AS THERE cannot be diverse or unlike attributes of Deity, so there can be only one rule of holiness growing out of those attributes—one moral law for his Government. And upon obedience or disobedience to this law must all good and evil, life and death, be suspended. Therefore the following declarations apply to these commands, or to this law, and to no other:—
Lev. 18:5. "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments; which if a man do, he shall live in them."
Deut. 30:15, 16. "See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; in that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments." See verses 19, 20; chap. 11: 26-28.
Isa. 51:7. "Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law."
Ps. 19:7. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul."
Ps. 40:8. "I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart." Also Ps. 119.
Eccl. 12:13. "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man."
Matt. 19:17. "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
Rom. 2:13. "The doers of the law shall be justified."
Gal. 3:12. "The law is not of faith; but the man that doeth them shall live in them."
1 John 3:4. "Sin is the transgression of the law."
Rom. 7:12. "The law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good."
Verse 14. "For we know that the law is spiritual."
This law is also referred to in certain scriptures wherein it is called God's holy covenant, and the covenant commanded.
Deut. 4:13. "He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments."
1 Chron. 16:15-17. "Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant."
Gen. 26:3-5. "I will perform the oath which I swear unto Abraham. . . . . . . Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge; my commandments, my statutes, and my laws."
For breaking this "everlasting covenant," the inhabitants of the earth will be desolated with a curse, and burned up. Isa. 24:5, 6.
By indignation against the "holy covenant," was the man of sin, the abomination that maketh desolate, set up. Dan. 11:28, 30.
As this law has sometimes been confounded with other laws, to which the foregoing declarations of Scripture will not apply, it will be in place to notice the distinction of laws:
The system (not the law) under which the people of God lived in the past dispensation was complex; its elements were moral, civil, and ceremonial. The moral was the basis of all, existing prior to, and independent of, the others, and was from the beginning the standard of duty to God and to our fellow-men. The civil enforced the moral; especially in men's relations to their fellow-men, making application of its principles to every-day life. The ceremonial expiated the violations of the moral, and had especial reference to their relations to God. But both the ceremonial and civil were merely typical, looking forward to the priesthood of Christ and to his kingdom; and therefore illustrated the true relation we sustain under Christ to the law of God, the moral rule, in this and the future dispensation.
This distinction of the two laws, moral and ceremonial, is shown in the following scriptures:—
Jer. 6:19, 20. "Hear, O earth; behold I will bring evil upon this people, even the fruit of their thoughts, because they have not hearkened unto my words, nor to my law, but rejected it. To what purpose cometh there to me incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me." Here one was kept and the other rejected; but the observance of the ceremonial was not acceptable when the moral was disregarded. That this was illustrative of our position in this age is proved by Matt. 7:21-23, and John 7:16, 17, where the efficacy of faith in the Son, and of the knowledge of his doctrine, is dependent on obedience to the will or law of the Father.
Jer. 7:22, 23. "For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices. But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice." We have seen that to obey his voice was to keep his covenant, the ten commandments; and this shows that when God gave his law, which himself declared to be the rule of holiness, the ceremonial law of burnt offerings and sacrifices was not included. He spoke only the ten commandments, and wrote only this law on the tables of stone; this alone was put into the ark over which the priest made atonement for sin. No other law had such honor bestowed upon it.
The Saviour himself explicitly declares that he came not to destroy the law; yet we know he did set aside the ceremonial law, by introducing its antitype.
The same is proved by Paul in his letters to the Ephesians and Romans. In one, he speaks of a law which Christ abolished (Gr. katargeo), Eph. 2:15, and in the other, he speaks of a law which is not made void (Gr. katargeo), by faith, but rather established. Rom. 3:31.
It has been noticed in another place that it is not consistent with justice to relax the claims of a just law, neither can the acts of abolishing the law and pardoning the transgressor be united. Hence, if the law of God had been abolished by the gospel, justice would be trampled under foot. But the Bible is not thus inconsistent with reason. God is infinitely just, and his law must be satisfied; Christ, a voluntary substitute, is set forth as our Saviour, that God might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:26.
Though many other scriptures might be given to the same intent, those quoted are sufficient to show that the Bible truly harmonizes with the great principles of Government examined in the light of reason.
As objections are stronger with some persons than even positive proof, it will not be amiss to notice a few objections urged against the perpetuity of the law of God, by those who would make it void through faith, and pervert the gospel to a system of license.
Luke 16:16. "The law and the prophets were until John; since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."
It is unjustly inferred that the question of the existence of the law is here introduced. The translators saw that the passage was elliptical, but violated the laws of language by inserting the word "were," which does not make the sentence complete; the verb "is" being the antithesis of "were," the word "preached" is redundant. The following must be the correct view. The word or words understood or to be supplied must be antithetical to the words "is preached;" and therefore "were preached" would complete the sentence. The omission of these words prevents tautology, while nothing would require the omission of the word "were" if it alone belonged there. "The law and the prophets were preached until John; since that time, the kingdom of God is preached." Now no one will claim that the law and the prophets ceased with John; even the ceremonial law remained in force later than the time of his death. Thus it is evident that the subject of the existence or continuance of the law and the prophets is not introduced in this scripture; therefore there is no objection in it.
Rom. 3:21. "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets."
In considering this text, and any other in this argument, we must bear in mind that the subject is justification by faith, and the object is "the remission of sins that are past." And no one who understands the principles of Government will for a moment insist that a sinner can be justified by the law which he has transgressed. Justification to the transgressor comes by pardon without the law; but it never comes at all to the person who continues in transgression. Pardon, in the gospel system, stands closely related to conversion, for none but the converted will ever be pardoned. But none are truly converted without an amendment of life. Paul says we shall not sin that grace may abound. Grace superabounds above sin, to save from it; but grace never combines with sin to save any who continue in it. That justification for past sins is without law, by faith only, does not prove that a right character in the future may be formed without law, or by faith only. We are aware that without faith it is impossible to please God; and we are as well aware that faith without works is dead, being alone.
But there is another part to this text which objectors to the law never consider. It says that the righteousness of God is "witnessed by the law." But a law cannot witness concerning that to which it does not relate. Now Paul says that "the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13. That does not prove that any can now be justified by the law, for alas, there are no doers of it. Rom. 3:9-19. But it does prove that the law contains the principles of justification; that it is of that nature that it would justify man if he had always kept it. In other words, it contains the true principles of righteousness; it is holy, and just, and good, and spiritual. Rom. 7:12, 14. And Solomon attests the same truth when he says the commandments contain "the whole duty of man." Eccl. 12:13, 14. For man is a moral agent, under a moral Government in which the Supreme Governor says: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." 1 Pet. 1:16; Lev. 19:2. And the law of God is the only rule of holiness given to man. To a sinner it is no longer the means of justification, but to all classes and under all circumstances it is the rule of justification, or of righteousness. It witnesses to the righteousness of God because it contains the principles of his righteousness; it is the expression of his will; the foundation of his moral Government; the very outgrowth of his attributes. Surely, we find in Rom. 3:19 no ground for objecting against the law of God.
Rom. 6:14. "For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace."
It is not difficult to show that the objection based on this text arises from an entire misapprehension of its meaning. As sin is transgression of the law, sin surely has dominion over the transgressor of the law. It is only the obedient that are free from the dominion of sin. To set man free from sin, to turn him from violating the holy law of God, is the object of the gospel. Of Jesus it was said by an angel, "He shall save his people from their sins." Matt. 1:21. And Paul said "he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Heb. 9:26. That is, he saves us from breaking the law of his Father; he puts away transgression. He had no transgression of his own to put away, for he kept his Father's commandments. John 15:10. Of course he came to put away our transgression; to restore sinful, fallen men to allegiance to the divine law—to loyalty to the divine Government. But this object is not accomplished in him who continues to transgress the law of God. Such are not saved from sin. Over such sin has dominion; how then can they be under grace?
If it be replied that all are under grace now because the dispensation of law is past and the dispensation of grace has taken its place, we say then, that is destructive of the sense of the text. The apostle offers the fact of our being under grace as the reason or the evidence that sin shall not have dominion over us. But if the relation is dispensational and not personal, then the distinction noted in the text is obliterated; if all are under grace, then also the multitudes are under grace over whom sin has dominion, and the text has no force.
EDITOR.
Safer to Obey Than Govern
By Thomas a' Kempis
It is much safer to obey than to govern. Who is so wise that he can fully know all things? Be not, therefore, too confident in thine own opinion, but be willing to hear the judgment of others.—Thomas a' Kempis.
Loving Friends Despite Their Faults
WHOEVER looks for a friend without imperfections will never find what he seeks. We love ourselves with all our faults, and we ought to love our friends in like manner.
“AND Paul after this tarried there yet a good while.” Although they had fiercely risen up against Paul, and beaten Sosthenes, the chief ruler of the synagogue, the apostle did not leave his work there until he was satisfied in his own mind that it was pleasing to the Lord. While we should never place ourselves in danger unnecessarily, and thus tempt the providence of God, the servant of the Lord should look to his Master for indications of duty, and not suffer the world, or opposers, to deter him from his work.
“HAVING shorn his head in Cenchrea, for he had a vow.” Conjectures on this text are very numerous, and commentators are much divided in respect to it. The original does not positively show to whom this statement refers, whether to Paul or Aquila. Dr. Clarke says that “Chrysostom, Isodore of Seville, Grotius, Hammond, Zegerus, Erasmus, Baronius, Pearce, and Wesley, refer the vow to Aquila; Jerome, Augustin, Bede, Calmet, Dodd, Rosenmuller, and others, refer it to St. Paul.” Where it is left so obscure, we cannot think any importance attaches to it. And the nature of the vow cannot be determined. Dr. Barnes, after giving a number of conjectures which have been raised by different authors, discreetly says: “But where nothing is recorded, conjecture is useless.” Happy would it be for the cause and the honor of Christianity if everything not revealed were treated in the same manner.
“I MUST by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem.” Here again conjecture has been busy as to this feast. Clarke and Scott suppose it was the passover; the Biblical Commentary says, pentecost. But all agree that the passage is very doubtful. Clarke says: “The whole of this clause is wanting in ABE, six others; with the Coptic, Æthiostic, Armenian, and Vulgate. Griesbach leaves it in the text with the mark of doubtfulness,” etc. It is also wanting in various translations; and in the Revised Version. Dropping this the verse reads: “But bade them farewell, saying, I will return again unto you, if God will.”
“AND a certain Jew named Apollos, . . . an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures, . . . instructed in the way of the Lord, and being fervent in spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord.” The context makes this description of Apollos noteworthy. Notwithstanding his gifts and zeal, he was of a teachable spirit, willing to be instructed by Aquila and Priscilla. It would be well for the cause of truth, for the honor of Christianity, if all learned and eloquent men were so gifted with the grace of humility. This is the true spirit of a teacher. For how can one teach who has not first been taught? And how shall he be taught if he is not teachable? It is not difficult to graduate in the schools, or in theology; but there is no such thing as graduating in Christian experience or Bible knowledge. In these we are always “disciples,” learners. Nor did he wait for Paul to be his instructor; he was willing to have the way of God expounded unto him by any who were more fully instructed than he was. Though Aquila and Priscilla were helpers in the work, at the time here spoken of they were probably not public laborers in the gospel, if they ever were.
WHY would Apollos listen to those who were not eloquent as himself, who could not reason as powerfully as he could? We find the answer in the then prevailing method of teaching the faith. They reasoned—but not with “vain reasoning,” nor according to the demands of “science,” falsely so called, as is the custom of these days, but they “reasoned out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17: 2. What the Scriptures said was a finality to the early Christians, no matter who presented the word. There is truly a great “falling away” from the simple faith of early times.
“AND when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.” Acts 19: 5.
On this text we copy from “Thoughts on Baptism:” “Acts 19 does not afford so clear proof that they who were baptized unto John’s baptism were again baptized by the apostles as has been supposed by many. This was an unusual case, according to the record. On being questioned by Paul they said: ‘We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.’ They had not been baptized by John, but by Apollos, who had been converted at Ephesus a short time before the visit of Paul. Though this was twenty-five years after the resurrection of Christ, Apollos knew only the baptism of John, and baptized just as John had administered the ordinance, unto a belief in a Messiah who was yet to come. That they were unacquainted with the facts concerning Christ, and the fulfillment of John’s predictions of Christ’s work, is evident from their answer to Paul: ‘We have not even heard whether the Holy Spirit is given.’ (Anderson’s translation.) The Revised Version gives the same form in verse 2. ‘We did not so much as hear whether the Holy Ghost was given.’ It was an error on the part of Apollos to teach the people that Christ was yet to come, when he had already died and was risen from the dead. This error of Apollos was corrected when Aquila and Priscilla expounded to him the way of God more perfectly. Those who were baptized by John in the faith of a coming Messiah, did not need to be baptized again when they accepted him. But those who were baptized in the faith of a coming Messiah after he had died and risen from the dead, needed to be baptized again, inasmuch as their first baptism was nearer to a denial of him who had come, than a belief in him. It every way seems just and fitting that Paul should commence with them as novices.”
“HE went into the synagogue and spake boldly for the space of three months.” The apostle always gave the Jews the first opportunity of hearing the doctrine concerning Christ. Speaking three months boldly in the synagogue certainly effected his purpose. And in this the churches of this day might learn a lesson. Objection is made against those who preach the advent near, and the special message of warning which is to precede the advent, that they seek to proselyte members of the churches, instead of endeavoring to convert sinners. The charge is unjust; they preach to all classes. But if they have a neglected duty or a rejected truth to proclaim, it is certainly right to present it to the professed servants of God, that they may have the light they need. The word of the Lord says: “Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins.” Isa. 58: 1. It is no excuse for the neglect of this order that they seek the Lord daily, and delight to know his way, and take delight in calling upon him. See verse 2. No matter how zealous they may be in worship, if they are indulging in sin they must be warned. The Saviour confirmed the words of the prophet, that they worship in vain who teach for doctrine the commandments of men and make void the commandments of God through their traditions. Isa. 29: 13; Matt. 15: 1-9.
WHEN the Jews had been fully warned, Paul having spoken in the synagogue for the space of three months, some of them turned to actively opposing his doctrine, and he left them, and separated the disciples from the congregation. But he did not leave the city. It is not likely that a large proportion of the people had heard him in the synagogue of the Jews, and with commendable perseverance he determined to proclaim the truth to all, while the opportunity was afforded, and the minds of many were already awakened on these subjects. He labored, speaking daily in a public place, and continued thus doing for the space of two years; “so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks.” In this a great purpose was accomplished, worthy of the labor and the time employed.
THE position and importance of the city of Ephesus made it a desirable point for the apostle to labor in for so long a time. The goddess Diana and her famous temple were here, of which Demetrius said “whom all Asia and the world worshipped.” The temple of Diana was considered one of “the seven wonders of the world.” It was built at the expense of all Asia Minor; and Barnes says, “by contributions from a great number of princes, and doubtless multitudes from all parts of the earth came to Ephesus to pay their homage to Diana.” Thus by Paul's remaining here so long opportunity was given to all in Asia to hear the word of the Lord. We should wisely exercise our judgments in improving the openings presented to us by Providence for furthering the cause of truth.
“MANY of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all.” Magical arts, enchantment, divination; all this was declared to be an abomination to the Lord. Deut. 18: 9-12. It was done by consultation with demons professing to be the spirits of the dead. When these magicians became converted to the doctrine of Christ they quit those practices of the heathen. And this proves that the standard of Christianity under the preaching of the apostles was quite different from that acknowledged in the churches of the present day; for now, under the name of “Christian Spiritualism,” divination, or consulting with “familiar spirits,” is carried on within the church, and many of the most eminent ministers of the land are in the habit of constantly consulting those who practice witchcraft, or mediums. Not many are aware, and very few are willing to be convinced of the fact that under the working of the “mystery of iniquity,” many of the practices of the old pagan worship were grafted into the Christian faith, and their influence is largely felt even to the present day. This idea of the spirits of the dead being in Heaven, becoming our guardian angels, with whom we may hold intercourse through some medium, or necromancer, is increasing in popularity, instead of its being avoided, as the Lord commanded. That they will continue until the coming of the Lord, and that they are still abominable in his sight, see 2 Thess. 2: 1-12; Rev. 16: 12-15; 21: 8.
THE value of the books which were burned is variously estimated, it not being known what currency was refered to. It was, however, somewhere between $8,500 and $25,000. “To what purpose was this waste?” (Matt. 26: 8.) Judas would have suggested that they should be sold, and the proceeds given to the poor. In modern churches they might have been put up for “a raffle,” and thus much money brought into the church treasury. But they were connected with a work of iniquity; a work which the Lord abhorred, and their possessors proved the thoroughness of their conversion by destroying them. On this Dr. Barnes well remarks: “The universal prevalence of Christianity would make much that is now esteemed valuable property utterly worthless, as, for example, all that is used in gambling; in fraud; in counterfeiting; in distilling ardent spirits for drink; in the slave trade; and in attempts to impose on and defraud mankind.” To which may be added, the enormous expense incurred in raising, preparing, and in trafficking in tobacco. But that evil could be eradicated only by a purer type of Christianity than that generally recognized at the present day.
And these converts were not ashamed to destroy the property which was valued so highly by the world. They “burned them before all.” There is power in the truth when preached in its purity, to separate men from the works and workers of iniquity.
God's Plan for Your Life.
NEVER complain of your birth, your training, your employment, your hardships; never fancy that you could be something if you only had a different lot and sphere assigned you. God understands his own plans, and he knows what you want a great deal better than you do. The very things that you most deprecate as fatal limitations or obstructions, are probably God's opportunities; and it is nothing new that the patient should dislike his medicines, or any certain proof that they are poisons. No! a truce to all impatience! Choke that foolish envy which gnaws at your heart because you are not in the same lot with others; bring down your soul, or rather, bring it up to receive God's will and do his work in your lot, in your sphere, under your cloud of obscurity, against your temptations, and then you shall find that your condition is never opposed to your good, but really consistent with it.—Selected.
A Specimen Sunday Falsehood.
By Editor
SUNDAY is a counterfeit of the Sabbath, and in its support all manner of deceptions are practiced. Many readers of the SIGNS will remember the letter which we published, received from a gentleman in Harlem, Belgium, in which he said there was a publication circulated in that country, professedly translated from the English, giving an account of a man who built a boat on a lake in California, and, in contempt of the Sunday, named it "The Sabbath-breaker;" how it upset on its first sail, and all on board perished; all of the boat that could be seen out of the water was the part on which was painted the ominous name. Thus, it was claimed, did Providence frown upon all who refused to keep Sunday.
We called upon the people of this State to verify the occurrence, if it were a fact. We were sure it was a falsehood—a "pious fraud"—but gave opportunity to the friends of Sunday to defend the story if they could. The only letter we ever received was from a friend in Washington Territory, who had heard something to the same intent, professedly in another State. But the fact as related never occurred.
In a religious paper published in the East, we find an article in answer to a question concerning Sunday, in which is the following paragraph:—
"The persecutors of the Christians were accustomed to put to them this question: 'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' If they had they were marked as Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity. And if they said they had, and would not recant, they must be put to death. And when they continued steadfast, what was their answer? 'I am a Christian; I cannot omit it. It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it of course keep the Lord's day, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion.' (Baron. An. Eccles. A. D. 303, Num. 35, etc.)"
Passing over the fact that no one can bring a particle of Scripture proof that Sunday is the Lord's day, or any historical evidence that it was so called in the days of the apostles, we confidently assert that the Annals of Baronius contain no such statement as is given in the above-quoted paragraph. And what is worse for the writer, he knew that this Sunday fraud had been thoroughly exposed by different writers when he penned these words. Baronius distinctly says that the question proposed to the Christians who suffered for their fidelity to the faith had reference to the celebration of the mass, or the Lord's Supper; it had no reference to the Sunday. These are his words:—
"It has been shown above, in relating these things, that the Christians were moved, even in the time of severe persecution, to celebrate the Dominicum. Evidently, as we have declared elsewhere in many places, it was a sacrifice without bloodshed, and of divine appointment." And again: "Though it was a fact that the same expression was employed at times with reference to the temple of God, yet since all the churches upon the earth have united in this matter, and from other things related above, it has been sufficiently shown concerning the celebration of the Dominicum that only the sacrifice of the mass can be understood."
Dr. Justin Edwards in the "Sabbath Manual," a very popular book advocating the Sunday, says the martyrs were asked that question, "Hast thou kept the Lord's day," but gives no authority. Perhaps he thought his cause was safest to make the assertion without offering any authority, as he knew many would swallow all that was held out to them as proof for Sunday, and if no authority it would be all the more difficult to disprove! Mr. Gurney, an English writer in favor of Sunday, quoted the story as from Bishop Andrews, who ascribed it to the "Acts of the Martyrs," giving, however, no instance or reference to any place in those legends where it might be found. But Sir Wm. Domville, another English writer, exposed the deception. He said:—
"I have carefully consulted that work, and I take upon myself to affirm that among the questions there stated to have been put to the martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two hundred years afterwards, the question, Dominicum servasti? does not once occur, nor any equivalent question."
And no Sunday writer has ever attempted to show that Domville was wrong in this statement; no one has pointed to any place in the "Acts of the Martyrs" where it might be found. Notwithstanding, they continue to use it with as much assurance as if it had not been proved to be a falsehood! The Sunday-Sabbath is only a fraud, and to support it fraud must unavoidably be the resort.
But Gilfillan has written a large work entitled, "The Sabbath," and while he did not dare to make the reference used so successfully by others in the face of the exposure of Sir Wm. Domville, he could not afford to lose a story which has already done so good service for Sunday. He therefore repeats it, and ascribes it to Baronius, as given by the writer of the first paragraph quoted in this article. But Eld. J. N. Andrews, author of the "History of the Sabbath" (which is often advertised in our paper), made a thorough examination of this matter, and has fairly convicted Gilfillan of duplicity in his pretended quotation. Two facts, which cannot be disputed, establish the matter. 1. Baronius never used the expression "Dominicum servasti?" as asserted by Gilfillan, and from him quoted by this writer in the Eastern religious paper. 2. Baronius distinctly defines the word Dominicum to refer to the mass, or the Lord's Supper, and says that by it "only the sacrifice of the mass can be understood," as quoted above. Whether he had really consulted Baronius or not, as we suppose he had, his words are actually a fabrication. Baronius does not leave the subject so obscure that the reader might make an honest mistake, and infer that he spoke of the keeping of Sunday. No; he distinctly says the question referred to the sacrifice of the mass, and to nothing else. And we have sufficient reason to believe that the writer to believe that the writer to this article, who follows Gilfillan in the quotation, was well acquainted with the exposure of his inexcusable untruth in reference to the statement of Baronius.
We have no hesitation in expressing our firm belief that there is no other question or doctrine which was ever foisted upon the Christian world, in favor of which so much deception has been used and so many falsehoods told, as that of the Sunday—the falsely-styled "Christian Sabbath." The Baptists take pleasure in pointing to the fact that infant baptism is sustained only by tradition, having no foundation in the word of God. In this we think they are right. But they cannot produce a tithe of the false reasoning and flagrant deceptions used to uphold infant baptism that are produced to uphold the Sunday. Consistency demands that the Baptists repudiate the Sunday as a traditional error. The very fact that so many deceptions and "pious frauds" (minus the pious!) are practiced to hold it up, is sufficient to cause every thinking Bible believer to regard it with just suspicion. And when it is considered that nothing better than bare inferences are ever brought from the Bible, without a single direct statement in its favor, or a basis for these deceptions, the case ought to be settled in every candid mind. The truth is that if any Bible evidence could be produced resort would not be had to these deceptions; they would not be necessary.
It is sad to contemplate that Protestantism has degenerated to that degree that almost the best of her denominations will cling to a dogma which has no sure foundation except that of tradition; no direct evidence but that of "the church;" no law in its favor but that of legislatures! A Catholic priest whom we told that we kept the seventh day and not the Sunday, said to us: "You are genuine Protestants; you have nothing of the Catholic Church left to you." This is exactly the position which we wish ever to occupy. If this is our position; if we are successful in keeping the "commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus," unadulterated by any of the institutions and requirements of "the beast and his image," we shall hope by divine favor to meet our Lord with joy when he comes to reap the harvest of the earth. Rev. 14.