would not throw any slur on a post-mortem religion, I want this morning, and in the first Sunday of the new year, to eulogize an ante-mortem religion. A religion that is of no use to you while you live, will be of no use to you when you die. "Godliness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come."
1. Godliness is good for a man's physical health. I do not mean to say it will restore a broken-down constitution, or drive rheumatism from the limbs, or neuralgia from the temples, or pleurisy from the side; but I do mean to say that it gives one such habits and puts one in such condition as is most favorable for physical health. That I believe, and that I avow.
2. Godliness is good for the intellect. I know some have supposed that just as soon as a man enters into the Christian life, his intellect goes into a bedwarfing process. So far from that, religion will give new brilliancy to the intellect, new strength to the imagination, new force to the will, and wider swing to all the intellectual faculties. Christianity is the great central fire at which philosophy has lighted its brightest torch. The religion of the Lord Jesus Christ is the fountain out of which learning has dipped its clearest draught.
3. Again I remark, that godliness is profitable for one's disposition. Lord Ashley before he went into a great battle, was heard to offer this prayer: "O Lord, I shall be very busy to-day; if I forget thee, forget me not." With such a Christian disposition as that, a man is independent of all circumstances. Our piety will have a tinge of our natural temperament.
If a man be cross and sour and fretful naturally, after he becomes a Christian he will always have to be armed against the rebellion of those evil inclinations; but religion has tamed the wildest nature; it has turned fretfulness into gratitude, despondency into good cheer, and those who were hard and ungovernable and uncompromising have been made pliable and conciliatory.
Good resolution, reformatory effort, will not effect the change. It takes a mightier arm and a mightier hand to bend evil habits than the hand that bent the bow of Ulysses, and it takes a stronger lasso than ever held the buffalo on the prairie. A man cannot go forth with any human weapons and contend successfully against these Titans armed with uptorn mountains. But the influence of the gospel of Christ must come into the heart until the disposition is entirely changed.
FAITH IN GOD.
By E. F. Cottrell
BY ELD. E. F. COTTRELL.
THE great lack in men is the lack of faith. Hence they are fearful—they dare not trust in God. When duty is presented, they fear that if they obey, their worldly interests will suffer. They have a farm, a mill, a shop, or a store, on their hands, and they cannot see what will become of these interests, if they obey the truth, and keep the commandments of God.
Supposing they should lose all these things, and become poor in consequence of obeying God; and, as the result, be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that God has promised to them that love him. Would they lose anything? Would they not rather be infinitely the gainers? Why is it that
"The mote of worldly interest fills the eye,
And hides from view the worlds of bliss on high?"
Would it not be a happy exchange to give all of this world, and even life itself, for a portion in the world to come, and eternal life? Why do you hesitate, O you of little faith? Ah! it is because you do not confide in God and believe his promises. If you venture upon the promise of God, he is pledged that you shall lose nothing by it. But you dare not trust him! And so, failing to trust in him, you insure a portion with "the fearful and unbelieving." Rev. 21 : 8.
But your fears are false and groundless. You will not be left to poverty and woe, because you believe and obey God. His promise is pledged for all that you need in this life. Your heavenly Father knows that you have need of these things. Seek first the kingdom of God, and the righteousness required by him, and all these things shall be added unto you. You shall receive a hundred-fold in the present time, and in the world to come life everlasting. The only obstacle is the want of confiding faith in God. It is better to trust in God, than to trust in the "uncertain riches" of this world.
Humility Before God
THERE are hundreds of thousands, in the churches of God to-day who have been seized by spiritual leprosy, and God has laid them aside as vessels no longer meet for his service. In all ages God never has used a proud man or a proud woman, or a conceited man or a conceited woman! The men whom God has used in all ages were men who got glimpses of themselves, and so got the conceit taken out of them, before he used them. It was so with Moses; it was so with Job; it was so with Isaiah.—Moody.
Victory Over Self
By John Greenleaf Whittier
THERE may be glory in the might
That treadeth nations down—
Wreaths for the crimson warrior,
Pride for the kingly crown;
More glorious is the victory won
O'er self-indulgent lust,
The triumph of a brave resolve
That treads a vice in dust.
RARE THEOLOGICAL CRITICISM.
By J. H. W.
A PROFESSOR in a College, who writes D. D. to his name, attended a funeral at which the sermon was preached by a Seventh-day Adventist. The subject was appropriate—it was the resurrection of the dead. On the way to the cemetery, the Prof. took occasion to criticise the sermon, disputing in regard to the doctrine. This being successfully defended from the Scriptures, he turned to criticising the manner in which it was delivered, and insisted that the minister violated the principles of elocution!
We have no doubt there are many ministers like this D. D., who would show off their personal graces, and sacrifice the spirit and truth of the gospel for scholastic forms, even at a funeral. And we regret that the religious taste of the age is so vitiated, that such preaching (if it is lawful to call it so) is popular.
The poet asked,—
“Can flattery soothe the dull, cold ear of death?”
And we may ask, Can smooth speech, and artistic gestures, give consolation to the heart which sorrows at the death-bed of a dear friend? The very thought of criticising the elocutionary defects of a funeral discourse, while the Scripture hope is correctly expounded, is a mockery of the most sacred things with which we have to deal. We do not believe in clownishness, nor eccentricity in preachers. But these are more excusable, if the person is honestly ignorant, than “style” and foppery in the sacred desk in the person of one who has had the advantages of cultivation.
Judged by the standard of the present day, John the Baptist would be considered a boor, and Paul would be set down as a rustic. If we may trust the testimony of Paul concerning himself, he was not up to the last-day standard in elocutionary style. He sacrificed the “form” for the “power.” He did not use “enticing words which man’s wisdom teaches,” but the words which were taught by the Holy Ghost. Common report was against him, at least among the more polite and genteel. “His bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible,” they said. And this plea was put forth by those who were forced to confess that his letters were “weighty and powerful.” He was mighty in the truth of God, but lacking in those graces of person which please the vain and the idle, and therefore they were inclined to resist the truth taught by him.
There is a dignity in manhood when considered in regard to its relations to “the deep things of God”—to its great privileges and responsibilities, and the possibility of its attainments. But it is belittled by the action of many, whose advantages would lead us to expect better things of them. To us, there is painful evidence on every hand of the Scripture truth that man is a fallen being; that human nature is depraved and perverted. And we can almost excuse Prof. Darwin for projecting his theory, when we look upon the myriads who have little more reflection on the proprieties of life, who not much more realize the object and responsibilities of their existence, than the ancestry which he claims for them.
As “evil communications corrupt good manners,” we need to watch, lest we be drawn from our steadfastness in the faith, to adopt the standard of the world, or of a world-loving church. One item of that which largely makes up the perils of the last days is, that they who have the form of godliness, will deny the power thereof. 2 Tim. 3:1–5.
Truly, “the days are evil.” It is too late to trifle with the great things of God’s word. A lack of reverence, especially for the word of the Lord, is a prominent characteristic of the present age. Let our prayer be, “Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.” Ps. 119:18. J. H. W.
WHY SINGLE OUT THE SABBATH.
By E. F. Cottrell
BY ELD. E. F. COTTRELL.
GOD gave to mankind the principles of his moral law briefly comprised in ten moral precepts. These commandments are of equal authority, so that he who transgresses any one of them is guilty of a violation of the law. In these days iniquity abounds, as foretold by the Saviour, and the love of many has grown cold; so that there is not a precept in the decalogue that is not abundantly transgressed, even by professors of the religion of the Bible. Yet no professed believer will take the ground that any one of the ten commandments, except the fourth, has been blotted out or changed in the least; but it is generally held that the Sabbath of this commandment is the Sabbath no more.
The question is, Why this partiality in the law? See Mal. 2:7-9. Why single out the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the seventh day, as unworthy of a place in the moral law?
I think I can see clearly enough why Satan, the great enemy of God and man, should hate the Sabbath, and plant his batteries against the fourth commandment; but why enlightened Christians of the nineteenth century should follow his lead, instead of standing in the gap and repairing the breach in the divine law (Eze. 13:5; Isa. 58:12, 13), is more than I can tell: I therefore simply ask the question, and leave it for others to answer.
The Sabbath is a memorial of the only living and true God, a monument erected to the memory of Him who made the heaven and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh. Satan, who has a better knowledge of theology than most doctors of divinity, saw that, if he would be successful in warring against God and leading men into sin, he could do it in no other way so effectually as by demolishing this monument, reared to the special honor of the Creator. Therefore he brings his forces to bear, sappers and miners, small arms and ordnance, to demolish this sacred institution. To induce men to forget their Creator, nothing is more effectual than to destroy his memorial. So he suggests the worship of the sun, and in order to imitate and counterfeit the divine worship, sets apart a day for its worship, calling it Sunday. This form of idolatry was the most plausible, and probably the most popular, in all ancient heathendom.
And when we come down this side of the first advent, to the time of the apostasy which placed the Pope of Rome in the temple of God, it was just the time to foist this pagan festival into the place of the Lord's Sabbath, with the claim that "the fathers put in the place of the Sabbath the day which we now call Lord's day." It remained for the Protestants of the sixteenth century to first put forth the claim that this first-day Lord's day is the veritable Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Romanists have never made that claim; but they claim that the church has "substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority." Thus many ages and generations have shared in the work of demolishing the memorial of the Creator's work and rest. And, without doubt, Satan is well pleased to see how well he has succeeded.
But why do good men, in the face of all the light that is now shining on this subject, still adhere to this work, so evidently not of God? Why do they say that this commandment has been abolished? or, admitting the ten commandments as the moral law and still binding, why do they single out the Sabbath of that law consigning it to oblivion, adhering to a pretended memorial of another event instead of the memorial of the creation instituted by the Creator?
Is it because the doctrine of this Sabbath is a new doctrine? It is as old as the human race. Is it the Sabbath of the Jews? "The Sabbath was made for man;" and it existed thousands of years before there was a Jew. Does the fact that God commanded the Jews to keep the Sabbath make it Jewish? Why are not the other nine commandments Jewish for the same reason? Was the Sabbath nailed to the cross? How did the remainder of the decalogue escape the same fate? Is the precept unabolished, but changed? How do we know but that the other nine commandments also have been changed? Matt. 5:18. Was the Sabbath never commanded to the Gentiles? When and where were the other nine commanded to them? Was the Sabbath law not repeated in the New Testament? Neither were the first, second, third, eighth, and ninth precepts of the same law there repeated. Why single out the commandment enjoining the observance of the Sabbath, the memorial of God, from among those commandments, where he placed it with his own hand?
It is true that the Sabbath has some peculiarities which the other commandments have not. This commandment points us back to the creation for the origin of the Sabbath. No other commandment does the like. The Sabbath law was revealed when God sanctified, set apart, or appointed the seventh day. We have no account of any other of the ten precepts being so early revealed. The Sabbath is mentioned oftener, especially in the New Testament, than any other precept in the decalogue. From Genesis to Revelation it is known as the sanctified rest-day, Sabbath of the Lord, or Lord's day. Rev. 1:10. It was instituted in paradise, before sin and the curse entered, and it will exist in paradise restored, when sin and the curse are no more. In the world to come, the heavens and earth renewed, it will be observed by all the holy throng of the redeemed. "For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord." Isa. 66:22, 23. Israel redeemed and saved will "remain." So God's Sabbath and worship shall remain to the endless ages. Why single out the Sabbath for destruction, since it is distinguished with honor throughout revelation?
A PROMINENT SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE.
By James White
THE second coming of Christ is a subject of great importance to the church. This is evident from the amount of testimony relative to it, in connection with the resurrection of the just and the Judgment, found both in the Old and New Testaments. The inspired writers, in their threatenings against the ungodly, in their words of hope and encouragement for the saints, and in their exhortations to repentance and holy living, hold up the great fact of the second coming of the Son of man, as that which should alarm and arouse, and also comfort the people of God.
Before Adam passed from the stage of life, Enoch, the seventh in the line of his descendants, proclaimed this doctrine in the ears of the impenitent, "Behold," said he, "the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgment upon all." Jude 14. And as we pass from book to book through the Bible, we find that the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles, have made the same use of the doctrine; and in the very last book, John describes a coming day, when all classes and ranks of men, because they have not prepared for the coming of Christ, will call for rocks and mountains to fall on them, and hide them from the overwhelming glory of his presence, as he appears in the clouds of heaven. Rev. 6:14-17.
Christ's coming is also held prominently forth in the sacred writings, as the time when the righteous will be rewarded. "When the chief Shepherd shall appear," says Peter, "ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Pet. 5:4. And Paul looks forward to the day of Christ's appearing as the time when not only he, but all who love the appearing of their Lord, shall receive the crown of righteousness which is laid up for such. 2 Tim. 4:8.
Most frequently, however, is this great doctrine used as an incentive to repentance, watchfulness, prayer, and holy living. "Watch," is the emphatic injunction of the Son of God in connection with the numerous declarations of his second coming in the gospels.
Paul exhorts to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to "live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Titus 2:12, 13.
James says, "Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned. Behold, the Judge standeth before the door." James 5:8, 9.
Peter says, "But the end of all things is at hand; be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer." 1 Pet. 4:7. And again, "What manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God." 2 Pet. 3:11, 12.
Such is the use which holy men, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, have made of the doctrine of the second coming of Christ. Have not they, therefore, lost the spirit of the gospel, who openly contend against so prominent and weighty and precious a doctrine, or who even pass it by in silence? J. W.