It is commonly supposed that Christ is the Christian's law-giver, and from this erroneous supposition grow incorrect views relative to the weekly Sabbath. It is first assumed that Christ is the law-giver, and has given, in person, or by the inspired Apostles, a perfect code of laws for the gospel dispensation; then it is asserted, that as the Sabbath law is not in the New Testament, the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding on Christians. We regard the assumption that Christ is our law-giver as one of the most dangerous errors of the times, as it leads men to trample on the authority of God; therefore shall expose it by the light of revealed truth.
Said Moses to the people, "The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken." Deut. xviii, 15.
Said God to Moses, "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Verse 18.
Peter speaking of Christ, says, "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you." Acts iii, 22.
We will now inquire, Did Moses legislate? Did he make laws for the people? He did not. Neither did Christ. Moses received words from the mouth of God, and spake them to the people as such; so did our Lord Jesus Christ. "Hear him."—
"Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." John vii, 16.
"Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." John viii, 28.
"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak." John xii, 49, 50.
"He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings; and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me." John xiv, 24.
Says the Father, [Deut. xviii, 18,] "He shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Says the Son, [John xii, 49,] "The Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." By these testimonies from the Father and Son we learn that it was not the work of our Lord Jesus Christ to legislate; but he received the doctrines which he taught from the mouth of the Father, and spake them to the people. In this respect, as a prophet, or teacher, he was like Moses. In both cases the Father is the law-giver.
The transfiguration is referred to as proof that Christ is the law-giver in the gospel age. It is said that the presence of both Moses and Christ, (the teachers of both dispensations,) and Moses being placed upon the back-ground by the voice from heaven, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him," shows that Christ is the law-giver in the present age.
But a very important personage in this scene is overlooked. It is the Father. Peter, referring to the occasion, says, "For he received from God the Father honor and glory." 2 Pet. i, 17.
It is also said, that to keep the ten commandments is going back from Christ to Moses.
Not so. Jehovah (not Moses) spoke the ten commandments in the audience of all the people, then wrote them in stone with his finger. He (not Moses) was the law-giver. He also appears at the mount of transfiguration as the commander and law-giver. His voice is heard, as the highest authority. "Hear Him!" He is the law-giver of both dispensations; while the Scriptures represent Moses and Christ as prophets, or teachers. True, we are to hear Christ; but what does he say of his doctrine? "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me."
If Christ be our law-giver, who is our advocate? We have none. But the New Testament definition of sin, is, "the transgression of the law." 1 John iii, 4. And the Apostle says, "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous." Chap. ii, 1. Here are three parties introduced. (1) the sinner, or transgressor of the law, (2) the Advocate, and (3) the Father, whose law the sinner transgresses. It is perfectly plain, then, that in the dispensation of the gospel, the Father is the law-giver, and Jesus is the advocate or mediator between the offending sinner, and an offended God.
But let us take the view of this subject with Christ for the Christian's law-giver. "Sin is the transgression of the law" of Christ. "And if any man sin, we have an advocate with" Jesus Christ. But who is this advocate? The Papist can answer, The Pope, while the Protestant has no reply.
All agree that nine of the ten commandments are binding on men in the gospel age. But if Christ be our law-giver, instead of the Father, how is it that nine of the former law-giver's precepts are binding on Christians? Is it replied that the new law-giver commanded nine of the old commandments over again? This we deny.
Christ has never given one of the ten commandments on a new account, as resting on his authority. Never. He quotes from the law of his Father, and leaves each precept resting on its original base. In proof of this position, we turn to Matt. xix, 16-23. "Good Master," says the young man, "what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" "If thou wilt enter into life," says the Master, "keep the commandments." The young man saith unto him, Which? Then our Lord quotes five precepts from the decalogue. Certainly there is nothing in all this that presents the least idea that our Lord is giving a new law, or that he is giving nine precepts of the Father's law over again. He mentions but five precepts.
But it may be said that Jesus gave two new and great commandments to take the place of the ten, as recorded in Matt. xxii, 35-40. "Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."
These two commandments are claimed to be new, and to take the place of the ten. But how new? What is the age of the first? "Hear, O Israel," said Moses, "The Lord our God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." Deut. vi, 4, 5. This commandment was at least 1400 years old when repeated by our Lord.
What is the age of the second? "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Lev. xix, 18. This was also 1400 years old when quoted by our Lord; yet modern theologians talk of these two commandments being something new, and taking the place of the ten. We would inquire, If all the law hangs on the two, how is it that the two have taken the place of the ten? If all the law hangs on the two, then we have it all, and not nine-tenths of it only.
Turn to the "Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants," &c. And mark: Jesus is the Revelator, and not John. "Hear him" "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." Rev. xii, 17. The testimony of Jesus Christ embraces all the sayings of Christ and his inspired Apostles, peculiar to the gospel. The commandments of God are the ten, spoken by the Father and engraven in the tables of stone, and taught by Christ and the Apostles. See Rev. xiv, 12.
Hear the Revelator, as recorded in the last chapter of the Book of God. "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. And behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. xxii, 11-14.
Here are most solemn declarations from the Son of God, which apply to that short period just prior to the Second Advent, when there shall be no "Intercessor," when Christ is to come quickly. O dreadful day of keenest anguish and black despair, to those who have broken the commandments of God. "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still."
But to the just it is said at that time, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Here are three parties introduced: (1) the commandment-keepers, (2) the author of the commandments, and (3) the speaker, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ, then, as speaking of his Father's commandments, and pronounces a blessing on those who shall keep them. When the unjust take up the lamentation, that "The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved," then those who keep the Father's commandments will be "blessed."
Reader, have you ever thought that this blessing, pronounced by the Son of God upon those who should "do his [the Father's] commandments," had a special application to the last days? Read carefully Rev. xxii, 11-14, and mark the connection of the sentences, and we think you will agree with us that it does. Is not the fourth commandment one of the Father's? It is. Can it be said that a man does "his" commandments, while he disregards the fourth? It cannot. Have those, then, who do not obey the fourth commandment any reason to claim the blessing promised by the Son of God in Rev. xxii, 14? And if they continue to tread under foot one of the commandments of God, have they not reason to expect to be finally classed with those commandment-breakers mentioned in verse 15? The reader will please answer the last two questions.
If it be said that the Apostles in their writing have given a code of laws for the gospel age, we reply, that this view makes twelve law-givers, whereas James says, "There is one law-giver."
Notice the commission to the eleven: "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." Matt. xxviii, 19, 20. Christ taught them what he had received of the Father, and this they were to teach men to observe; therefore gospel truth proceeds from the Father.
Notice also the work of the Holy Spirit, and from whom it proceeds. "But the Comforter, which is69the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." John xiv, 26. "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever." Verse 16. The Holy Spirit came from the Father, and one object for which it was sent was to call to the disciples' memory the words of divine truth which the Son had received of the Father and had spoken to them. We have, then, the plainest testimony that all revealed light and truth proceeds from the Father, who is the Christian's law-giver.
TRADITION.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE traditions of the fathers have now become venerable in the eyes of thousands. Their words can be quoted to sustain a multitude of favorite doctrines and practices which the Bible does not sanction. Hence it is that the advocates of those respective doctrines, find the tradition of the elders an invaluable treasure. The fact that many of the most conscientious and upright persons have been bewildered by this fog of the enemy of truth, makes it important that we look into this subject with care.
What weight then should be allowed the traditions of the fathers? What degree of authority should be attached to their decisions respecting religious duties? Perhaps the following remarks will throw some light on this question.
1. A doctrine does not become truth by becoming ancient. Satan's lie to our first parents, is six thousand years old, and has not yet become truth.
2. Every doctrine or tradition had a commencement; and when it began it was either truth or falsehood, according as it agreed with or contradicted the Bible.
3. We have the Bible in our own hands and may bring these traditions to its test, and examine them in its light. If they agree with the word of God, they are truth: if they do not agree with its teaching, they are worthless fables.
The soundness of this reasoning cannot, we think, be invalidated. And were it not that men are naturally inclined to love darkness rather than light, we should hope that this would lead them to the Bible as their only standard.
Tradition does not rest satisfied with being equal to the Scriptures, but exalts itself above them. Men begin by adding tradition to the written word of inspiration, and end by correcting the written word by the added tradition. The following remarks will make this plain: The absence of any testimony that the Lord's Sabbath has been changed, is accounted for by many of its warmest advocates as follows:
There were many things that Jesus did which were not recorded, as the world could not have held the books, had all been written. John xxi, 25.—The change of the Sabbath was one of those acts, the record of which was unfortunately crowded out of the written word for want of room; hence it is proper, as well as necessary, that we should add to the records of inspiration, the traditions of the fathers, who have kindly preserved for us this important and valuable truth.
In reply to such reasoning as this, we state a few facts: 1. The foregoing reasoning is in direct contradiction to 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17, which affirms that the Holy Scriptures were given by inspiration of God, and are able to thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works. If this word is true, it follows that no necessity exists for adding tradition to the Bible, in order to obtain a perfect rule of faith and practice. And it further follows that as the Bible thoroughly furnishes men to ALL good works, that is not a good work for which the Bible furnishes nothing. 2. But men do not merely add tradition to the Bible: they correct the Bible by it. The word of God plainly says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." These plain statements of the word of inspiration, men correct by the tradition of the elders: thus placing tradition above the word and commandment of Jehovah.
And what an humiliating confession do the advocates of the Sunday-Sabbath make, when they place the change of the Sabbath among the things that were not written. Jesus said, even to his trusting disciples, "O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." But were he now on earth, would he not add to that pointed rebuke, another equally strong: O fools and slow of heart to believe what the prophets have never written!
But why was the change of the Sabbath never recorded? Would a single verse stating that Sunday had become the Sabbath and requiring us to remember that day to keep it holy, have enlarged the Bible so much that the world would not have been able to hold so vast a book? The simple reason is that neither God the Father, nor his Son Jesus Christ, ever yet changed the holy Sabbath. The Bible was just large enough to contain all revealed truth: to have added a single error would have made it too large. This is the reason why the commandment to keep Sunday holy as a Sabbath unto the Lord was omitted.
But were the fathers, who furnish this lacking part of the Bible, inspired? No, they did not even claim it themselves. And those who virtually claim it for them would be ashamed to confess their faith in one tenth part of what these fathers have written. If the fathers, then, were fallible mortals like ourselves, even their advocates being judges, is it not reasonable to say that we will receive the word of the fathers just as far as it agrees with the word of Jehovah, and beyond that we will not go? If their testimony agrees with that which is infallible, we may safely receive it: if it contradicts that which came from Jehovah by the pen of inspiration, we may rest assured that it is rank poison.
Does the antiquity of certain fathers who have spoken in favor of Sunday, make them very venerable and sacred in your eyes? If so, please to take into the account the antiquity of the grand-fathers, the apostles, and the great grand-fathers, the prophets, all of whom have obeyed and taught the commandments of Jehovah. Antiquity and the ancients are on the side of the Lord's Sabbath; and it is an important consideration that those most ancient and venerable men to whom we have referred as bearing testimony in favor of the Sabbath, were divinely inspired, and hence infallible in their testimony; while not one person who has ever spoken in favor of the change of the Sabbath, had the least ground to claim divine inspiration. The Saviour's contrast between day and night, may without violence be applied to the Bible and tradition. Said Jesus, "If a man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world. But if a man walk in the night, he stumbleth, because there is no light in him." John xi, 9, 10. The man who feels competent to illuminate noon-day with the darkness of midnight, is the very person who should correct the Bible by the tradition of the fathers.
None are more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of the fathers in support of Sunday, than the Presbyterians. But the following extract will indicate their feelings when the fathers are used against the Presbyterians:
"They [Episcopalians] contend that bishops, in the sense in which they use the term, certainly existed in the churches as early as A. D. 160. They lay great stress on the writings of the Christian Fathers on this point, and in particular on Clement, and the epistles of St. Ignatius. The latter, in his epistle to the Smyrneans, calls upon Christians 'to obey their bishop, even as Christ obeyed the Father; to venerate the presbyters, as the apostles; and the deacons, as the commandments of God.' Presbyterians, and other Dissenters, however, demur as to this authority, and appeal to Scripture. They plead the great dissimilarity between this language and that of the apostles; and strongly suspect that these Ignatian epistles have either been forged, or greatly corrupted by the church of Rome, in order to lay a foundation for the authority assumed by the clergy, on the establishment of Christianity under Constantine."—Goodrich's History of the Church.—p. 230.
That the testimony of the early Christians has been corrupted by the church of Rome, and many shameful forgeries palmed off as their genuine teaching, there can be no doubt. As an example, we will cite the epistle of Barnabas, the earliest father quoted to sustain the first-day Sabbath. Whoever will carefully read the ninth chapter of that epistle, cannot fail to satisfy himself, that that epistle is a wicked forgery. They would at least be prepared to appreciate the following from the "History of the Sabbath."
"To this epistle it is objected, that there is no evidence of its genuineness. Mosheim, who lived near the time when it was written, mentions it as a spurious writing, entitled to no credit. Dr. Milnor says it is an injury to St. Barnabas, to ascribe this epistle to him. Mosheim says it is the work of some superstitious Jew of mean abilities."
Those who add tradition to the Bible, do so because they are not able to prove from the scriptures all the doctrines which they choose to cherish. This is the case with the advocates of Sunday. Not being able to bring any testimony in its favor, but weak inferences, they resort to the authority of the fathers, and to the traditions of the elders. They leave the rule of the Protestants, viz., the Bible alone, and adopt that of the Papist, viz., the Bible and tradition. As proof read the following rules:—
THE RULE OF PROTESTANTS.—"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.
THE RULE OF PAPISTS.—"All scripture. &c. Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with these scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone; nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it." Note of the Douay (Catholic) Bible on 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.
In a word, Protestant Sunday-keepers are obliged to fight under the banner of the church of Rome. They cannot take the divinely inspired, all-sufficient book of God and sustain Sunday-keeping; hence they leave the ground of Protestants, and take that of the Papists—the Bible and the fathers. Romanists point to such conduct on the part of Protestants as a tacit confession that the Bible is not sufficient, and an acknowledgment that they are correct in joining the fathers to the Bible in order to supply what is lacking in that book, and to make it a perfect rule of faith. No stronger evidence need be adduced that Sunday-keeping comes from the Romish apostasy, than the fact that those who advocate it are obliged to adopt the Romish rule of faith.
The apostate Jewish church, in the days of the Saviour, occupied the same position that the Romish church now occupies, and which every Protestant is obliged to adopt when he undertakes to prove the change of the Lord's Sabbath. They had buried the word of God beneath a vast pile of tradition. They had exalted their traditions to a place with the words of inspiration. They had taken their traditions and corrected the truths of inspiration by them. They had virtually annulled the fifth commandment, not to mention a multitude of like acts; and all of this they did under the appearance of the greatest godliness. Those who took the lead, and who emboldened the nation to such a course, were the very men who made the greatest pretension to religion.
Under the name of religion and zeal for the Lord, they added to his pure words a vast multitude of burdensome and rigorous ceremonies. The Sabbath of the Lord which was made for man before the fall, and which God designed as a delight, they had loaded down with numberless traditions, all of which were considered of equal authority with the commandments of God, or rather as forming parts of his commandments. These made the holy Sabbath in effect what its opponents now represent it, viz., a yoke of bondage. Our Lord who kept his Father's commandments, never sanctioned their traditions by paying them the least reverence. On the contrary, he evidently designed to teach them that the most profound reverence for the words of his Father, was70consistent with the total disregard of their traditions; nay, that reverence for the word of Jehovah forbid him to honor as its equal the words of fallible men.
Hence it was that our Lord was regarded as a Sabbath-breaker and a sinner by those who acknowledged the authority of tradition. Their unjust association led him to make that remarkable defense, which is recorded, Matt. xv, 1-9. The character of their traditions was there uncovered. The fact that by following them, they were openly violating the ten commandments was exposed before all. And the solemn sentence of him who shall judge mankind at the last day was pronounced: "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." As the Protestant church at the present day makes void the fourth commandment on the authority of tradition, just as the Jewish church then made void the fifth, perhaps the following extract, showing the source from which the Jews claimed to derive their traditions may be of interest:
"The Jews believe that all the precepts of the law, given to Moses, were accompanied with an interpretation. They say, that God first dictated the text as it is written in the Pentateuch, and then gave Moses an explication of every part of it. It was commanded that the text should be put in writing, and the explanation committed to memory, to be communicated to that generation, and transmitted to posterity by word of mouth. Hence the former is called the written law, and the latter the oral law. When Moses came down from the mount, he delivered both these laws to the people. As soon as he was returned to his tent, he was attended by Aaron who sat at his feet, and to whom he recited the text and taught the interpretation which he received from God in the mount. Then Aaron rising and seating himself on the right hand of Moses, Eleazar and Ithamar entered, and Moses repeated to them all that he had communicated to their father; after which they arose and seated themselves, one on the left hand of Moses, and the other on the right hand of Aaron. Then went in the seventy elders, and Moses taught them in the same manner as he had taught Aaron and his sons. Afterwards entered the congregation at large, or all of them who were desirous of knowing the Divine will; and to them also Moses recited the text and the interpretation, in the same manner as before. These two laws, as delivered by Moses, had now been heard by Aaron four times, by his sons three times, by the seventy elders twice, and by the rest of the people once. After this, Moses withdrawing, Aaron repeated the whole that he had heard from Moses, and withdrew: then Eleazar and Ithamar did the same; and on their withdrawing, the same was done by the seventy elders; so that each of them, having heard both these laws repeated four times, they all had them firmly fixed in their memories. Towards the end of the fortieth year after the departure from Egypt, Moses assembled the people, announced the time of his death to be near—directed those who had forgotten any tradition he had delivered, to come to him, that he might repeat it to them anew, and invited them to apply to him for a solution of all questions in which they found any difficulty. The last month of his life was employed in giving these repetitions and explanations to the people, and especially to Joshua, his successor. Before Joshua died, all the interpretations which he had received from Moses were transmitted by him to the elders who survived him. These elders conveyed them to the prophets, and by one prophet they were delivered to another." History of the Jews—pp. 29, 30.
The difference between Jewish and Protestant followers of tradition is simply this: the Jews claimed that their traditions were handed down to them from Moses; the Protestants claim that their traditions have been handed down from Christ. Both parties, while mutually condemning, each the other, agree in exalting tradition above the ten commandments. The Protestant acknowledges the wickedness of the Jew in violating through tradition the fifth commandment; yet takes the same course with the fourth commandment, and for the same reason.
If a man made a formal devotion to sacred purposes of those goods which he could afford for the relief of a parent, the Jews considered him as exempt from the duty of succoring his parent: thus encouraging a direct violation of the fifth commandment, and in so doing destroying morality at its very source. Their authority for thus openly violating the commandments of God, we have just read. Protestants no less openly violate the fourth commandment; and this they do without any other license than tradition. The Jews incurred the fearful rebuke of the Son of God; yet the Jews could present a far more venerable and imposing tradition than Protestants are able to show. What then shall we say respecting these professed followers of Christ? They acknowledge the authority of him who exposed the wickedness of the Jew's tradition, and yet with less reason, and against far greater light, they obstinately continue to make void the commandment that they may keep their own traditions. Would to God that men might realize the sinfulness of such conduct, and show the sincerity of their repentance by turning to God with full purpose of heart. J. N. A. Rochester, N. Y.
Tent Meeting at Shelby, Mich.
By M. E. Cornell; John Norton Loughborough
This meeting was one of interest, from the commencement to the close. Our tent was pitched in a beautiful place, and the weather was very favorable; so that on First-day about fifteen hundred came out to hear the testimony. A good interest was manifested during the day, and order was observed. After the last discourse, the tent was taken down, and we continued our testimony during the week, in the Academy near by. The interest was such, and the weather so fair, it was thought best to pitch the tent again, for meetings on the following Sabbath and First-day, and we advertised accordingly, and called upon the professed watchmen in that vicinity to come out and acknowledge our testimony true, or try to show it false, and point out the better way: giving any minister the privilege of preaching a sermon in the tent, and presenting the opposite of any of our positions. A Baptist minister consented to give his opinion of what he had heard. Said he had been much interested in the subjects presented; that he believed in the literal, personal, second advent of Christ; that his coming was near; that the saints would all receive immortality at his coming, and all the living wicked be destroyed, and live not again until after the one thousand years, when they would be resurrected and punished according to their deeds, and receive their doom which is death. Concerning the Spirit Manifestations, he had not given them an investigation; but if there was any spirits about them, he believed they were all of the Devil. Concerning the Sabbath, if there is any Sabbath in this dispensation, one day more than another, it must be the original seventh day. He regarded the efforts of Protestants to show divine authority for Sunday-keeping, "one universal quibble." He believed that in the former dispensation, God had but one law, and that was nailed to the cross, &c. In our review we contrasted the two laws, and showed clearly that Christ destroyed one, but the other "he came not to destroy," &c. At the close of the discourse, the Elder reminded the people of the fact that Jesus was that Prophet like unto Moses, and we should listen to him, &c.; that if we could show from the New Testament a definite Sabbath or Lord's day, one day more than another, he would keep it. This was done by reading Matt. xxiv, 20, and Rev. i, 10. If there was not a definite day in the year A. D. 96, known as the "Lord's day," and every day was known to be alike, John certainly must have been ignorant of the fact, and his statement that he was in the Spirit on "the Lord's day," was entirely superfluous. This we cannot believe.
This public investigation before the people was conducted in such a manner that no evil can result from it. Each party presented their views in a candid manner, with a manifest desire to have the truth found out, and understood by all. We expect to see this watchman, together with many others like him, engaged ere long with us in calling God's people out of Babylon, for the following reasons: 1. The truth is so plain that a man of his ability cannot fail to see it when he has once investigated. 2. He has been in the habit of changing his position when convinced of error. 3. He, professing to be an honest, independent, free man, for the Lord, will stand boldly for the truth when he sees it. 4. An honest man will no sooner hold on to an error in regard to the Sabbath, in order to be popular, than in regard to Baptism. 5. Any man, after a candid, thorough investigation, without prejudice, cannot fail to see that Sunday-keeping, sprinkling for baptism, and infant sprinkling, all came from the same source, viz., the Catholic church.
The truth has taken deep root in Shelby. About $20,00 worth of books were sold at this meeting: making in all about $70,00 worth sold in that town. Operations with the tent are now closed for the season. God's blessing has attended our efforts with the tent, for which we praise his name. We believe that much prejudice has been removed, and the way prepared for a good work to be done the coming Winter.
M. E. CORNELL.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Death by Crucifixion.
In various countries crucifixion has been a mode of inflicting capital punishment upon transgressors. Among the Jews it was sometimes spoken of as hanging. It was a cruel and disgraceful death to die, as Cicero says in his oration against Verres. "The worst possible punishment," Ulpian calls it; and other ancient writers speak of it in the same terms. It was in practice among the Persians, and the Greeks, and the Romans with peculiar refinement of torture, according to the taste of the people, or the degree of guilt for which the victim suffered. Kitto has compiled a great many facts respecting this dreadful punishment, which cannot be read without deep emotion, when we remember that this was the death of the Lord Jesus. Herodotus says that Darius crucified three hundred persons after the siege of Babylon. Alexander nailed two thousand captives to as many crosses, by the sea-side, after the capture of Tyre. The Romans scourged the criminal before they crucified him. Thus they treated our Master.
The Hebrews derived the punishment from the Romans. The upright beam was let into the ground, and the criminal being raised up, was fastened to the transverse piece by nails driven through his hands, sometimes through his feet also; and often the feet were crossed, and one nail driven through both. The feet were sometimes bound to the cross by cords. A small tablet, declaring the crime, was placed on the top of the cross. The victim died under the most frightful sufferings; so great, that even amid the raging passions of war, pity was sometimes excited. The wounds were not in themselves fatal. A raging fever soon sets in, and the victim complains of throbbing headache, intense thirst, and pain.—When mortification ensues, as is sometimes the case, the sufferer rapidly sinks. He is no longer sensible of pain, but his anxiety and sense of prostration are excessive; hiccup supervenes, his skin is moistened with a cold clammy sweat, and death ensues. The duration of life under these agonies varied with the constitution of the sufferer, and the state of the weather. Death was hastened by the heat of the Sun and the exposure to the cold night air, but it did not ordinarily come to end the wretchedness of the victim until he had hung for thirty-six or forty-eight weary hours! Richter states that some survive on the cross for three, four, and even for nine days.
Our blessed Lord is believed to have died in about six hours from the time of being nailed to the cross. He gave up the ghost. He laid down his life. The historians speak of him as if he yielded up his breath when his work was done. But a dreadful death it was to die. And for us!
"Was it for crimes that I had done
He groaned upon the tree?
Amazing pity, grace unknown,
And love beyond degree!"
Ch. Penny. Mag.
The Ark During Persecution
As long as the waters of persecutions are upon the earth, so long we dwell in the ark; but where the land is dry, the dove itself will be tempted to a wandering course of life, and never to return to the house of her safety.
The God of Comforts
Live not so much upon the comforts of God, as upon the God of comforts.
JERUSALEM MY HAPPY HOME.
By Editor
Jerusalem! my happy home!
When shall I come to thee?
When shall my sorrows have an end?
Thy joys when shall I see?
O Happy harbor of the saints,
Oh sweet and pleasant soil,
In thee no sorrow may be found,
No grief, no care, no toil.
No dampish mist is seen in thee,
No cold nor darksome night;
There every soul shines as the sun—
There God himself gives light.
There lust and lucre cannot dwell,
There envy bears no sway:
There is no hunger, heat, nor cold,
But pleasure every way.
Jerusalem! Jerusalem!
God grant I once may see
Thy endless joy, and of the same,
Partaker aye to be.
Thy walls are made of precious stone,
Thy bulwarks diamonds square.
Thy gates are of right orient pearls,
Exceeding rich and rare.
Thy turrets and thy pinnacles
With carbuncles do shine;
Thy very streets are paved with gold,
Surpassing clear and fine.
Thy houses are of ivory,
Thy windows crystal clear,
Thy tiles are made of beaten gold—
Would God, that I were there!
Ah, my sweet home, Jerusalem!
Would God I were in thee,
Would God my woes were at an end,
Thy joys that I might see.
Thy saints are crowned with glory great,
They see God face to face;
They triumph still, they still rejoice—
Most happy is their case.
We that are here in banishment
Continually do moan;
We sigh and sob, we weep and wail,
Perpetually we groan.
Our sweet is mixed with bitter gall,
Our pleasure is but pain,
Our joys scarce last the looking on,
Our sorrows still remain.
But there they live in such delights,
Such pleasures and such play.
As that to them a thousand years
Doth seem as yesterday.
Thy vineyards and thy orchards are
Most beautiful and fair,
And furnished full with trees and fruit,
Most wonderful and rare.
Thy gardens and thy pleasant walks
Continually are green;
There grow such sweet and pleasant flowers
As nowhere else are seen.
Quite thro' the streets, with silver sound,
The flood of life doth flow,
Upon whose banks, on either side,
The tree of life doth grow.
The trees forevermore bear fruit,
And evermore do spring;
There evermore the angels sit,
And evermore do sing.
There David stands with harp in hand,
As master of the choir;
Ten thousand times that man were blest
That might this music hear.
There Magdalene hath left her moan,
And cheerfully doth sing
With blessed saints, whose harmony
In every street doth ring.
Jerusalem, my happy home!
Would God I were in thee;
Would God my woes were at an end,
Thy joys that I might see!
We suppose the writer was looking forward and bringing the future into the present, otherwise he is not in harmony with the Scriptures. Ed.
Setting a Christian Example
By R. A. Shoudy
From Sister Shoudy.
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—Certainly we should be up and doing at present if ever. The world is noticing our conduct very closely; and we should endeavor to set an example before them which will be in accordance with our creed—the Bible. Precept without example72is of very little value. Brethren and sisters, let us set a good example before the world, that it may be said of us, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant."