Earlier text: Constantine and the Church: Imperial Favor and VanityWalking with the World.
By Matilda C. Edwards
The Church and the World walked far apart
On the changing shore of time;
The World was singing a giddy song,
And the Church a hymn sublime.
“Come, give me your hand,” cried the merry World,
“And walk with me this way;”
But the good Church hid her snowy hands,
And solemnly answered, “Nay,
I will not give you my hand at all,
And I will not walk with you;
Your way is the way to endless death;
Your words are all untrue.” “Nay, walk with me but a little space,”
Said the World, with a kindly air;
“The road I walk is a pleasant road,
And the sun shines always there;
Your path is thorny and rough and rude,
And mine is broad and plain;
My road is paved with flowers and dews,
And yours with tears and pain;
The sky above me is always blue;
No want, no toil, I know;
The sky above you is always dark;
Your lot is a lot of woe;
My path, you see, is a broad, fair one,
And my gate is high and wide;
There is room enough for you and for me
To travel side by side.” Half shyly the Church approached the World,
And gave him her hand of snow.
The old World grasped it, and walked along,
Saying in accents low,
“Your dress is too simple to please my taste;
I will give you pearls to wear,
Rich velvets and silks for your graceful form,
And diamonds to deck your hair.”
The Church looked down at her plain white robes,
And then at the dazzling World,
And blushed as she saw his handsome lip
With a smile contemptuous curled.
“I will change my dress for a costlier one,”
Said the Church, with a smile of grace;
Then her pure white garments drifted away,
And the World gave in their place
Beautiful satins and shining silks,
And roses and gems and pearls;
And over her forehead her bright hair fell,
Crisped in a thousand curls. “Your house is too plain,” said the proud old World;
I’ll build you one like mine;
Carpets of Brussels and curtains of lace,
And furniture ever so fine.”
So he built her a costly and beautiful house;
Splendid it was to behold;
Her sons and her beautiful daughters dwelt there,
Gleaming in purple and gold;
And fairs and shows in the halls were held,
And the World and his children were there,
And laughter and music and feasts were heard
In the place that was meant for prayer.
She had cushioned pews for the rich and great,
To sit in their pomp and pride;
While the poor folks, clad in their shabby suits,
Sat meekly down outside. The Angel of Mercy flew over the Church,
And whispered, “I know thy sin;”
Then the Church looked back with a sigh, and longed
To gather her children in.
But some were off at the midnight ball,
And some were off at the play,
And some were drinking in gay saloons;
So she quietly went her way.
Then the sly World gallantly said to her,
“Your children mean no harm,
Merely indulging in innocent sports;”
So she leaned on his proffered arm,
And smiled, and chatted, and gathered flowers,
As she walked along with the World;
While millions and millions of priceless souls
To the horrible gulf were hurled. “Your preachers are all too old and plain,”
Said the gay World with a sneer;
“They frighten my children with dreadful tales,
Which I like not for them to hear;
They talk of brimstone and fire and pain,
And the horrors of endless night;
They talk of a place which should not be
Mentioned to ears polite.
I will send you some of the better stamp,
Brilliant and gay and fast,
Who will tell them that people may live as they list,
And go to Heaven at last.
The Father is merciful, great and good,
Tender and true and kind;
Do you think he would take one child to Heaven
And leave the rest behind?”
So he filled her house with gay divines,
Gifted and great and learned;
And the plain old men that preached the cross
Were out of her pulpits turned. “You give too much to the poor,” said the World,
“Far more than you ought to do:
If the poor need shelter and food and clothes,
Why need it trouble you?
Go take your money and buy rich robes,
And horses and carriages fine,
And pearls and jewels and dainty food,
And the rarest and costliest wine;
My children, they dote on all such things,
And if you their love would win,
You must do as they do, and walk in the ways
That they are walking in.”
Then the Church held tightly the strings of her purse,
And gracefully lowered her head,
And simpered, “I’ve given too much away;
I’ll do, sir, as you have said.” So the poor were turned from her door in scorn,
And she heard not the orphan’s cry;
And she drew her beautiful robes aside,
As the widows went weeping by;
And the sons of the World and the sons of the Church
Walked closely hand and heart,
And only the Master who knoweth all
Could tell the two apart. Then the Church sat down at her ease, and said,
“I am rich, and in goods increased;
I have need of nothing, and naught to do
But to laugh and dance and feast;”
And the sly World heard her and laughed in his sleeve,
And mockingly said aside,
“The Church is fallen, the beautiful Church,
And her shame is her boast and pride.” The angel drew near to the mercy-seat,
And whispered in sighs her name,
And the saints their anthems of rapture hushed,
And covered their heads with shame;
And a voice came down through the hush of Heaven
From Him who sat on the throne,
“I know thy work, and how thou hast said,
I am rich; and hast not known
That thou art naked, poor and blind,
And wretched before my face;
Therefore, from my presence I cast thee out,
And blot thy name from its place.” —MRS. MATILDA C. EDWARDS, in Baltimore Christian Advocate. GEN. 1:1. God created. “All visible nature is a multifarious association of very compounded substances, of which the particles must have been in some other state before they were compounded together. The single condition of the elements must have preceded their union in the composition; and thus it is physically impossible that a compound can have been eternal. Composition and eternity are as incompatible as to be and not to be.”—Turner. The heavens. Rather the substance of the heavens. So Aben Ezra, Ainsworth, Walton’s Polyglott, Buxtorf, the Syriac translation, Robertson, and Dr. A. Clarke. Verse 5. Evening and morning. “A Hebrew phrase for the whole day.”—Patrick. “It is acknowledged by all, that the evening and the morning are not here to be understood according to our common usage, but are put, by a synecdoche, each of them for one whole part of the natural day. But because it may be doubted which part each of them signifies, some understand by evening the foregoing day; and by morning, the foregoing night, and so the natural day begins with the morning or the light, as it did with the ancient Chaldeans. Others by evening understand the first night or darkness, which was upon the face of the earth, (verse 2) which probably continued for about twelve hours, the beginning whereof might fitly be called evening, and by morning the succeeding light or day, which may reasonably be supposed to continue the other twelve hours or thereabouts. And this seems the truer opinion. 1. Because the darkness was before the light, as the evening is put before the morning, verses 5 and 8, and afterwards. 2. Because this best agrees both with the vulgar and with the Scripture use of the terms evening and morning. 3. Because the Jews, who had the best opportunity of knowing the mind of God in this matter, by Moses and other succeeding prophets, began both their common and sacred days with the evening, as is confessed, and may be gathered from Lev. 23:32.”—Poole. Day. “A day requires the existence and revolving motion of the earth alone. This is mentioned by Moses as beginning before the sun was made the center of our astronomical system. As this fact denotes the diurnal movement to be distinct from the sun, and independent of it, it is another instance of the correctness of the Mosaic account.”—Turner. Verse 10. It is observable that God himself gave names to those creatures over which Adam could not exercise dominion; but left him to give names to the rest. Without doubt the original names were expressive of the nature of the creatures. Verses 1–10. “The structure of the earth, and the mode of distribution of extraneous fossils or petrefactions, are so many direct evidences of the truth of the Scripture account of the formation of the earth; and they might be used as proofs of its author having been inspired, because the mineralogical facts discovered by modern naturalists were unknown to the sacred historian.”—Jameson. Chap. 2:3. “This is evidently historical, and not by anticipation, for the reason subsisted from the beginning; and was more cogent immediately than it would be at a distance of more than two thousand years, when the command was solemnly renewed from mount Sinai, long after sin had marred the beauty of the great Creator’s works, and it concerns the whole human race, as much as the nation of Israel. This is confirmed by the custom of measuring time by weeks, which has generally prevailed in the world; and which is most reasonably accounted for, by supposing it to have arisen from an original tradition handed down from Adam and Noah to all their posterity. And the silence of Moses concerning the observance of the Sabbath by the patriarchs, so proving that they were not commanded to observe it, will not render it so much as probable that they did not actually keep it, to those who attentively consider how much darkness rests on many similar subjects, in the scriptural history of the church. Yet some intimations are given in this book which show that the patriarchs divided time into weeks, and regarded the seventh day. (8:6–14; 29:27). The Sabbath, being made for man, was no doubt coeval with his creation. Even in the state of innocence, Adam and Eve were employed in dressing and keeping the garden; and though exempt from sin and suffering, yet their rational nature was capable of a far more exalted state; and they were taught to consider themselves as preparing for it by progressive improvement. The seventh-day, therefore, being blessed and sanctified by God, separated from common employments and consecrated to religious worship; on it especially they were required to remember their Creator, to contemplate his works, and to render him their tribute of thankful praise; and this would, even in paradise, be conducive to the glory of God, and beneficial to them; perhaps absolutely necessary to their safety and felicity, (Ex. 16:22–27; 20:8–11).”—Scott. Seventh. “The Heb. shabah, from which comes the German sieben, and the English seven, is derived from a root signifying to be full, complete, entirely made up; seven, therefore, is often called the perfect number. No number recurs in Scripture so often; and as it cannot have an abstract virtue or significancy, its constant use here carries in it some important allusion. What more probable then that it is founded on this history here?”—Bush. “One of the most striking confirmations of the Mosaic history of the creation, from heathen sources, is the general adoption of the division of time into weeks, which extends from Europe to Hindostan, and has equally prevailed among the Hebrews, Egyptians, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, and northern barbarians. The other divisions of time arise from natural causes, respecting the sun and moon. The division into weeks, on the contrary, seems perfectly arbitrary, and to have been derived from some remote tradition (as that of the creation), which was never totally obliterated from the memory of the Gentiles.”—T. H. Horne.—Comprehensive Commentary. Are we Bible Christians?
By Chas. B. Reynolds
This is a very simple question, and each may answer, “I hope so!” and then dismiss the question. But stop! This will not do. To hope so is not sufficient. The interests at stake are too vast for the matter to be left in any doubt. Life, life, eternal life, with all its unspeakable joys, is at stake. There must be no doubt, but certainties. If we are Bible Christians, we must be living in strict accordance with all the Bible’s teachings and requirements. If we are not Bible Christians, we are not true Christians. This proposition is self-evident, but it does not the less need our most solemn thought; for what we are most willing to admit, and most firmly believe, we are most apt to disregard. Jesus declares, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.” We are then to be judged by the obedience we yield to the will, that is, the law of the Father. We are to be judged, not by our favorite commentator, not by our pet sermonizer, not by the teaching of priest or minister, not by our own self-established standard, not by the opinions and customs of the circle in which we move, not by the church which accident, interest, or our friends, have induced us to join, but by the Bible alone. By the Bible we must live; for by the Bible we shall be judged. If we are truly Christians, we shall follow Christ. “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word [the Father’s], in him verily is the love of God perfected; hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also to walk, even as he walked.” Christ proved his love by obedience. He delighted to keep each one of God’s holy commands; denouncing him who should break ONE, even the least of the ten precepts comprising God’s holy law of love. Are we striving to walk even as he walked? Are we proving our love to God by our love to our fellow-creatures? Are our lives such that others, seeing our good works, shall glorify our Father which is in Heaven? Soon our probation will close. Oh! solemn thought! Each going down of the sun brings us one day nearer to the Judgment—to the time when we must give account for the use we have made of all the blessings with which we have been entrusted. Let us prayerfully seek grace, strength, and wisdom, to daily take up our cross and follow Jesus, so that in the glad day of his coming we may be recognized by him as “doers of the word,” and hear spoken to us, “Well and faithfully done.” Ventilation: Why Pure Air Matters and How to Get It
We must breathe or die. Bad air is poison, and breathing it is dying by degrees. From this come weakness, illness, death. Many a dull sermon, stupid prayer, and dead meeting, might be enlivened and improved by a little pure air. It is not hot air that does the mischief—we can bear almost any amount of heat; it is impure air—depressing, suffocating, deadly. God has poured out the air forty miles deep all around the globe, and it is a shame if we cannot get enough to breathe to keep us alive and well. “But how shall we get the air? If we open the doors and windows, some who sit in the currents of air will take cold and be sick; our house has no ventilators, and we cannot please everybody if we try; what shall we do?” Do this: Prepare a piece of wood three inches wide, and exactly as long as the breadth of the window, and beveled on the top and bottom just like the bottom of the window-sash. Let the sash be now raised, the slip of wood placed on the sill, and the sash drawn closely down upon it. If the slip has been well fitted, there will be no draft in consequence of the displacement of the sash at its lower part; but the top of the lower sash will overlap the bottom of the upper one, and between the two bars perpendicular currents of air, not felt as draft, will enter and leave the room. This will give moderate, but constant, ventilation; and if houses of worship were also thoroughly aired between meetings, the healthfulness and comfort of many places would be greatly increased. If, in addition to this, persons will dress easily and healthfully, making all the clothing at the waist fully nine-tenths as large as it is under the arms, so that they can inflate their lungs naturally, we shall have very few meetings disturbed or broken up by some one fainting away in a crowded house on Sunday evenings, and requiring to be carried out and to have their garments loosened, that they may draw a long breath, and so recover their senses. God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life. Let him take heed how he abuses the precious gift; and let him see to it that what he breathes is still the breath of life, and not the breath of poison, disease, and death. Job 14:22: “But his flesh upon him shall have pain, and his soul within him shall mourn.” Stock translates thus: “But over him his flesh shall grieve, and over him his breath shall mourn,” and adds, “In the daring spirit of oriental poetry the flesh, or body, and the breath, are made conscious beings; the former lamenting its putrefaction in the grave, the latter mourning over the mouldering clay which it once enlivened.”—Clarke. Questions on the Sanctuary.
By Uriah Smith
Our remarks on this subject last week closed with the argument that the throne of God itself is a living, moving throne, and its glory, by the express testimony of the prophet, is manifested in different apartments of his holy temple. When, therefore, Christ ascended to a position on the throne of his Father, on the right hand of God, he did not necessarily go into the most holy place of the sanctuary on high. To this we now add that in John's first view of the heavenly sanctuary, he saw the throne of God in the holy place. Rev. 4:1–6. Here John beheld, not Heaven opened, but a door opened in Heaven. And within the apartment opened before him, he saw a throne circled with the rainbow, and glowing like an emerald. The one seated upon the throne was the Father; for Christ is subsequently introduced as the one who took from his right hand the book sealed with seven seals. And before the throne there were seven lamps of fire, the antitype of the candlestick of the earthly sanctuary, which was placed in the first apartment. John's field of vision therefore, in this instance, lies in the first apartment of the heavenly sanctuary, and he there beholds the throne of God; and he sees the Father, the Son, the four and twenty elders, the four living creatures, and the innumerable company of angels acting together in reference to the salvation of man. Here, then, is positive proof that the first part of Christ's ministry before his Father was performed in the holy place. We find equal evidence that when the time comes for a change in the ministration from the holy to the most holy place, there is a change in the position of the Father. The opening of the work in the most holy place is undoubtedly described in Dan. 7:9, 10; and there we find this significant language: “I beheld till the thrones were cast down [placed] and the Ancient of days did sit.” The Ancient of days can be none other than God the Father. The expression that he “did sit,” shows that he here took a position which, in this work, he had not before occupied. In other words, he changed his position from the holy to the most holy place. He thus having changed his position, there is room for the fulfillment of verses 13 and 14, which represent Christ with his holy retinue as being brought into his presence to receive his kingdom, glory, and dominion. This certainly did not take place at the time of Christ's ascension; and there is no place to locate it, without supposing some such movement, as is here suggested, on the part of God. These conclusions are necessary; and as they are the only ones which will harmonize all the Scriptures on the point, we may rest with all confidence on their correctness. Our correspondent further inquires:— “Has the temple described in Ezekiel ever been built, or is it yet future? Have you thoughts on Ezekiel and Isaiah?” Reference we suppose is made to Eze. chapters 40–46. And we answer unhesitatingly that that sanctuary never has been built, and never will be built; for the promise of it was a conditional promise, and the children of Israel never having complied with the conditions, God could not stultify himself by fulfilling the promise over those violated conditions. It was offered to them on condition that they should be “ashamed” of their iniquities and put them away. Eze. 43:8–11. But Jeremiah in his prophetic history of their future perversity, captivity, and final overthrow, speaking with sad certainty of what would be, as though it had already been, says: “Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? Nay; they were not at all ashamed.” Jer. 6:15; 8:12. And this is shown in the fact that when the decree for Israel's restoration from captivity went forth, all would not go up to the land where God's abundant blessing was promised. Ezra 1:5; 7:7; 8:15; &c. But this prophecy does not belong to the future age: for Christ is to be the Prince and Shepherd over Israel in the glorified state. But in the prophecy it is a poor frail mortal, even offering a sin offering for himself. Eze. 45:22. Marriage and death are to be unknown in the age to come; but here are marriages, divorces, widows and death. Eze. 44:22. The prophet does not therefore refer to the age to come. This prophecy would have been fulfilled, had the conditions been complied with, in the Mosaic dispensation: for it was to be when circumcision, divorce, distinction in meats, offerings of beasts, the Jubilee and the Levitical priesthood were in force, as the chapters referred to testify. See this subject fully canvassed in “The Sanctuary,” by J. N. Andrews, second edition, pp. 62–66. We have no works on Ezekiel and Isaiah. The last question proposed is the following:— “What text implies that Christ will put off his priestly robes? Please answer in the Review, as I am not the only one interested. These doubts are suggested to all who hear the doctrine of the ‘Age to Come,’ and future probation, which we think are wrong.” To justify the expression that Christ will put off his priestly robes and array himself in kingly apparel when he comes, we refer to Rev. 1:13, and 19:13, 16. The first text represents him during this dispensation, in the midst of his churches, and holding their ministers in his right hand. Here he has on garments suitable to a priestly work, the priest's girdle being especially mentioned. See Ex. 29:9, &c. The second text unquestionably applies at the time of his second coming; and then he has on apparel not at all suited to the position of priest, but that of a king, as he is expressly called, “King of kings and Lord of lords.” Other scriptures referring to the same time represent him in a similar manner. Isa. 59:17; 63:1–4, &c. And these texts have a bearing upon that antiscriptural soul-destroying delusion referred to by our correspondent, namely the idea of probation after the coming of Christ. For when Christ's priesthood ends, and he no longer acts as mediator between God and the children of men, there can of course be no more offers of mercy and salvation to the unreclaimed. Then he that is filthy will be filthy still; Rev. 22:11; then there remaineth no more offering for sin; Heb. 10:14, 18; then it is forever decided who are blessed and holy and have part in the first resurrection: Rev. 20:6; and all the rest are consigned to the second death, which is the lake of fire and perdition of ungodly men. Rev. 20:5, 6, 15; 2 Pet. 3:7. He who can see probation for the ungodly in these declarations and events, must be as blind as the human imagination can conceive or Satan could desire. We would say to our correspondent that he does well to reject such a doctrine. And we would adjure those who are troubling the minds of investigators with these things to desist from their unholy work. Away with such vagaries from the system of present truth. In the name of reason and revelation we protest against them. They have no more business to be associated with the truths of the Sabbath and the third angel's message than a minister of sin would have to be stationed in the courts of glory. It is truly surprising that any who have investigated the system of present truth, should not be able to see that it is a system of divine harmony and unchangeable relation of parts. Each part is supported by, and each in its turn supports, all the rest. It is strange they should imagine that any point can be treated and adjusted without reference to the others. As is perhaps natural, the enemy of truth seems most persistent in trying to trouble and unsettle minds in reference to the sanctuary; for that is the citadel of our strength; and the special point of attack is the idea that the cleansing of the sanctuary began, by the entrance of Christ into the most holy place, at the end of the 2300 days in 1844. Hence his scheme to make men believe that Christ entered the most holy place when he ascended. Now it is easy to show that this position would utterly overthrow all the great lines of prophecy in the Bible. Let us try it on a few of them: If Christ entered the most holy place when he ascended, the cleansing of the sanctuary then commenced. Then the 2300 days at the end of which the sanctuary should be cleansed, terminated at the ascension of Christ. This would destroy at once the grand argument on the seventy weeks of Dan. 9, by which the first advent of the Messiah is demonstrated, and it destroys all the arguments by which it is shown that the decree to restore and build Jerusalem went forth 457 B. C. And inasmuch as the prophecies of Dan. chaps. 2, 7 and 8, are in their main features evidently parallel, and the 2300 days span very nearly the entire field of vision, if they terminated at the ascension of Christ, these lines of prophecy are crowded almost wholly back into the former dispensation, instead of reaching through this one to the end as they certainly do. So much for the prophecies of Daniel. By this view the four lines of the 2d, 7th, 8th and 9th chapters are utterly destroyed. Again, the message of the angel of Rev. 10, is based upon the prophetic periods of Daniel, and goes forth in connection with the close of the longest of them. If that ended at Christ's ascension, this message was given then. But this is the same as the message of Rev. 14:6, 7; which consequently locates that message at the same time. The 2300 days bring us to the sounding of the seventh trumpet. On the supposition that they ended at Christ's ascension, six of the seven trumpets are thrown back into the former dispensation. The finishing of the mystery of God, which then takes place, Rev. 10:7; 11:19, is the basis of the proclamation of the third angel, of Rev. 14:9–12, which is likewise thrown back to the opening of this dispensation. But this message warns against the mark of the beast enforced by the two-horned beast of the previous chapter, which is thus carried back over 1800 years from our time. This beast does his miracles in sight of the leopard beast mentioned before him, so back goes that beast to the Mosaic dispensation. As this beast continued 1260 years, and first received its seat from the dragon, away goes the dragon for at least 1260 years into the past dispensation, almost to the time of Moses. Who knows but Moses himself was the dragon after all! And further the seven last plagues, Rev. 16, are poured out upon those who received the mark of the beast against which the third angel warns them. They must have been poured out therefore away back somewhere near the opening of this dispensation, and must all be past; for they all fall upon the same generation. Compare verses 2 and 11. Then the battle of the great day has been fought, the great earthquake has transpired, the cities of the nations have fallen, every island has fled away, and the mountains have disappeared, and the voice from the temple has announced that it is finished; and for the past 15 to 18 centuries more or less, all has been over, the world drifting away beyond all the lines of God's prophecies, and his providence. To such stupid driveling absurdities are we driven the moment we take the position that Christ entered the most holy place of the heavenly sanctuary when he ascended. We might speak of the converse of all these propositions and show that every argument by which our views on any of the lines of prophecy mentioned, are sustained, are direct evidences to show that the cleansing of the sanctuary did not commence till the end of the 2300 days in 1844; and whoever gives up this point, must be prepared to meet the arguments on all the others. So we might take up any other point with a like result. But this is sufficient. All that is needed is a broad and comprehensive view of the temple of truth, to see the stability of every pillar by which it is upheld. The Weekly Cycle.
By Waggoner
The cycle of seven days to the week was plainly pointed out at creation, and no one can point to any thing else as its origin. And we have seen that no fact recorded in connection with the institution of the Sabbath will apply to any day but to the seventh day of that first week of time. Therefore, to assert, as Mr. Baird repeatedly does, that the commandment does not refer to the seventh day of the week is an evasion and a perversion of the law of God. It is only folly to assert that the phrase, “the seventh day,” means a seventh day, or any seventh day after any six days. If that is the meaning of the language, then the phrase, “the sixth day,” in Ex. 16, would mean any sixth day after an interval of five days. That is, if “the seventh day” is a term of proportion, and marks indefinitely a seventh of a cycle of seven, then also “the sixth day” marks merely a sixth part of a cycle of six. From this, it is easy to see that the order to gather manna on the sixth day; that is, on a day of a cycle of six, would soon come in conflict with the order to gather none on the seventh day; for the end of the sixth cycle of seven would coincide with the end of the seventh cycle of six. So absurd is this indefinite-seventh-day theory. Dr. Edwards leads the way in which Mr. Baird has followed, saying, in his (so-called) Sabbath Manual, that the words six and seven in the commandment denote proportion, and not order. But the falsity of this assertion is too evident to require much argument for its refutation. For the word “seven” is not in the commandment, but the word “seventh,” which is an ordinal number. Order, and not proportion, is the idea of the law. To justify this perversion, Mr. Baird says the commandment does not say the seventh day of the week. This is a very weak evasion. It refers to no seventh day but that of the week. When God rested, and blessed the seventh day, only one week had elapsed; hence it was of necessity the seventh day of that week. No other computation but that of the week was, at that time, possible. At the falling of the manna the seventh-day Sabbath immediately succeeded “the sixth day.” Now this sixth day was either the sixth day of the week, or it was a sixth part of a cycle of six, after Mr. Baird’s favorite method of computing cycles. But it could not have been a part of a cycle of six, for in seven such cycles it would coincide with the seventh day of a cycle of seven; and therefore the requirement to gather a double portion of manna, and that not to gather any, would have fallen on the same day. Hence it was the sixth day of the week, and the seventh day following it was the seventh day of the week. Again, while the Saviour lay in the grave, his disciples “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment.” And the day following was “the first day of the week.” As every week has seven days and no more, the seventh day of one week must immediately precede the first day of the next week. Therefore it was the seventh day of the week which was then kept “according to the commandment.” Nor could they have kept any other day of the week and kept the commandment. For the commandment is based entirely on the fact that God wrought six days and rested the seventh day of the first week of time. No other cycle but that of the week then existed, and the weekly cycle originated there, and there only. We will illustrate the folly of Mr. Baird’s method of identifying the seventh day. Say a man has seven sons; the first-born is named John; the youngest, Robert. The father makes a will, bequeathing to each of his sons one thousand dollars, but having a customary fondness for his youngest, bequeaths to his seventh son ten thousand dollars. John determines to gain the ten thousand dollars for himself; therefore he calls the family together, and places them in a circle; commencing just next to himself he counts around, and of course reckons himself the seventh! and on that enumeration claims the ten thousand dollars. Now John has thoroughly instructed them that “the seventh son” means one son after six others, no matter where you begin to count! And while Robert fully believes in the correctness of this method in regard to the claims of God and of his commandments, he is not so ready to admit it when his own rights are involved; and therefore he throws the matter into court where John’s method of determining “the seventh son” is condemned on short hearing. And so, when God shall bring every work into judgment in the light of his own commandments, will be condemned all the petty evasions by which men seek to escape God’s requirement to keep the seventh day. On page 5, Mr. Baird makes a concession which is well to notice. He says the observance of the first day of the week “gradually grew up.” This is a truth. His further assertion, that it grew up “under the authority and direction of the inspired apostles” would be worth more if he had produced any “direction” which any apostle ever gave for its observance. Dr. Scott says it grew up gradually and silently, by example rather than precept. And all candid writers say the same thing. Errors and traditions come up “gradually,” and not by precept. But for duties, we have “the law and the testimony.” Paul says that by the Scriptures we are “thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” Therefore, that which is not required in the Scriptures is not a good work. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law;” and as there is no law for keeping Sunday, it is no sin not to keep it. “Where no law is, there is no transgression.” Let any one prove the reverse of this if he can.—Waggoner’s Review of Baird, pp. 13--17. Which Is the Greater Wonder?
By R. F. Cottrell
The unbelief, repeated murmurings, and the disposition of the Israelites to turn to idolatry, after they had seen God’s wonders in Egypt and at the Red Sea, and had seen his glory upon Sinai and had heard his majestic voice from its fiery summit proclaiming his holy law, is truly a wonder. The people of the present day are astonished at it; and, instead of accepting it as a true picture of fallen human nature, in which they may, as in a glass behold themselves, they come to the conclusion that that people were the most flagrantly wicked of any that have ever existed upon the earth. If we had45only been there and witnessed those miracles, how believing and obedient we should have been! We imagine that if we should not have been tempted to bow down to the idols of Egypt and other surrounding nations. Like the Jews in the days of Christ, the language is, If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. But the solution of the mystery is, idolatry was the fashion in those days—it was a common custom to break the second commandment of the decalogue. The same species of idolatry is not now in vogue in countries called Christian. It is not the custom in these countries to worship a calf, as in Egypt of olden time; but it is the custom to break the fourth commandment of that same decalogue, the utterance of the same voice, that forbade idolatry. And there are many who, knowing that the holy law of God requires the observance of the seventh day, would willingly obey, only that it is the prevailing custom to observe the first in its stead. They would be glad if it were the fashion to do what God says, but it seems to them impossible, since all their friends and neighbors observe a different day. They may be so far enlightened as to know that the “man of sin,” the great apostasy predicted by the apostles, the pope of Rome standing at the head, has made the change from the day God appointed—the holy rest-day—to another; yet since it is the established custom they fancy they can yield to it, and yet please God. As the ancient idolaters could follow the customs of their times, and though too much enlightened to regard idols as truly gods, yet could excuse themselves by the thought that they only worshiped the true God through the similitude of a graven image; as these seem to imagine that they can please and honor God, and keep in spirit the fourth commandment, while they openly disregard the God-appointed day, and keep in its stead the rival Sabbath of the man of sin—the day on which the popes have sabbatized, and not the one on which the great Creator rested from his work. Now I ask, Is not this the greater wonder—that a people having the light of the experience of ancient Israel on record for their instruction and admonition (see 1 Cor. 10), and all the subsequent history of the Jewish people down to their rejection of the promised Messiah; and furthermore, all the light of the present dispensation, with its record of the fulfillment of the ancient prophecies and also the predictions of the apostles, warning all of the usurpations of the great apostasy and its corruptions of the word of God, thinking itself able to change God’s times and laws (Dan. 7:25), and living at a time when these predictions have become matters of history, and also when the final warning against these corruptions is being given, is it not, I ask, the greatest of all wonders that people can disregard what God has said, and in its stead do what he expressly warns them against, and still hope to be accepted in his sight?! If Israel and the “mixed multitude” that left Egypt with them were an astonishingly wicked rabble for falling into the customary sin of their times, what shall be said of those now living in this enlightened nineteenth century who, with all the light of the past and the present, can disobey what God has plainly said, because it is the custom to do that which he has not commanded? A substitute for what God has commanded is not acceptable. Nadab and Abihu offered strange fire before the Lord, and they died. (Lev. 10.) Can we follow their example and hope to live? Rather let us learn the lessons which the records of the past are designed to teach us, and so escape the dangers that are imminent. “Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.” 1 Cor. 10:11, 12.