Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Foundation of Sabbath and Sunday Observance.
By G. D. Ballou
I. The foundation of Sabbath observance. The Sabbath is an institution of primary importance. Dating from the time that man stood in sinless purity before his Maker in Eden (Gen. 2)—a twin institution with marriage—we may trace its existence and observance all through the ages of sin, past the final consummation, over into the eternal ages of the Eden restored. When the earth, freed from the curse, shall put on her garments of glory and beauty, and become the everlasting abode of the redeemed race of men, then will the Sabbath be observed as God designed from the beginning. Then will all flesh come up to worship before the Lord from new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath. Isa. 65:17-25; 66:22, 23. An institution of such consequence to the human race as to be made eternal, must rest on a good foundation. Let us examine. 1. The Sabbatic institution is based on the spiritual wants of man. “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” This sentence sets forth the great fact that the Sabbath was designed, primarily, for sacred rest and worship. Making it merely a physical rest would not make it holy; rest for worship is the important idea. What need of such a rest? In creating man, God gave him physical, intellectual, and spiritual powers. In the material world he furnished the means for supplying man's physical and intellectual wants. In giving the Sabbath, God furnished the means for supplying man's spiritual necessities. Man was made to worship. Even in sinless purity he must love his Creator with all his heart, and this love must culminate in acts of devotion and worship. The Sabbath was designed to advance man's spiritual interests throughout the ages of eternity, and without an appointed time for worship, man's spiritual nature must have languished. The Creator is a God of order and consistency, and in so important a matter as this, he would not leave a chance for a mistake; so he appointed at creation a specific time, the last day of the seven, as a time for holy rest and worship. Gen. 2:1-3. In the work of creation we find the six laboring days of the week, and here God adds the last day for the purpose of perpetuating the remembrance of himself and his creative work among the new-born race. Here, then, we have the first and great corner-stone of the Sabbatic structure, the spiritual wants of man growing out of the relations between God as the Creator and man as the creature. 2. The next corner-stone is the facts of creation. Passing over the minutiae of the precept, we come to the words, “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” Here it is plainly stated that God chose to work six days in creating all things connected with this heaven and earth, and here we have a corner-stone for the Sabbath, that is as enduring as the earth itself. Just as long as the earth shall endure and man shall exist, even though it be in the redeemed state, and the manifold works of God remain to attest his wisdom and power, so long will there be necessity for the heaven-appointed memorial—the Sabbath—to commemorate this work of creation. 3. The third corner-stone is the example of God in resting. The command continues, “and rested the seventh day.” The Lord himself rested or ceased to create, and contemplating his work he pronounced it “good.” We have no account of his resting on any day but the seventh. We think it noble to follow the example of great men. Surely here is an example that is worthy our noblest ambition. And Jesus followed this example, and kept creation's rest-day when he was here among men. Shall we not do well to follow his example? 4. The fourth and last great corner-stone lies in the fact that God blessed the Sabbath day, and set it apart to a holy use. The words of the command are, “Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” He pronounced the heavenly benediction on this day, and then appointed it for man's use. In Gen. 2:3 we read that he “blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” The word “sanctify” means “to set apart to a holy use.” Jesus says (Mark 2:27), “The Sabbath was made for man.” At the very thresh-old of human existence, the Creator appointed the day he would have man use for spiritual purposes. Since he placed no restrictions or limitations as to the length of time he designed this institution to stand, and has never taken away his blessing from it or placed his blessing upon any other day, how dare men teach that it is no longer sacred to the worship of Jehovah? Based on the spiritual necessities of man; founded in the facts of creation; honored by God's example; honored by his divine blessing and appointment; spoken by him from Sinai among the “lively oracles;” honored by Christ; observed by holy men; to be kept in the earth made new,—what other institution presents so many evidences of Heavenly origin as “the Sabbath of the Lord our God?” We should “stand in awe and sin not.” II. Foundation of Sunday observance. Many people honestly suppose that Jesus and the disciples really changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, in honor of the resurrection of Christ. But many of this class become convinced that there is no truth in this supposition, after they have been led to investigate carefully for themselves. It is not my province in this article to show the steps by which Sunday arose, but only to lay bare the foundation on which it rests. Anticipating what every honest seeker for truth will find by candid investigation, I affirm that the Bible says not one word about a change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first of the week. There is not a text in the entire volume to show that God, or Christ, or any angel or apostle ever rested upon or sanctified the first day of the week; and there is not in all the New Testament the record of a single religious gathering in the day-time of the first day. Acts 20:7-14 gives account of an all-night meeting in the night between what we call Saturday and Sunday. Paul staid and held one more meeting with the brethren at Troas, the last one he expected to hold with them on earth, while his company took the ship and sailed forty miles around the peninsula to Assos; and the next morning (what we call Sunday morning) he went overland nineteen miles on foot, to meet the ship at Assos. The Bible testimony for Sunday-keeping is wanting, and many of its defenders have been forced to acknowledge that its origin was not divine, and that it has neither authority nor sacredness, except as derived from church enactments. As a heathen festival, it was observed in honor of the sun, from which it was named, even as far back as the days of Moses. You will find this statement made good in Morer's “Dialogues on the Lord's Day” (pp. 22, 23), and by many other authorities. As to its so-called Christian character, it crept into the church along with other heathen customs, between the years A. D. 200 and A. D. 400. It did not, however, become a rest-day or Sabbath until the decrees of popes and councils had been many times brought to its rescue. It was not until after the year 800 A. D. that its Sabbatic character was even partially established, and to the present time its authority has ever been questioned, and but very few have ever sacredly regarded the day. Sunday observance rests on a purely human foundation. We substantiate this statement in a two-fold manner. First, by the testimony of human authority; and second, by the entire absence of Scripture testimony as to its sacredness. The defenders of Sunday observance, in their desperation, have written volumes of assertions, and have argued learnedly, without bringing one “Thus saith the Lord.” "Vast circuits they through logic's fields have run,
And found themselves at last where they begun." We would gladly quote from the Bible upon this point, but the nature of the institution is such that the Bible is silent in regard to it, except in Dan. 7:25, where the prophet clearly foretells that the little-horn power would attempt to change the times and laws of God, and would blaspheme his name and destroy his saints. This testimony alone is sufficient to show that we must look to secular history for the authority for Sunday observance. Please read carefully the following quotations from leading Protestant church historians and writers. Heylyn, in his history of the Sabbath, says:—
“Take which you will, either the Fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord's day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them on the first day of the week.” Sir. Wm. Domville, says:—
“Not any ecclesiastical writer of the first three centuries attributed the origin of Sunday observance either to Christ or his apostles.” Coleman, in an extensive volume, entitled “Ancient Christianity Exemplified,” says:—
“No law or precept appears to have been given by Christ or the apostles, either for the abrogation of the Jewish Sabbath, or the substitution of the first for the seventh day of the week.” The following we find in the “Encyclopedia Brittanica,” art. Sunday, edition of 1842:—
“It was Constantine the Great who first made a law for the proper observance of Sunday; and who, according to Eusebius, appointed it should be regularly celebrated throughout the Roman Empire. Before him, and even in his time, they observed the Jewish Sabbath, as well as Sunday; both to satisfy the law of Moses, and to imitate the apostles who used to meet together on the first day. By Constantine's law, promulgated in 321, it was decreed that for the future the Sunday should be kept as a day of rest in all cities and towns; but he allowed the country people to follow their work.” We quote Morer's testimony again:—
“The Lord's day had no command that it should be sanctified, but it was left to God's people to pitch on this or that day for the public worship. And being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law, the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service.” Domville, in his “Examination of the Six Texts,” p. 291, tersely states the same fact:—
“Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath. History does not furnish us with a single proof or indication that it was at any time so observed previous to the Sabbatical edict of Constantine in A. D. 321.” This array of evidence might be greatly extended, showing all the particular steps by which Sunday grew from a festival day into a Sabbath, as it did under the popes, but we close by one quotation from Peter Heylyn, a distinguished member of the Church of England. In his History of the Sabbath, from which we have already quoted, he sums the matter all up in the following words:—
“Thus do we see upon what grounds the Lord's day stands; on CUSTOM FIRST, and VOLUNTARY consecration of it to religious meetings; that custom countenanced by the authority of the church of God, which TACITLY approved the same; and FINALLY CONFIRMED and RATIFIED BY CHRISTIAN PRINCES throughout their empires. And as the day for rest from labors and restraint from business upon that day, [it] received its greatest strength from the supreme magistrate as long as he retained that power which to him belongs; as after from the canons and decrees of councils, the decretals of popes and orders of particular prelates, when the sole managing of ecclesiastical affairs was committed to them.
“I hope it was not so with the former Sabbath, which neither took original from custom, that people being not so forward to give God a day; nor required any countenance or authority from the kings of Israel to confirm and ratify it. The Lord had spoke the word, that he would have one day in seven, precisely the seventh day from the world's creation, to be a day of rest unto all his people; which said, there was no more to do but gladly to submit and obey his pleasure. . . . But thus it was not done in our present business. The Lord's day had no such command that it should be sanctified, but was left plainly to God's people to pitch on this, or any other, for the public use. And being taken up amongst them and made a day of meeting in the congregation for religious exercises; yet for three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it.
“And when it seemed good unto Christian princes, the nursing fathers of God's church, to lay restraints upon their people, yet at the first they were not general; but only thus that certain men in certain places should lay aside their ordinary and daily works, to attend God's service in the church; those whose employments were most toilsome and most repugnant to the true nature of a Sabbath, being allowed to follow and pursue their labors because most necessary to the commonwealth.
“And in the following times, when as the prince and prelate, in their several places endeavored to restrain them from that also, which formerly they had permitted, and interdicted almost all kinds of bodily labor upon that day; it was not brought about without much struggling and an opposition of the people; more than a thousand years being past, after Christ's ascension, before the Lord's day had attained that state in which533 now it standeth. . . . And being brought into that state, wherein now it stands, it doth not stand so firmly and on such sure grounds, but that those powers which raised it up may take it lower if they please, yea take it quite away as unto the time, and settle it on any other day as to them seems best.” Thus we do see the foundations on which these two rival institutions rest. The one divine and Heaven-ordained, eternal in its nature, the other a profane Pagan festival, adopted and fostered by an apostate church, one which, like all the institutions of men, must perish. It is time for those who love the example of Jesus, and desire to honor the authority of Heaven, to "put difference between the sacred and the profane." See Eze. 22:24-30. It is time for those who profess to love God to turn away from the commandments of men, and show their loyalty to Heaven by obedience to God's precepts, otherwise their worship will prove to be all in vain. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Notes on Lesson for Nov. 9.
"AND, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." This was at the ninth hour, "the hour of prayer." Acts 3:1. At this time the priests were performing their work in the temple. Suddenly, the large curtain which hid the most holy place from view, was torn from top to bottom by unseen hands. It could not have been caused by the earthquake, for the curtain hung loosely. There was no room to doubt that supernatural agency was employed. God thus showed that the place which had hitherto been made sacred by his presence, would henceforth be no different from common ground. Type had met antitype, and the service was to be carried forward in the "true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man." "AND the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many." These saints were doubtless those who had not been long dead, and who were known to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Thus they were additional proofs of his resurrection, and also pledges of the future resurrection of all the righteous; their resurrection was proof that Christ had indeed obtained the keys of the grave, and of death. Rev. 1:18. From Ps. 68:18, and Eph. 4:8 (margin), we understand that these saints accompanied Christ when he ascended to Heaven. GOD always has a man for every work. Jesus had been crucified as a criminal, and, if left to the care of his persecutors, would have been rudely buried with the two thieves, with no ceremony whatever. But it was not designed so to be. It was necessary that he should be buried by himself, so that his resurrection might be the more surely attested. Besides, it had been prophesied of him that he should make his grave "with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth." Isa. 53:9. No more indignities were to be heaped upon him after death. The disciples, however, had no influence with the authorities, even if they had dared to ask for his body. But now comes forward Joseph. He was a rich Jew, "an honorable counsellor," "a good man, and a just." He had the influence necessary to get the body of Jesus, and the means to care for it in a proper manner. How unconsciously men act their part in the fulfillment of prophecy. The Jews were strictly commanded not to break a bone of the paschal lamb. Christ was the antitype of that lamb, and it was necessary, in order to fulfill the prophecy, that none of his bones should be broken. The thieves' legs were broken, not from wanton cruelty, but to hasten their death. Christ's speedy death made this unnecessary in his case; but, to make sure, the soldier inflicted a wound with his spear, that would of itself have caused death. And thus provision was made for the prophecy of Zechariah to be fulfilled, "They shall look upon me whom they have pierced." Zech. 12:10. John, in writing the Revelation, tells us that this will be fulfilled when Christ comes the second time, in the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. "AND they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Here we have an example of the sacredness with which the Sabbath was observed by the disciples of Christ. They would not complete the work of love which they were doing for their Master. He had taught that it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day, and was always ready to perform acts of mercy; but the embalming of Jesus, although an act of love, was not an act of necessity. It was not absolutely necessary that it should be done that day, hence they left it, intending to complete their work on the first day of the week, as soon as possible after the close of the Sabbath. By this action of the disciples, we can also learn how strictly Jesus himself kept the Sabbath. They were his faithful followers; they had been closely connected with him during the whole of his earthly ministry. Surely if they had ever seen him do an unnecessary act on the Sabbath, or if he had been accustomed to lightly regard it, they would not have been so scrupulous on this occasion. But Jesus had never given any warrant for violating the Sabbath. The law of God was enshrined in his heart. He came to do his Father's will; to present an example of perfect obedience to God's law. This incident is preserved by Luke as an example of Sabbath observance, for Christ's disciples in all coming time to follow. BUT although Christ's disciples were careful not to break the Sabbath, the chief priests and Pharisees, who had often sought to kill Jesus for performing acts of mercy on that day, were not so careful. Not content with having put him to death, they were determined to prove him to be an impostor. Their hatred caused them to remember what the disciples, with all their love, had forgotten. After the excitement of the crucifixion, they remembered Christ's saying, that he would rise in three days after his death. So they came to Pilate on the Sabbath, to beg that the sepulcher might be secured, so that his disciples might not come by night and take him away. Probably they had not thought of it the night before, or, if they had, they did not fear the removal of the body before the appointed time, as that would have proved his prediction untrue. In their hatred they would not speak of Jesus by name, but characterized him as "that deceiver." But the very means that they took to prove that Christ was a deceiver, only made their own defeat the more marked. How impotent is man, and how weak are all his endeavors, when opposed to the decrees of God. The words of the psalmist are appropriate here. "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"
E. J. W. God's Love to Man.
By Ellen G. White
IN the controversy between Christ and Satan, the character of God was now fully vindicated in his act of banishing from Heaven the fallen angel, who had once been exalted next to Christ. All Heaven, and the worlds that had not fallen through sin, had been witnesses to the controversy between Christ and Satan. With what intense interest had they followed the closing scenes of the conflict! They had beheld the Saviour enter the garden of Gethsemane, his soul bowed down by a horror of darkness that he had never before experienced. An overmastering agony had wrenched from his lips the bitter cry for that cup, if possible, to pass from him. A terrible amazement, as he felt his Father's presence withdrawn from him, had filled his divine spirit with a shuddering dread. He was sorrowful, with a bitterness of sorrow exceeding that of the last great struggle with death; the sweat of blood was forced from his pores, and fell in drops upon the ground. Thrice the same prayer for deliverance had been wrung from his lips. Heaven had been unable to longer endure the sight, and had sent a messenger of consolation to the prostrate Son of God, fainting and dying under the accumulated guilt of the world. Heaven had beheld the victim betrayed and hurried from one earthly tribunal to another with mockery and violence. It had heard the sneers of his persecutors because of his lowly birth, and his denial with cursing and swearing by one of his best-loved disciples. It had seen the frenzied work of Satan, and his power over the hearts of men. Oh, fearful scene! the Saviour seized at midnight in Gethsemane as a murderer, dragged to and fro from palace to judgment hall, arraigned twice before the priests, twice before the Sanhedrim, twice before Pilate, and once before Herod, mocked, scourged, and condemned, led out to be crucified, bearing the heavy burden of the cross amid the wailing of the daughters of Jerusalem and the jeering of the crowd! Heaven had viewed with grief and amazement Christ hanging upon the cross, blood flowing from his wounded temples, and sweat tinged with blood standing upon his brow. From his hands and feet the blood had fallen, drop by drop, upon the rock drilled for the foot of the cross. The wounds made by the nails had gaped as the weight of his body dragged upon his hands. His labored breath had grown quick and deep, as his soul panted under the burden of the sins of the world. All Heaven had been filled with admiration when the prayer of Christ was offered in the midst of his terrible suffering—"Father forgive them; for they know not what they do." Yet there stood men, formed in the image of God, joining with Satan to crush out the last spark of life from the heart of the Son of God. In Christ was the embodiment of God himself. The plan and execution of man's salvation is a demonstration of divine wisdom and power mysterious to finite minds. The unfathomable love of God for the human race, in giving his Son to die for them, was made manifest. Christ was revealed in all his self-sacrificing love and purity; man could now obtain immortal life through his merits. When the justice of God was expressed in judicial sentence, declaring the final disposition of Satan, that he should be utterly consumed with all those who ranked under his banner, all Heaven rang with hallelujahs, and "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to have all authority and power, and dominion, and glory." When we dwell upon the justice of God, we look upon only one side of his character; for in his greatness and might he has condescended to our feebleness in sending his Son to the world that men may not perish. In the cross we may read his tender mercy and forgiveness, harmoniously combined with his stern, unwavering justice. The severity of God is felt when we are separated from him, but when we repent of our sins, and make our peace with him through the virtue of the cross, we find him a merciful Father, reconciled to men through his Son.—Spirit of Prophecy. Immediate Cause of Christ's Death.
By Geikie
THAT any one should die so soon on the cross, especially one, like Jesus, in the prime of life, and unweakened by previous ill-health, and in such vigor to the last as to utter such a shriek as that with which he expired, appeared even to Christian antiquity to imply some supernatural cause. But the mingled flow of blood and water seems to point unmistakably to another explanation. The immediate cause of death appears, beyond question, to have been the rupture of his heart, brought about by mental agony. Excess of joy or grief is known to induce the bursting of some division of the heart, and the consequent flow of blood into the pericardium, or bag, filled with colorless serum, like water, in which the heart is suspended. In ordinary cases, only examination after death discovers the fact, but in that of our Lord, the same end was answered by the thrust of the soldier's spear. In a death from heart-rupture “the hand is suddenly carried to the front of the chest, and a piercing shriek uttered.” The hands of Jesus were nailed to the cross, but the appalling shriek is recorded. Jesus died, literally, of a broken heart.—Geikie. POWER OF MISCHIEF.
By Dr. Philetus Dodds
A grain of sand could not make a watch; but then it could stop a watch. An atom of lime would have but a poor show in trying to help anybody to see; but it can put an eye out by judicious use of itself. A small child could not, it is likely, make a steam-engine; but then he can throw a handful of gravel in among the wheels and bring it to a stand-still and that is something.—Dr. Philetus Dodds. He who receives a good turn should never forget it; he who does one should never remember it. IN examining the Scripture use of the "word," soul, we have noticed that death, simply death, is the penalty of the divine law. "The wages of sin is death." "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." We have noticed that death means the absence of life; that condition where the vital functions have totally ceased. We will further examine the question: Does man, the whole man, or only a part of him, die? The question seems to be a singular one, and yet it is called forth by the oft-repeated assertion that the "better part" of man, "the man proper," is not subject to decay or death. But, of course, if this were true, the man proper would escape the penalty of sin; the most important part of man, the part which is least responsible for wrong-doing, would alone be punished, or suffer the penalty of transgression. And further, that part, the unimportant and irresponsible part, would alone be the subject of the resurrection and of redemption. For if there is any part of man which is not subject to the penalty, death, that part needs no redemption. We turn again to consider the first sin and the sentence pronounced upon it. When man was prohibited eating of the tree of knowledge the Lord said: "In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." It is important to notice that there is no exception or exemption allowed in this declaration. All that was covered by the pronoun "thou" was included; and, if man were a dual being, if he consisted of two identities, one an irresponsible mass of matter, and the other an intelligent, reasoning being, having the power to will and to choose, then this penalty referred to the latter; for had it been addressed to the former, it would not have understood the words spoken. But consider the sentence pronounced on man: "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: . . . In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." The being or man addressed must have had intelligence to understand the prohibition and the sentence, and that intelligent man returned unto the ground, for he was made of the dust of the ground. If there was a soul-entity beside that "living soul" who was made of the dust of the ground, it seems to have had no place in the record, and to have borne no part in this transaction. The query is often raised, What, then, becomes of the thinking, intelligent part of man, when he dies? The question is a useless one. There is no thinking, intelligent part of man after he is dead. It is the man himself who is the thinking, intelligent being, in life. His condition in life and in death is contrasted in Eccl. 9: 5, "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything." The knowledge indicated is very simple in form and amount; it is not only learned from the Scriptures, but deduced from continuous observation. Yet simple as it is, it is beyond the capacity or power of the dead, for they know not anything. Nor can it be said that the text refers to the body but not to the soul; for, according to the theory of those who claim that distinction, the body never knew anything—all knowledge and intelligence centered in the soul. But the text clearly teaches that there is a loss of knowledge in death. That which knows something in life, knows nothing in death. The same is taught in Ps. 146: 4. Speaking of man, the psalmist says: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." As in Gen. 2:7 we have the process of making man, here we have the process of unmaking him—a reversal of the first process, according to the sentence pronounced upon him as a transgressor. In forming man two actions are recorded: 1. He was made of the dust of the earth. 2. Breath was given to him. The result: Man became a living soul; a breathing, intelligent, thinking being. In the process of dissolution two steps are likewise presented: 1. His breath goeth forth—it leaves him. 2. He returns to his earth; turns again to dust. And the result: His thoughts perish. The living, intelligent, thinking being, is a living, intelligent, thinking being no longer. With the loss of life, all is lost. And were it not for "Jesus and the resurrection" would be forever lost. But one point more we can examine in this paper, which is the theory of a double creation of man. And we must express our astonishment that learned men, possessing good reasoning powers, have advocated it. This shows how greatly people may be prejudiced, and to what lengths they will go to uphold their prejudices. The theory is, that the first chapter of Genesis records the creation of one man, and the second chapter that of another man. The man of the first chapter was a spirit man, made as the record says, in God's image. And being in God's image it is inferred that it was not a material man, but an immaterial and immortal man. Afterward another man was made of the dust of the ground, and man number one was infused into man number two, and when man number two dies and returns unto the dust, number one escapes and lives on as he did before the dust-man was made. If this were true we should expect to find some clear intimation of it in the Scriptures. But we think nobody would ever have dreamed of learning such a theory from the account of creation had it not been found necessary to present something to favor the doctrine of an immortal man. And if this were true, it would follow that this first or spirit man had nothing to do with the transgression, for no sentence was pronounced upon him, and of course he has no interest in the work of redemption. And if it is true, then it is amazingly strange that the Scriptures never speak of the most interesting and important fact that sin did not work the utter ruin of man—that the better part of man, the proper, was never involved in the fall, and for this man Christ never died. But a formidable objection to that theory is found in the absurdity which it involves. Notice the following points:— 1. The man of Gen. 1, the supposed spirit, immortal man, made in the image of God, was made male and female; but we have no idea that sex is predicated of the spirit of man. 2. This spirit male and female were told to multiply on the earth, or to propagate their species. 3. God gave this spirit man the herb of the field for food, and he, in common with the beasts of the earth, was to live upon the vegetation which sprang up from the earth. 4. God said that the life of man is in the blood; but this refers to the man made in the image of God, which the theory in question supposes was the spirit man. See Gen. 9:6. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man." 5. If the theory be true, then there were two different Adams created, one living and acting independent of the other, each male and female, each propagating his species, each subsisting on vegetation, and each possessed of flesh and blood. But only one of them sinned, and only one of them is a subject of gospel grace. We can imagine that it would be interesting to learn somewhat more of the life and doings of this number one man, but in regard to his history the Bible is silent. The truth is that the history of creation, the whole creation, is briefly given in the first part of Genesis, embracing the first chapter and the first four verses of the second. This is complete. Then there is another line taken, giving facts more particular in regard to the creation of man, and many additional facts concerning his location, probation, etc. The true doctrine involves no absurdity in the Bible record. But the doctrine we have just examined cannot be true. NOTE.—There is a plausible method of treating the Hebrew (margin) of Gen. 2:16,—dying thou shalt die,—to which we have never resorted, though some scholars have countenanced it. It is this: The Hebrew recognizes two conditions; a dying or decaying condition, a tendency and gradual approach toward death. And a dead condition, as the result of the first. We say this is a plausible and easy method of treating the text; but we never resort to it because we cannot do it conscientiously, and will not do it otherwise. A temporary easy victory over an opponent is a poor return—would be to us—for advocating the truth on doubtful grounds. But this remark does not at all apply to those who honestly have used, or honestly may use it thus. This form of speech is Hebraic, very common in that language. See Gen. 22:17; "That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed." Also Ex. 3:7; "Seeing I have seen the affliction of my people." This form of speech is simply emphatic; correctly rendered in the A. V., "I have surely seen." In Acts 7:34, "I have seen." Found also in the immediate context of the text under consideration; Gen. 2:16; "Eating thou mayest eat." Rendered, "Thou mayest freely eat." Apply to Exodus 3:7 the reasoning which is applied to Gen. 2:17, and it becomes an absurdity. Thus: The Lord gradually approached unto the condition of fully seeing. Repetition is resorted to in various forms in Hebrew to express the superlative, or to give emphasis and to imply certainty.