Review and Herald, Vol. 52, No. 11. (9/5/1878)

Review and Herald

Sep 5, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 5, 1878

THE PERSONALITY OF GOD.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELDER D. M. CANRIGHT.

(Continued.)

GOD IS A REAL PERSON.

God is a real person, having a body, form, and local habitation. Man is made in his image.

The God of the Bible is not a mere principle, an essence or soul of the universe, but he is a real, personal being, having a body, form, shape, and local habitation, a throne, etc. But let us listen first to what the creeds say of him. The Methodist Discipline, in its articles of religion, Art. 1, says:— “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts.”

The articles of faith of the Episcopal church are even worse. Art. 1 says:— “There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions.” Other creeds go still further, and say that he is without center or circumference. In all candor, I submit that such a description of God annihilates him entirely. He has no body, no parts, no passions, dwells nowhere in particular, has no center, no circumference. If a man were called upon to describe a nonentity, he could not do it more perfectly than it is done in the above language.

But notice further, these same creeds teach that Jesus Christ is the very and eternal God. Thus Art. 2 of the Episcopal creed says:— “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, of one substance with the Father,” etc. Now notice that this Son of God is the very and eternal God himself. And then it continues: “Took man's nature in the womb of the blessed virgin, of her substance, so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say the Godhead and manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man.”

Art. 4 says:— “Christ did truly rise again from the dead, and took again his body, with flesh, bones, and all things pertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day.”

Several queries present themselves here: Is Christ the very and eternal God? So they say. Did Christ have a body? This they positively affirm. Is he inseparably connected with that body? And has he not that body in Heaven? This they plainly declare. Is he not the true God? So they say. Then has not the true God a body? Thus the creed directly says. Then certainly God has a body—occupies a body. Why, then, do the creeds say that he has no body?

Again we are told by these creeds that God is everywhere, as much in one place as another, and no more in one place than another. But the Bible says that Jesus ascended up on high, and is at the right hand of the Father. Did he ascend everywhere? Was his body divided into innumerable particles, and scattered throughout the universe? If the Father is everywhere and nowhere in particular, where did Jesus go? Again it is claimed that saints at death go to Heaven, where God is. Do they go everywhere, and nowhere in particular? All this seems to me to be the sheerest nonsense. It is opposed to common sense and to the Bible. No; God is a person, a real being.

I do not believe that any person, whatever his creed may be, ever prays to God without conceiving of him as having a body, form, and shape, and being located upon a throne in Heaven. When he closes his eyes upon the world and begins to pray to God, he immediately looks up to Heaven by faith, and beholds God upon his throne in the form of a man, and prays to him as such. Nor is this merely imaginary. The Bible has everywhere so described him; and it is from those oft-repeated descriptions that these ideas are formed. Then either the whole tenor of the Bible misleads us, or else our position is true.

Furthermore, how could a person pray with any intelligence to a mere essence, a mere principle, an immaterial spirit, that had no body, parts, or shape, that was just as much in one place as in another? The idea is absurd. Then, again, what the Bible says of going to God and coming from God takes for granted that he is a personal being, located in a definite place. Let us read a few scriptures.

“Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” John 20:17. Jesus said that he was about to ascend to God.

“Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me.” John 7:33. “And her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.” Rev. 12:5. To Cornelius the angel said, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.” Acts 10:4.

Hundreds of texts like these occur throughout the Bible; but they would neither be true nor sensible if God is a mere essence, an immaterial spirit, as much in one place as another. How many times we read in the Bible of angels coming from God. Jesus says of himself, “I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.” John 8:42. “Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God.” John 13:3. “I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” John 16:28.

This last text is very expressive. “I came forth from the Father,” says Jesus, “and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.” Is the Father, then, just as much in the world as anywhere? If so, how could Christ come forth from the Father by coming into the world, and again go to the Father by leaving the world? No; the Father is just as much a personal being as a man is. He has a personal presence. Thus Gabriel says, “I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God.” Luke 1:19. Then God has an immediate presence which is not everywhere. Where did Gabriel come from? He came directly from Heaven. Is the presence of God everywhere? How, then, could Gabriel say that he stood in the presence of God more than any one else? True, there is one sense in which God is everywhere. We will notice this by and by. Again: “I say unto you, that in Heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in Heaven.” Matt. 18:10. Here, again, it is said that the angels in Heaven behold the face of the Father. Then how many scores and hundreds of times it is declared in the most emphatic and unmistakable language that God is in Heaven, and not upon earth. Says the wise man, “God is in Heaven, and thou upon earth.” Eccl. 5:2. Our Saviour taught his disciples to pray, “Our Father which art in Heaven.” Matt. 6:9. Why say, “Which art in Heaven,” if he is as much in the earth, and in the sea, and everywhere, as he is in Heaven?

Furthermore, it is many times positively declared that he sits upon a throne in Heaven. We will read a few passages. “The Lord hath prepared his throne in the Heavens.” Ps. 103:19. “The Lord is in his holy temple, the Lord's throne is in Heaven.” Ps. 11:4.

“In the year that King Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. Above it stood the seraphim; each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” Isa. 6:1–3. How explicit is this text. The prophet saw the Lord sitting upon a throne. He describes that throne, and the angels standing by it, and tells what the angels said.

So Jesus says, “And he that shall swear by Heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.” Matt. 23:22. Then the throne of God is in Heaven, and God sits upon that throne. Is the throne of God everywhere? Is it on this earth? Is it in America? Is it in the State of New York? Is it in the city of Rochester? No; but it is in Heaven, and God sits upon it.

In Rev. 4:2–5 we read:— “And immediately I was in the Spirit; and, behold, a throne was set in Heaven, and one sat on the throne. And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone; and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald. And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold. And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices; and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.” Indeed, we might read on through the whole chapter. It is a minute description of the throne of God, of God's person, of angels, and of the living creatures around that throne. If all this is denied, one might as well deny the whole Bible.

Once more: “After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb. And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshiped God.” “Therefore are they before the throne of God, and serve him day and night in his temple, and he that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.” Rev. 7:9–11, 15.

This is in strict harmony with all the Scriptures, and it is also in harmony with common sense.

It is declared that God sits between the cherubim. “The Lord reigneth; let the people tremble: he sitteth between the cherubim; let the earth be moved.” Ps. 99:1. “Then said he, These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” Zech. 4:14.

The Scriptures describe God as a person, having a form, the shape of a man. Daniel, in his vision of God, describes him thus: “I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool.” Dan. 7:9. God is here described as having a head and hair.

Ezekiel, in his vision of the throne of God, says:— “And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone; and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it; and I saw as the color of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about, as the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.” Eze. 1:26–28. “This is the living creature that I saw under the God of Israel by the river of Chebar.” Eze. 10:20.

To Moses the Lord said:— “Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live. And the Lord said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock; and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by; and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.” Ex. 33:20–23. No man can see the Lord's face. Then he has a face. But he said, I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and I will pass by, and thou shalt see my back parts, and he did so. Now was this all a farce, a deception? Did the Lord deceive Moses, and make him think he had a face, and hands, and parts, when he had none? No, indeed. Then God has parts, notwithstanding the creeds say he is without body or parts.

Again we read: “Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and they saw the God of Israel; and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand; also they saw God, and did eat and drink.” Ex. 24:9–11. Here it is positively declared that they saw the God of Israel, it tells what was under his feet, and how he looked. They saw his shape and form, but did not see his face, for God has said that no man should see his face and live.

All through the Scriptures God is described as a being in the form of man. Thus, he is said to have a head, and hairs of his

head, Dan. 7:9; and hands, Ex. 33:22; feet, Ex. 24:10; loins, Eze. 1:27; face, Matt. 18:10; heart, Gen. 6:6; parts, Ex. 33:23; a form, Phil. 2:6; shape, John 5:37; person, Heb. 1:3; soul, Jer. 5:9; and spirit, Matt. 12:28. Thus it is declared that God has all the members and parts of a perfect man. This is not said once, nor twice, but many times, not in parables and symbols, and figures, but directly and plainly.

(To be continued.)

TRUE HEROISM

Let others write of battles fought On bloody, ghastly fields, Where honor greets the man who wins, And death the man who yields; But I will write of him who fights And vanquishes his sins, Who struggles on through weary years Against himself, and wins.

He is a hero staunch and brave Who fights an unseen foe, And puts at last beneath his feet His passions base and low, And stands erect in manhood's might, Undaunted, undismayed— The bravest man that drew a sword In foray or in raid.

It calls for something more than brawn Or muscle to o'ercome An enemy who marcheth not With banner, plume, and drum— A foe forever lurking nigh, With silent, stealthy tread, Forever near your board by day, At night beside your bed.

All honor, then, to that brave heart, Though poor or rich he be, Who struggles with his baser part, Who conquers, and is free. He may not wear a hero's crown, Or fill a hero's grave; But truth will place his name among The bravest of the brave.

—Selected.

FALSE TEACHING EXPOSED.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER.

A FRIEND has favored me with a copy of the World’s Crisis of March 27, 1878, in which Miles Grant publishes a part of the “summing up” of E. C. Barnes, in a discussion held in Massachusetts. It contains six paragraphs.

The first requires no notice, as it only reiterates the assertion which has so often been disproved, that the ten commandments were the old covenant.

The last three need but little notice, just enough to show the contradictions which they contain. In the fifth he affirms with great positiveness that the Gentiles were never under any obligation to keep the Sabbath. But in the fourth he applies Col. 2: 13-17 to the Gentiles, and says:—“A law which was ‘against them’ had been ‘blotted out,’ and ‘taken out of the way.’ This cannot be the ‘ceremonial law,’ for Gentiles were never under it. The law was against them as transgressors. From its obligation and curse Christ redeemed them, and they belonged to him.”

His declaration that it was not the “ceremonial law” was made to show that it was the law which enjoined the Sabbath; but that law, he says, was the “old covenant,” and the Gentiles were no more under the old covenant than they were under the ceremonial law, which Mr. Barnes would also strenuously argue. How, then, could Christ redeem them from the obligation of that law which enjoined the Sabbath, if Mr. Barnes’ argument is correct, that they never were under obligation to it? How could they be condemned “as transgressors” of a law which never had jurisdiction over them? Perhaps Eld. Barnes or Eld. Grant can explain. An explanation is much needed.

But Col. 2: 16, 17 does show that it was the ceremonial law; a law of shadows typical of the work of Christ, which the law of ten commandments never was. Paul to the Ephesians calls it the “middle wall of partition” which stood between them and the privileges and blessings of “the commonwealth of Israel,” and was therefore against them.

Paragraphs two and three are well worthy of notice; not because of any strength of argument which they contain, but because they show in what a bold manner men who are esteemed as wise will put forth the most absurd statements to maintain their theories. They do injustice to the authors to whom they refer, as well as to the Scriptures. They say:—“That moadeem, translated ‘solemn feasts’ in Hos. 2: 11, and feasts in Lev. 23: 2, included all the commemorative days of the Mosaic dispensation, including the seventh-day Sabbath, is proved upon the authority of Lange’s commentary, Dr. Adam Clarke, the critical commentary of Drs. Jameson, Fausset, Brown, and Fairbairn on the Typology of the Scriptures.”

The word mo-ad signifies an appointed time, and may properly be applied to any appointed time, of any nature whatever. Giving the names of these authorities adds nothing to the strength of his statement. It is exactly as if he should say the word sabbaths applies to all seasons of rest, and prove it by a list of eminent names. Nobody denies it. But that the term actually refers to all seasons of rest in a given passage is matter for proof. Clarke makes a distinction, clear and just, between the seventh-day Sabbath and the other sabbaths in his comments on Lev. 23. And so also do all the Scriptures make a distinction between “the Sabbath of Jehovah,” and the annual or Jewish sabbaths. The weekly Sabbath, the Lord’s rest-day from creation, is not referred to in Hos. 2: 11, as it is not in Col. 2: 16, 17. The rest-day of the Lord was sanctified at the time of creation, long before the Jews existed, and even before sin entered into the world.

The other sabbaths and feast days were all typical of the work of Christ, as Paul says in Col. 2: 17,—“Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.” This explanatory text positively shuts out the weekly Sabbath of creation from Col. 2. Paul defines the sabbaths to which he there refers, and “the rest-day of the Lord thy God” does not come under the definition.

And so also in Lev. 23. In verse 3 it is said of the seventh day, “It is the Sabbath of the Lord in all your dwellings.” No other sabbath than the seventh day was ever honored with this title, for that was not their character. The Lord never rested upon any of them from any work which he did. Upon the seventh day he rested from the greatest work which is ever presented to the mind of man in the word of God. It is a memorial of the exercise of creative power. It belongs to Jehovah alone.

But the other sabbaths were purely Israelitish. They were never specified as days upon which the Lord had rested from his work. They were appointed for Israel to rest upon, without having any rest of the Lord back of the appointment, as the seventh day had. They were truly the sabbaths of Israel—her sabbaths, as in Hos. 2: 11. And not only in Lev. 23: 3, but in verse 38 the same distinction is made. Pointing out the feasts which they were to keep, it says, “Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Neither Eld. Barnes nor Eld. Grant can refer this sentence to anything but the seventh-day Sabbath. Or, if they say it does not refer to the weekly or seventh-day Sabbath, will they please tell us to what it does refer? Consider it—“Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” We hope they will not fail to notice this request. If they neglect this, we shall take it as confessed by them that it does refer to the seventh day in its weekly recurrence.

But if it does refer to the seventh-day Sabbath, why is this distinction made, and what does it mean? To this also we call their attention. They virtually deny the distinction, in trying to make all sabbaths—seventh-day, or weekly, as well as yearly—alike the sabbaths of Israel. But the Lord, many times and very clearly, makes this distinction. Why is this? Will they undertake to give a reason? or will they suffer their case to go by default?

To show the strength of this position, we notice that every one of Israel’s sabbaths was based entirely on something in the experience of Israel. This was not the case with the seventh-day Sabbath. Only one reason is given in the Bible for its sanctification. The fourth commandment points to the same fact for its origin that is found in Gen. 2: 3. But Eld. Barnes says it is one of Israel’s sabbaths, a Jewish sabbath, and denies the distinction of Lev. 23. If so, let us have a version of the commandment to suit his views. Remembering that the rest from creation is the only reason for its institution, we read:—“Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews: in it thou shalt not do any work; thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. For in six days the Jews made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Jews blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”

This reading exactly corresponds to his statement. If his statement is correct, the reading must be allowed. The seventh-day rest stands related to a certain work, and the rest (Sabbath) is certainly his who did the work. If the Jews did that work—created heaven and earth—then the seventh day is clearly a Jewish Sabbath; but if Jehovah did the work, then it is correctly named the Sabbath, or rest, of the Lord. To no other Sabbath will this apply. Hence the distinction between “the Sabbath of the Lord” and other sabbaths. It takes not very much mental acumen to see this distinction, and the force of it, provided there is freedom from prejudice and moral honesty to recognize it or to acknowledge the right.

We repeat, there is no more weight in the declaration that the term moadeem (plural) may cover all sabbaths, than that the word sabbaths may cover all seasons of rest, of every kind. It proves nothing as to the nature and perpetuity of certain sabbaths further than it is proved to refer to those sabbaths in a given text. And that proof is entirely outside of the meaning of the word. The pretended argument on this word is only the most miserable sophistry. It may deceive the unthinking or the willingly ignorant; and if Elds. B. and G. are sincerely satisfied that the argument is just, then we are compelled to place them in one of these classes.

But the most extravagant position of all is the following. We cannot do it justice in any abridgment, so we copy:—“The seventh-day Sabbath cannot now be observed, because it has no annual starting-point. The passover commenced on the 14th of the month after the Sabbath; the 16th a sheaf of barley was to be waved by the priest, as a first-fruits of the harvest. From this time seven complete Sabbaths were to be reckoned, and on the day succeeding the seventh Sabbath the feast of Pentecost was to take place. These intervening Sabbaths were weekly Sabbaths, and of course were reckoned from the passover; but as that feast never occurred upon precisely the same day of the week two successive years, but always upon the 14th of the first month, it follows that the sabbaths reckoned from that festival would not occur upon the same day of the week through two successive years. Therefore, the theory which makes any definite seventh day, year in and year out, the Sabbath day, is contrary to the ancient mode of reckoning it.”

A greater medley of inconsistencies and false issues than this we have never seen. It is fortunate for Mr. Barnes that he is comparatively an obscure man, for if he had a reputation as a scholar at stake it could never stand the pressure of such a paragraph as the above. But Eld. Miles Grant stands sponsor for it, and he is not altogether an obscure man; what can be said for him? Only this: His reputation as a theologian and controversialist can stand anything. It has often been tested, and found to be equal to any emergency. Let us notice some of the points:—

1. The seventh-day Sabbath must have an annual starting-point! That was never true. It was true of the passover sabbath, of which Mr. Barnes really speaks, for that came but once a year; was not a weekly sabbath, and was never called the seventh-day Sabbath in any case. And so also of the Pentecost. If Eld. Barnes and Eld. Grant are not aware of this truth, they present a noticeable instance of the “Innocents Abroad.” Why do they mix up things in this manner if they really have a desire to develop the truth? The whole statement, from beginning to end, is a sheer deception.

2. He exposes the fallacy of his own position in this declaration:—“As that feast never occurred upon precisely the same day of the week two successive years, it follows that the sabbaths reckoned from that festival would not occur upon the same day of the week through two successive years.”

Which is proof most positive that the seventh-day Sabbath could not occur on the seventh day!

Now in all soberness we ask, Is it possible that Mr. B. believes that the recurrence or observance of that sabbath which was inseparably connected with the passover was kept up weekly through any “two successive years,” or through any one year? We cannot believe it; for in saying that that sabbath, counting from the 14th of the first month, would not fall at all times on the seventh day of the week, he admits that that sabbath is not the weekly or seventh-day Sabbath. And that is just what everybody knows. If he does not know it, his ignorance of Scripture is most lamentable. But if he does know it, how can he, with a profession of Christian integrity, make such statements as he has made? It is no excuse that prepossession of opinion and prejudice blind the mind, for no Christian minister is excusable in letting prejudice so blind his mind that he will dare to pervert the counsels of the Most High.

3. The only reckoning forward from the passover was to find the Pentecost. When this was reached the reckoning was carried no further. Both the passover and Pentecost were entirely separate from any particular day of the week, inasmuch as they occurred only yearly, and were to be found by counting from the 14th day of the first month, which of course would not fall on any particular day of the week.

4. When God created the heavens and the earth, he rested on the seventh day. Not the seventh day of the month, for no month then existed. And the seventh day of the week thus became the Sabbath of the Lord—of the Creator. Will Mr. Barnes or Mr. Grant frankly answer this question, namely, Was the seventh day of Gen. 2: 3, upon which God rested from his work of creation, which was blessed and sanctified as the rest of Jehovah, counted from the feast of the passover? They say there was no other way to find the seventh-day Sabbath but to count from the passover. But which first existed, the Lord’s rest-day from creation, or the passover? The fourth commandment points to creation, precisely as Gen. 2: 3, for the origin and sanctification of the seventh-day Sabbath. They must now prove that it was then and there so counted; or, in other words, they must prove that the passover existed at the time of creation, or admit that the seventh-day rest, the Sabbath of the Lord, was not at all dependent on the passover; and so confess that they have been guilty of uttering folly, of “darkening counsel by words without knowledge.”

4. When God rested on the seventh day from his work of creation, when he blessed and hallowed it, from which alone the weekly or seventh-day Sabbath had its origin, there was no 14th day of the first month; no passover; no Jews; no sin; no types of Christ’s work for sinners; no “shadows of things to come.” It was, then, the hallowed rest-day of Jehovah, the Creator,—“the Sabbath of the Lord.” In all this it was distinguished from the typical sabbaths of Israel. Will Mr. Barnes say in sincerity that he cannot see or understand this distinction? If he will say so, we will then acquit him of any intention to mislead his hearers. But then, for the same reason, we will extend our heartfelt sympathy to the unfortunate people who accept him as a teacher.

5. Eld. Barnes has a most singular vision. He cannot see a distinction which is founded on evident reasons and made plain by Scripture; but he can easily discover a distinction where none exists. He rests complacently on a supposed distinction

between the seventh-day Sabbath and the seventh day of the week. But it does not exist. This is shown—

1. By the facts to which we have referred, that when the Sabbath originated it was the seventh day of the week. No longer period of time yet existed.

2. By the necessity of referring to the week in Ex. 16. The same Sabbath which was enjoined in Ex. 16 was enforced on Mount Sinai, and it was plainly declared to be the rest-day from creation. There is no more reason to say that the seventh day was not the seventh day of the week, than there is to say that the sixth day of the same chapter was not the sixth day of the week. If the seventh day means the last day of a cycle of seven, without regard to the days of the week, then we say with equal reason the sixth day means the last day of a cycle of six, without any regard to the day of the week. On the last day of the cycle of six they were to gather a double portion of manna, for Sabbath use. But according to that reckoning it would answer that purpose the first time only; for between the last day of the second cycle or period of six, and the last day of the second cycle of seven, there would be a whole day. And in forty-two days the requirements to gather a double portion, and to gather none at all, would fall on the same day! The only way to avoid this dilemma is to admit that they were the sixth and seventh days of the week.

3. This conclusion is proved to be true by the New Testament. In Luke 23: 56 and chap. 24: 1 we learn that they kept “the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” and this was immediately followed by the first day of the week. This is proof positive that the Sabbath of the commandment is the last day of the week; truly the seventh day of the week.

4. And this is corroborated by the uniform practice of the Jews, who have preserved the Sabbath from their earliest history, and they always observe the seventh day of the week. Among them the idea of finding the seventh-day Sabbath by counting from the passover was never heard of. We do not hesitate to say that it originated in the mind of cavillers. And thus it is abundantly proved that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the seventh-day Sabbath, is the seventh day of the week, and has no necessary connection with a day of the month or year.

We will pursue the subject no further. Such positions are not really worth the time we spend upon them. We suppose Eld. Grant selected these paragraphs for publication because they contain the strength of Eld. B.’s argument. If these are the best parts of his summing up, we are led to wonder what the rest can be. And our surprise is all the greater when we consider that those who call themselves “Adventists” are in the forefront of opposition to the message of Rev. 14: 9-12, which connects the keeping of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This chapter closes the chain of prophetic events brought down from the book of Daniel, and ending with the coming of the Lord to reap the harvest of the earth. It seems surprising indeed that professed Adventists not only ignore the last message given just before the advent, but oppose in the most unreasonable manner the commandments of God which are taught therein.

They who are unacquainted with the work in which we are engaged in vindicating the commandments of God, who do not understand the nature of the opposition which the Sabbath of the Lord has had to bear, may think we express ourselves too strongly and speak of our opponents too sharply. We think otherwise. When men rack their brains from year to year to invent plausible pretexts for evading the testimony of Jehovah himself, and seek to cover up by sophistry old cavils which have been exploded scores of times, we believe it is our duty to very plainly point out the evil of their course, and, if necessary, to “rebuke them sharply.” Not that we have any feelings of ill-will toward the individuals so acting, but that we may fulfil the duty which this message lays upon us, to preserve others from following their pernicious ways, and, as far as possible, rescue souls from error and from ruin.

THE LAST HYMN.

The Sabbath day was ending, in a village by the sea; The uttered benediction touched the people tenderly, And they rose to face the sunset in the glowing, lighted west, And then hastened to their dwellings for God's blessed boon of rest.

But they looked across the waters, and a storm was raging there; A fierce spirit moved above them—the wild spirit of the air— And it lashed and shook and tore them, till they thundered, groaned, and boomed, And alas for any vessel in their yawning gulfs entombed.

Very anxious were the people on that rocky coast of Wales, Lest the dawns of coming morrows should be telling awful tales, When the sea had spent its passion, and should cast upon the shore Bits of wreck, and swollen victims, as it had done heretofore.

With the rough winds blowing round her, a brave woman strained her eyes, And she saw along the billows a large vessel fall and rise; Oh! it did not need a prophet to tell what the end must be, For no ship could ride in safety near that shore on such a sea.

Then the pitying people hurried from their homes and thronged the beach: Oh, for the power to cross the waters and the perishing to reach! Helpless hands were wrung for sorrow, tender hearts grew cold with dread, And the ship, urged by the tempest, to the fatal rock shore sped.

“She has parted in the middle! Oh, the half of her goes down! God have mercy! Is Heaven far to seek for those who drown?” Lo! when next the white, shocked faces looked with terror on the sea, Only one last clinging figure on the spar was seen to be.

Nearer the trembling watchers came the wreck, tossed by the wave, And the man still clung and floated, though no power on earth could save. “Could we send him a short message? Here's a trumpet. Shout away!” ’Twas the preacher's hand that took it, and he wondered what to say.

Any memory of his sermon? Firstly? Secondly? Ah, no! There was but one thing to utter in the awful hour of woe; So he shouted through the trumpet, “Look to Jesus! Can you hear?” And “Ay, ay, sir!” rang the answer o'er the waters loud and clear.

Then they listened. “He is singing, ‘Jesus, lover of my soul,’ And the winds brought back the echo, “While the nearer waters roll.” Strange, indeed, it was to hear him, “Till the storm of life is past,” Singing bravely from the waters, “Oh, receive my soul at last.”

He could have no other refuge: “Hangs my helpless soul on thee: Leave, ah! leave me not.”—The singer dropped at last into the sea. And the watchers, looking homeward through their eyes with tears made dim, Said, “He passed to sleep in Jesus in the singing of that hymn.” —Selected.

A Beautiful Legend

There was once a good religious man who thought he should find the time long in paradise. God showed him plainly that he was mistaken. One day he was in the garden of the monastery, and perceived a little bird hopping from branch to branch, which seemed more and more beautiful as he looked at it. At last, it was so very beautiful that the monk could not take his eyes off it; he began to pursue it. However, he stopped, thinking he must have been half an hour running after his bird. He returned to the monastery, but was very much surprised to find at the door a brother whom he had never seen, and the brother did not know him either; his surprise was still greater when he saw nothing in the house but strange faces and new people. The others looked at him in astonishment. At last he told them his name; and they looked in the registers, and found that it was a hundred years since he went away. . . . Thus God showed him that the time does not seem long in paradise.—Selected.

INDIANA T. AND M. SOCIETY.

By S. H. Lane; J. W. Covert

The Indiana Tract and Missionary Society held its sixth annual session in connection with the camp-meeting at Kokomo, Aug. 18, 1878. Opened at 11 A. M. with singing, and prayer by Eld. S. N. Haskell.

Minutes of the last meeting read and accepted. The report of labor for the past year was then read, as follows:

No. of families visited, 372 " letters written, 437 " new subscribers for periodicals, 308 " periodicals distributed, 6,402 " Annuals distributed, 1,766 Tracts and pamphlets dist., pp., 206,015 Received on memberships, $ 37 00 By donations, 182 63 From book sales, 54 81 New subscribers, 217 45 Total, $491 89

On motion of John Roberts, the president appointed the following committee to nominate officers for the ensuing year, and to re-district the State: W. W. Sharp, Wm. R. Carpenter, J. T. Richards.

Eld. S. H. Lane then made some remarks, setting forth the necessity of having a permanent T. and M. fund.

The committee brought in the following report: For President, Eld. S. H. Lane, Battle Creek, Mich.; Vice-president, J. M. Rees, Kokomo, Ind.; Secretary and Treasurer, E. A. Wilhelm, Bourbon, Marshall Co., Ind.

The Committee also recommended that the State be divided into eight districts. Carried. Dist. No. 1 remains unchanged. The district heretofore known as No. 5 is to be called Dist. No. 2. The one known as No. 2 is to be called No. 3, and to embrace the same churches it has done, except Thorntown, which is to be called Dist. No. 5. No. 3 is to be called Dist. No. 4. Dist. No. 4 is to be divided, and Patricksburg will be called Dist. No. 6; and Smithville, Dist. No. 7. The church of Friendship is to be Dist. No. 8.

The following directors were then elected: For Dist. No. 1, J. D. Shilling, Grovertown Stark Co.; No. 2, H. C. Winebrenner, Ligonier, Noble Co.; No. 3, Wm. Covert, New London, Howard Co.; No. 4, Isaac Zirkle, Mechanicsburg, Henry Co.; No. 5, Elisha Cox, Thorntown, Boone Co.; No. 6, Noah Carahoof, Patricksburg, Owen Co.; No. 7, Jacob Butcher, Bloomington, Monroe Co.; No. 8, John Roberts, Friendship, Ripley Co.

A vote was taken to raise a permanent T. and M. fund of $600.00, and in a few moments pledges were made to the amount of $327.00. Some paid down.

Adjourned. S. H. LANE, Pres. J. W. COVERT, Sec.

Continue reading: BIBLE LESSONS FOR YOUTH