Earlier text: Willing ObedienceThe Visigoths in the Western Empire.
By J.
“At a time when it was universally confessed that almost every man in the empire was superior in personal merit to the princes whom the accident of their birth had seated on the throne, a rapid succession of usurpers [A. D. 411–416], regardless of the fate of their predecessors, still continued to arise. This mischief was peculiarly felt in the provinces of Spain and Gaul, where the principles of order and obedience had been extinguished by war and rebellion. Before Constantine resigned the purple [A. D. 411] and in the fourth month of the siege of Arles, intelligence was received in the Imperial camp, that Jovinus had assumed the diadem at Mentz, in the Upper Germany, at the instigation of Goar, king of the Alani, and of Gundarius, king of the Burgundians; and that the candidate, on whom they had bestowed the empire, advanced with a formidable host of barbarians, from the banks of the Rhine to those of the Rhone. Every circumstance is dark and extraordinary in the short history of the reign of Jovinus. It was natural to expect that a brave and skillful general, at the head of a victorious army, would have asserted, in a field of battle, the justice of the cause of Honorius. The hasty retreat of Constantius [a general of the empire] might be justified by weighty reasons; but he resigned, without a struggle, the possession of Gaul; and Dardanus, the Prætorian prefect, is recorded as the only magistrate who refused to yield obedience to the usurper. “When the Goths, two years after the siege of Rome, established their quarters in Gaul [A. D. 412] it was natural to suppose that their inclinations could be divided only between the emperor Honorius, with whom they had formed a recent alliance, and the degraded Attalus, whom they reserved in their camp for the occasional purpose of acting the part of a musician or a monarch. Yet in a moment of disgust (for which it is not easy to assign a cause, or a date), Adolphus connected himself with the usurper of Gaul [Jovinus]; and imposed on Attalus the ignominious task of negotiating the treaty which ratified his own disgrace. We are again surprised to read that, instead of considering the Gothic alliance as the firmest support of his throne, Jovinus upbraided, in dark and ambiguous language, the officious importunity of Attalus; that, scorning the advice of his great ally, he invested with the purple his brother Sebastian; and that he most imprudently accepted the service of Sarus, when that gallant chief, the soldier of Honorius, was provoked to desert the court of a prince, who knew not how to reward or punish. “Adolphus, educated among a race of warriors, who esteemed the duty of revenge as the most precious and sacred portion of their inheritance, advanced with a body of ten thousand Goths to encounter the hereditary enemy of the house of Balti. He attacked Sarus at an unguarded moment, when he was accompanied only by eighteen or twenty of his valiant followers. United by friendship, animated by despair, but at length oppressed by multitudes, this band of heroes deserved the esteem, without exciting the compassion of their enemies, and the lion was no sooner taken in the toils, than he was instantly dispatched. The death of Sarus dissolved the loose alliance which Adolphus still maintained with the usurpers of Gaul. He again listened to the dictates of love and prudence; and soon satisfied the brother of Placidia, by the assurance that he would immediately transmit to the palace of Ravenna the heads of the two tyrants, Jovinus and Sebastian. The king of the Goths executed the promise without difficulty or delay; the helpless brothers, unsupported by any personal merit, were abandoned by their barbarian auxiliaries; and the short opposition of Valentia was expiated by the ruin of one of the noblest cities of Gaul.” “The important present of the heads of Jovinus and Sebastian had approved the friendship of Adolphus, and restored Gaul to the obedience of his brother Honorius. Peace was incompatible with the situation and temper of the king of the Goths. He readily accepted the proposal [A. D. 414] of turning his victorious arms against the barbarians of Spain; the troops of Constantius intercepted his communication with the seaports of Gaul, and gently pressed his march towards the Pyrenees; he passed the mountains, and surprised, in the name of the emperor, the city of Barcelona. The fondness of Adolphus for his Roman bride was not abated by time or possession; and the birth of a son, surnamed, from his illustrious grandsire, Theodosius, appeared to fix him forever in the interest of the republic. The loss of that infant, whose remains were deposited in a silver coffin in one of the churches near Barcelona, afflicted his parents; but the grief of the Gothic king was suspended by the labors of the field; and the course of his victories was soon interrupted by domestic treason. “He had imprudently received into his service one of the followers of Sarus, a barbarian of a daring spirit, but of a diminutive stature, whose secret desire of revenging the death of his beloved patron was continually irritated by the sarcasms of his insolent master. Adolphus was assassinated [Aug., A. D. 415], in the palace of Barcelona; the laws of the succession were violated by a tumultuous faction; and a stranger to the royal race, Singeric, the brother of Sarus himself, was seated on the Gothic throne. The first act of his reign was the inhuman murder of the six children of Adolphus, the issue of a former marriage, whom he tore, without pity, from the feeble arms of a venerable bishop. The unfortunate Placidia, instead of the respectful compassion which she might have excited in the most savage breasts, was treated with cruel and wanton insult. The daughter of the emperor Theodosius, confounded among a crowd of vulgar captives, was compelled to march on foot above twelve miles, before the horse of a barbarian, the assassin of a husband whom Placidia loved and lamented. “But Placidia soon obtained the pleasure of revenge; and the view of her ignominious sufferings might rouse an indignant people against the tyrant, who was assassinated on the seventh day of his usurpation. After the death of Singeric, the free choice of the nation bestowed the Gothic scepter on Wallia [A. D. 415–418], whose warlike and ambitious temper appeared, in the beginning of his reign, extremely hostile to the republic. He marched in arms from Barcelona to the shores of the Atlantic Ocean, which the ancients revered and dreaded as the boundary of the world. But when he reached the southern promontory of Spain, and, from the rock now covered by the fortress of Gibraltar, contemplated the neighboring and fertile coast of Africa, Wallia resumed the designs of conquest, which had been interrupted by the death of Alaric. The winds and waves again disappointed the enterprise of the Goths; and the minds of a superstitious people were deeply affected by the repeated disasters of storms and shipwrecks. “In this disposition, the successor of Adolphus no longer refused to listen to a Roman ambassador, whose proposals were enforced by the real, or supposed, approach of a numerous army, under the conduct of the brave Constantius. A solemn treaty was stipulated and observed; Placidia was honorably restored to her brother; six hundred thousand measures of wheat were delivered to the hungry Goths, and Wallia engaged to draw his sword in the service of the empire. A bloody war was instantly excited among the barbarians of Spain; and the contending princes are said to have addressed their letters, their ambassadors, and their hostages, to the throne of the Western emperor, exhorting him to remain a tranquil spectator of their contest, the events of which must be favorable to the Romans, by the mutual slaughter of their common enemies. The Spanish war was obstinately supported, during three campaigns, with desperate valor, and various success; and the martial achievements of Wallia diffused through the empire the superior renown of the Gothic hero. He exterminated the Silingi, who had irretrievably ruined the elegant plenty of the province of Bœtica. He slew, in battle, the king of the Alani; and the remains of those Scythian wanderers, who escaped from the field, instead of choosing a new leader, humbly sought a refuge under the standard of the Vandals, with whom they were ever afterwards confounded. “The Vandals themselves, and the Suevi, yielded to the efforts of the invincible Goths. The promiscuous multitude of barbarians, whose retreat had been intercepted, were driven into the mountains of Gallicia, where they still continued, in a narrow compass, and on a barren soil, to exercise their domestic and implacable hostilities. In the pride of victory, Wallia was faithful to his engagements; he restored his Spanish conquests to the obedience of Honorius; and the tyranny of the Imperial officers soon reduced an oppressed people to regret the time of their barbarian servitude. While the event of the war was still doubtful, the first advantages obtained by the arms of Wallia had encouraged the court of Ravenna to decree the honors of a triumph to their feeble sovereign. He entered Rome like the ancient conquerors of nations; and if the monuments of servile corruption had not long since met with the fate which they deserved, we should probably find that a crowd of poets and orators, of magistrates and bishops, applauded the fortune, the wisdom, and the invincible courage, of the emperor Honorius. “Such a triumph might have been justly claimed by the ally of Rome, if Wallia, before he repassed the Pyrenees, had extirpated the seeds of the Spanish war. His victorious Goths, forty-three years after they had passed the Danube, were established [A. D. 419], according to the faith of treaties, in the possession of the second Aquitain, a maritime province between the Garonne and the Loire, under the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Bourdeaux. That metropolis, advantageously situated for the trade of the ocean, was built in a regular and elegant form; and its numerous inhabitants were distinguished among the Gauls by their wealth, their learning, and the politeness of their manners. The adjacent province, which has been fondly compared to the garden of Eden, is blessed with a fruitful soil and a temperate climate: the face of the country displayed the arts and the rewards of industry; and the Goths, after their martial toils, luxuriously exhausted the rich vineyards of Aquitain. The Gothic limits were enlarged by the additional gift of some neighboring dioceses; and the successors of Alaric fixed their royal residence at Toulouse, which included five populous quarters, or cities, within the spacious circuit of its walls.”—Decline and Fall, chap. 31, par. 35, 37–39. OUR Lord based virtue on the moral nature of man in relation to the obligations which unite man to man, and man to God; whereas the political aspect of ancient morality compelled the philosophers unduly to estimate the heroic ones. The fact is beyond dispute that our Lord’s teaching reverses the order of the virtues, and assigns to the milder and the more unobtrusive ones the highest place in his spiritual temple; whereas the philosophers unanimously pursued a contrary course.—Sel. THE detrimental effects of instability may be seen in its bearing upon the devotedness of those who may have become Christians, but do not excel as such, because they are so unstable. Sometimes the fixedness of heart with which the truly heavenward way is entered, relaxes, and the resolute become irresolute in their purposes and efforts so that they might properly take up as a sad refrain, Then there is no excelling in required fidelity, but rather a deplorable coming short of the most desirable excellence. This failure is far too common, so that there is too much occasion to ask, Why are not higher attainments made in true godliness, and better results of a “professed subjection to the gospel of Christ” witnessed? Certainly the absence of that which is so essential is not because of any deficiency in the provisions of divine grace. All may fully “lay hold on eternal life.” But negligence is fraught with hindrance. In too many instances the beginning is better than the continuing. More frequently than should be the case, growth is interrupted. The charge might be preferred against not a few, that they have left their first love. Much, if not all, of this delinquency may come of instability. Undoubtedly the secret of the highest attainments, religiously, is found in a compliance with the exhortation of Barnabas to the disciples at Antioch, “that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.” An inspired apostle says concerning him that “wavereth,” “Let not that man think that he shall receive anything of the Lord.” No promises are made to the fickle and vacillating. Nothing worthy of honorable mention is recorded of them. The resolute and steadfast alone have excelled. Manifestly the most eminent followers of Christ have not reached their glorious heights of attainment by being active one moment and inactive the next, or burning one moment and freezing the next, or living one moment and dying the next. Rather have they illustrated the truth of the apostolic saying, “It is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing.” It is not by any means to be implied that there are no unavoidable variations in Christian experience, involving higher and lower degrees of emotion and ardor; but rather should there be a prominent inculcation of the gospel truth that the work of sanctification ought to be ever progressive, so that it may be experimentally known that “the path of the just is as the shining light that shineth more and more unto the perfect day.” The evils arising from merely periodical fervors and spasmodic activities can hardly be overrated; nor can there well be an exaggerated view of the importance of going from strength to strength, till hallowed exertions are crowned with what an inspired writer denominates, “Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.” But to so fight as to win, and so run as to obtain, requires great fixedness of heart, lest the success of overcoming be lost in the defeat of being overcome. There must be a forgetting of the things behind, and a pressing toward the things before, without the least parleying with the foes of spiritual progress, and with no relapsing or lingering; but with constantly increasing vigilance and exertion lest failure proclaim the incompatibleness of instability with excellence. Unprogressiveness is the result of inconstancy. The waste attendant upon vacillation has something of illustration in the Cache River, a little stream that empties into the Ohio five miles above Cairo, and is said to be the most serpentine stream in America. From its mouth to its source is a distance of thirty-six miles. The stream, however, is one hundred and eighty miles long, showing a waste of one hundred and forty-four miles in crooks. Too much of many a Christian’s course is wasted in crooks, so that there is abundant occasion for an apostle’s appeal, “Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of Him that calleth you.” Vacillation is hindering to the devotedness of which every follower of Christ should be distinguished.—Watchman. A good preacher once gave his auditors the privilege to ask any question they pleased. A gentleman arose and said, “Do you believe that baptism is necessary?” The preacher answered, “Jesus said suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” “But,” said the man, “do you think it is necessary?” Again the preacher said, “Jesus said that many of the scribes and Pharisees rejected the counsel of God against themselves, by refusing to be baptized of John in Jordan.” “But what do you think of it?” said the man. Again the answer came, “Jesus said, Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” “You are trifling with me,” said the querist. “I want to know if you think it is necessary.” Said the preacher, “Jesus said, except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” “But I want to know what is your opinion of the matter,” said the querist. Again came the scriptural reply, “Peter said, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” At this juncture the colloquy ceased. The preacher did just right. There was no room for his “think-so’s” and “opinions.” The Lord had spoken, and what could the loyal preacher do, but give a “thus saith the Lord” in reply to the man’s question? The people should be made to feel that it is rebellion to question the authority of Heaven for a moment. They should be made to feel that baptism is right because it is commanded. That is all the loyal heart needs to know. . . . Too many sermons have been preached on the design of baptism, and too few on the necessity of loyalty to Heaven’s King. Salvation is in Christ and his blood takes away all sin. Faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are only stepping-stones to bring us to Christ. . . . In dealing with mooted questions we cannot be too careful to use the very language of Scripture.—Simpson Ely, in Atlantic Missionary. Quite true, all of it; and if what the Lord has said were allowed to settle all points of faith and practice, there would be fewer “mooted questions” with which to deal. Suppose, for instance, that we apply this rule to the law and Sabbath. The querist asks, “Do you believe that it is necessary to keep the Sabbath?” The answer is, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” Question: “Which day is the Sabbath day?” Answer: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” “But,” says the querist, “do you consider it necessary to keep that law of which the Fourth Commandment is a part?” Answer: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Question: “But what do you think?” Answer: “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Question: “But what is your opinion?” Answer: “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.” But again comes the question, “Do you regard it as essential?” and again the answer is a “Thus saith the Lord:” “He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him;” “and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death.” Duty of Watching.
By C. P. Bollman
Last week it was clearly shown that it has not always been duty to expect the soon coming of Christ; but we learn from numerous texts that when the day of the Lord does come some will be looking for and expecting him; indeed the Scriptures teach that it is an imperative duty not only to watch for the coming of the Lord, but to know when it is near at hand. Matt. 24:33. In 1 Thess. 5:1–4 the apostle teaches that those who are overtaken as by a thief will be destroyed; but the “brethren”—the people of God—will not be so overtaken. However, Paul himself taught that it was not the duty of the early church to look for the second advent. But were the apostle’s teachings contradictory? By no means; he simply taught that until the accomplishment of certain things spoken by the prophets, especially by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 7:25), the Lord could not come. So we find that there is perfect harmony between Paul’s first and second letters to the Thessalonians, and also between the teaching of Christ and the teaching of his apostle. Christ himself taught that a long time would elapse before his second coming. He said:— “Take heed that ye be not deceived; for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the time draweth near; go ye not therefore after them. But when ye shall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for these things must first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.” Luke 21:8, 9. But although the Saviour taught that his second coming was not near when he was here in his first advent, he also taught that those who should live at the time of his second coming ought to know when to look for him. After giving certain signs which should precede his coming, he said:— “Now learn a parable of the fig-tree: When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh; so likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” Matt. 24:32–34. In this scripture the Saviour teaches that just as surely as the budding fig-tree shows the approach of summer, so should the signs which he gave show his coming to be near. And not only so, but he says: “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” “This generation” means the generation that should see the fulfillment of the signs—the generation which the Saviour had in mind when he uttered those words. But our Lord not only taught that it is possible to know when his coming is near, but he said: “When ye shall see all these things, know that it [margin, he] is near, even at the doors.” It will be seen by this brief and imperfect presentation of the subject, that (1) It has not always been duty to look for the second coming of Christ; (2) Christ and Paul both taught that a long time would elapse before the second advent; (3) Christ gave certain signs which were to show his people when his coming should be near; (4) the generation that should see these signs “shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled;” and (5) Paul teaches that all who are overtaken as by a thief will be destroyed. Is it not then important that we study these things, and watch the fulfillment of prophecy, that we be not overtaken as by a thief? Any Little Corner in the Vineyard
ANY little corner, Lord,
In thy vineyard wide,
Where thou bidst me work for thee,
There would I abide;
Miracle of saving grace,
That thou givest me a place
Anywhere. THE text which next claims our consideration is Gal. 4:21: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?” A complete understanding of the force of this verse can be had only by (1) a knowledge of the peculiar danger of the Galatians, which made the writing of this epistle necessary; (2) an examination of the remainder of the chapter, which involves (3) a brief consideration of the two covenants. As this is all in the line of our study of the law, and will be very useful in our further investigation, we will take time right here to examine these points. In the first chapter of Galatians, Paul speaks of his call to the ministry, and his first connection with the church. His call, he says, was not from men, but from God. It was three years after his conversion before he went to Jerusalem, and then the only apostles whom he saw were Peter and James. Therefore he did not receive his knowledge of the gospel from men, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. In the second chapter, Paul states the occasion of his second visit to Jerusalem, which was fourteen years after his first visit. The occasion of this visit was the council which was held in Jerusalem, and which forms the subject of the fifteenth chapter of Acts. Certain men had come down from Judea to Antioch, where Paul was laboring, and had taught the brethren, saying, “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Acts 15:1. After much discussion in regard to the matter, the brethren determined that Paul and Barnabas, and a few others, should go up to Jerusalem to lay the matter before the apostles and elders. That the question which came before this council was the one which was troubling the Galatian brethren, and in regard to which they were in danger, appears from the second chapter of Galatians. Paul mentions the visit, but assures the brethren that those who “seemed to be somewhat in conference,” that is, the leading men in the council, “added nothing” to him. The gospel had been made known to him by direct revelation from Jesus Christ, and so he knew the whole truth of the matter before the council convened. Further, he states that after the council, he had a controversy on the very same subject which was there discussed, with Peter, who was acting contrary to the decision of the council. These things show that the danger which threatened the Galatian brethren, and which called out Paul’s epistle to them, was the same thing into which the men from Judea tried to lead all of Paul’s converts. For the Jews constantly followed Paul around, trying to overthrow his work. Let us now examine the teaching of these men from Judea. “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” Of course all the kindred ordinances of the ceremonial law were included with circumcision. Now why did they want to force circumcision upon these converts from among the Gentiles? The reason given was, in order that they might be saved. Circumcision, they taught, was the one thing indispensable, if they would secure salvation. But the only thing which stands in the way of the salvation of all men is sin; and therefore since circumcision was put forth as the condition of salvation, we must conclude that it was urged as a means of justification. But this was directly contrary to the gospel which Paul preached, namely, that justification comes only through Christ. This was indeed “another gospel,” which was no gospel at all. That the seditious ones urged circumcision upon the Gentiles as the means of justification, is still further shown by the words of Peter, who said: “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” Acts 15:7-9. Peter’s argument was that God purposed to treat the Gentiles who believed just as he did the believing Jews, giving both the Holy Ghost, and purifying them by faith, and not by circumcision or by any other work which they could do. Notice particularly the effect which the teaching of these men from Judea must necessarily have had on those who accepted it. It led those who accepted it to reject Christ as the means of justification from sin. If they were justified by circumcision, of course they would have no need of Christ. And this was why that doctrine was taught. These men from Judea did not accept Christ; their sole opposition to the preaching of Paul and the other apostles was that Christ was set forth as the only means of justification and future resurrection. See Acts 4:1, 2. These men from Judea are sometimes styled “Judaizing Christians,” but they were not Christians at all. Their sole work was to oppose the gospel of Christ. And in their hatred of it and of Christ, they went about among the churches, trying to induce the new converts to seek pardon and salvation by circumcision, instead of through Christ. These were the men who were “zealously affecting” the Galatians, with the sole purpose of “excluding” them from the faith of Christ. Gal. 4:17. We have before shown that all who are in sin are “under the law,”—condemned. Then since besides Christ “there is none other name under Heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12),—since men are not justified by any works of their own, but solely by faith in Christ,—it follows that all who accepted the teaching of the men from Judea, and were circumcised for justification, were still “under the law.” No amount of work, whether it was circumcision or something else, could clear them from the guilt of past sins. Moreover, those who had accepted Christ, and had been forgiven, if they listened to this teaching fell from grace; for to be circumcised with a view to justification thereby, was simply rejecting Christ and repudiating their former profession. And this is just what Paul told them: “Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.” Gal. 5:2. Paul did not mean that there was anything wicked in circumcision of itself, for he himself circumcised Timothy, and that, too, after the council at Jerusalem. Acts 16:1-3. Timothy’s father was a Gentile, although his mother was a Jewess, and if Timothy had not been circumcised, he would not have been allowed to labor with Paul among the Jews in their synagogues. Therefore as a matter of expediency, Paul circumcised Timothy, thus showing that whether a man was circumcised or not, was regarded by him as a matter of no vital importance. See 1 Cor. 7:19. But when men submitted to circumcision as a means of gaining salvation, that moment they rejected Christ, man’s only hope, and therefore Christ profited them nothing. Christ cannot help those who reject him. So we see that it was a grave heresy which was being preached to these young Christians. Note again: The heathen religion was a religion of forms and ceremonies. Some of these ceremonies were of the most licentious nature. Now if the converts from among the heathen could only be induced to rest their hope of salvation on Jewish ceremonies, it would be but a step for them to sink back into their old heathen customs. This was actually the effect that it had on the Galatians; for Paul said to them: “Ye observe days, and months, and times [Deut. 18:8-10 tells how the Lord regarded this], and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” Gal. 4:10, 11. Their being circumcised did not lead simply to the substitution of Judaism for Christianity, but to a relapse into heathenism. And thus we see that the Galatians were really going back “under the law,” or, as stated in verse 9, they were turning to the weak and beggarly elements of the world, to which they were desirous of again being in bondage. Some may wonder at the expression which Paul uses in verse 21, “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law,” etc. Why should Paul charge them with desiring to die? for if “under the law” means under sentence of death, he did virtually charge them with desiring death. A parallel passage is found in Prov. 8:36: “They that hate me love death.” Now while no one would love death itself, so as to deliberately choose it, people do love sin, not realizing that the end thereof is death. So with those to whom Paul speaks. They desired a certain thing which would bring them under the condemnation of the law; and therefore they could be said to desire to be under the law, although they did not realize that such would be the consequence of their choice. W. Doctor Munhall on the Sabbath.
By W.
THE Doctor seemed nettled because some reporters and doctors had pooled at a statement by him that man is built on a seventh-day plan, so that the Sabbath rest is a demand of his physical nature. We are willing to accept that statement. “The Sabbath was made for man,” and we believe that the Lord made no mistake in the amount of time which he allotted to man for rest. But this is not given in the Bible as a reason for Sabbath observance. The Sabbath was given to man that he might remember God; and the fact that God commanded its observance is sufficient reason why we should keep it. Notice this fact: Nobody ever heard a Sabbath-keeper urge man’s physical necessity as a reason for Sabbath observance; with a Sabbath-keeper, the commandment of God suffices. But the fact that man needs a rest one day in seven is the most prominent reason given for Sunday observance by the advocates of that day. It is the only thing they can urge; but as a Sunday argument it is useless from the fact that God has said nothing about it, and it is applicable to any other day of the week. In behalf of Sunday as a Sabbath, the Doctor simply read Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; and Rev. 1:10, without comment. Since the last mentioned text makes no mention of the first day of the week, and since concerning the other two the Doctor said, “The fact that the disciples met to break bread on the first day of the week is no authority for the sanctification of Sunday,” we may safely say that he does not believe that the Bible anywhere authorizes Sunday observance. In fact, we know that he does not, for he said: “The resurrection of Jesus Christ had no more to do with the sanctification of Sunday than did his crucifixion on Friday. Some people think that it did, but there is no ‘Thus saith the Lord’ for it.” Again he said: “There is no ‘Thus saith the Lord’ for keeping the first day of the week, and there is no use in saying there is when there isn’t. The seventh day was hallowed by the Lord, and there has been no transfer.” We would that Doctor Munhall’s hearers would311 remember these words, and then follow his exhortation to “obey God.” But some one may be anxious to know why he keeps Sunday, holding the views that he does. Well, here is his “reason:” “We find evidence that the disciples did keep the first day, and therefore we keep it; though why they kept it I do not know, for they gave no reason, and there is no ‘Thus saith the Lord’ for it.” The “evidence” that the disciples kept the first day is all found in Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2, which is just no evidence at all. But allowing the Doctor’s claim that the disciples did keep Sunday, what then? Why, we have them doing something for which they have given no reason, and for which no reason could be given. One of these same disciples charges us to “be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” How can we do this if we keep Sunday, since the apostles themselves gave no reason for it, and the Lord never commanded it? The fact that the Lord never commanded Sunday observance, and that the apostles, while exhorting Christians to be able to give a reason for their faith and practice, gave no reason for Sunday observance, should convince anybody that the apostles never kept Sunday. In closing, the Doctor said: “I know that I can’t observe the law of the Sabbath on the seventh day.” Well, then, in the name of common sense, how can the law of the Sabbath be observed? That law enjoins the observance of the seventh day of the week, and no other. This law Doctor Munhall proposes to observe by keeping Sunday! And by the same token we propose to celebrate next Fourth of July the first of August. It will be just as easy for us to rest on the Fourth of July on the first of August, as it is for Doctor Munhall to observe the law of the Sabbath on the first day of the week. But why cannot the Doctor “observe the law of the Sabbath” on the seventh day, the day which the law of the Sabbath designates? Because “as things are in the world,” it is inconvenient! Is this the same man who half an hour before said: “You have no business to forget; you must not think that every desire is to be gratified at the expense of God’s commandment. If your business will suffer if you keep the Sabbath, let it suffer. Obey God. That is all you have to do. The man who lives up to an honest conviction and does right, must expect to suffer inconvenience”? Yes, it is the very same man who now says that “as things are in this world” he cannot keep the Sabbath. And then in the next breath he urges his hearers “to have conscience in this matter”! In Bunyan’s “Pilgrim’s Progress,” we read of one Mr. By-ends, one of whose kinsmen was Mr. Facing-both-ways, and who earned his money as a waterman, “looking one way and rowing another.” The Saviour described the same class of men when he said: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’s seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not.” It was not by accident that Bunyan made Mr. By-ends a relative of Mr. Facing-both-ways; for when a man acknowledges a certain obligation, and then says that circumstances will not allow him to regard it, he faces both ways, and advertises himself as a man who has ends of his own to serve. We might sum up Doctor Munhall’s discourse as follows:—- The law of the Sabbath was given at creation, and simply reaffirmed at Sinai.
- The seventh day of the week, and no other, is the Sabbath.
- The Sabbath is a memorial of creation, and was given that men might remember God.
- Those people and nations that disregard the Sabbath will have to suffer disastrous consequences.
- No man has any business to forget the Sabbath, or to allow business or pleasure to interfere with his observance of it. God requires us to obey him whether it is convenient or not.
- The first day of the week is not the Sabbath, and there is no use in saying that it is. God rested upon and sanctified only the seventh day, and no transfer has ever been made. There is no “Thus saith the Lord” for the observance of Sunday. God never required it.
This is good Bible doctrine; whenever the Doctor preaches such doctrine, we shall be glad to assist him in his work by giving it wide circulation. And in connection with the above, we hope no one will fail to remember Doctor Munhall’s only “reason” for keeping Sunday. It is this:— “I believe that the apostles kept Sunday, though I don’t know of any reason why they did so. The seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, but it isn’t convenient to keep it.” In conclusion, we would urge our readers to heed the Doctor’s exhortation to “have a conscience in this matter.”