Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 8. (8/6/1872)

Review and Herald

Aug 6, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 6, 1872

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGLE, DISCIPLE.

QUESTION.—Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day was made a Sabbath at creation, for man's observance?

ELD WAGGONER, affirms; ELD. VOGLE, denies.

ELD. WAGGONER'S FIRST AFFIRMATIVE.

“Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day was made a sabbath at creation for man's observance?”

The examination of a subject of so great practical importance as this, demands more care than I am able to bestow upon it, in the midst of other labors. That which I shall write I must earnestly believe to be truth, though I cannot hope to present it in a form as acceptable as might be done under other circumstances.

To our readers, I would say that, as disputants, it is expected that the views of the writers should be determined in their own minds; otherwise they could not honestly contend for their faith. But as readers, we ask you to suspend judgment, as far as possible, until the evidence is presented. And I pray that truth rather than victory may be the object of our labors.

The proposition now under consideration embraces two points: (1) When the Sabbath was made, (2) For what purpose it was made.

It will be well to consider what is the nature of the evidence required to sustain this proposition. For, as all have, to some extent, already formed opinions on the subject, some may be satisfied with less proof than ought by right to be given; while others may ask more, and of a different kind, than the circumstances justly demand. On this I notice that,

a. The book of Genesis, which contains a record of the facts of creation, is not a book of law, but a brief history, covering more than 2000 years from creation. And,

b. It was not written at or near the time when the events transpired, but hundreds of years afterward. And, therefore,

c. It was not written for the benefit or use of those who lived during the first 2000 years, as they were a long time dead when it was written. As might be expected in a book of this character, we often find evidence of the existence and knowledge of a law, when there is no mention of a law in the record. Thus, “Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.”

This is a very short biography of a very eminent man, who lived several hundred years. It does not furnish the least clue to the rules of life observed by Enoch. But it will not do to infer that, because not a single law is recorded, therefore not a single commandment was observed by Enoch. We must apply the principles involved in the case from our knowledge of the relations and responsibilities of a moral agent.

Again, the imagination of the hearts of men was only evil, in the days of Noah; and Noah alone was righteous before God. But righteousness consists in right doing. 1 John 3:7. Therefore the difference between Noah and others was just this: he was obedient to the requirements of God, while they were disobedient and lawless. We are absolutely shut up to this conclusion, though the record makes no mention of any law obeyed by the one, or disobeyed by the others.

And again, the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners exceedingly. Now there is no record that any law was given to them; but we know that “sin is the transgression of the law, 1 John 3:4, and that “where no law is there is no transgression,” Rom. 4:13, and no imputation of sin. Rom. 5:13. Therefore they had the law given to them, and they were its transgressors. Though the record contains no law, it contains positive proof that it was there. Had the record been written for them, to point out to them their duty, it must then have contained the law, instead of barely referring to it. In all such cases we find in Genesis, not what was necessary in a legal view to guide the lives of those living in that day, for it was not written for such a purpose, nor for them at all; but we find all that is necessary in a historical view to give us full assurance that moral relations were the same then that they are now; and that legal obligations were known by all, and were regarded by some, and disregarded by others.

The scriptures having a direct bearing on this present question are not numerous; therefore the testimony will not be difficult to collate. But indirect testimony is abundant.

Concerning that Sabbath which is the subject of our investigation, Ex. 20:10, says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” On this information I proceed with my argument.

How, and when, was the seventh day made a Sabbath day?

Sabbath means rest; the Sabbath day is the rest day. Then to ascertain how and when the seventh day was made a Sabbath day, we must find the act by which it was constituted a rest day; and that will absolutely decide the question. Inasmuch as it is the Lord's Sabbath day (as himself declares), this rest must be the Lord's rest; and of course must stand related to the Lord's work. For as a rest necessarily supposes some work performed, the rest must be his, and his only, who performed the work.

Now I inquire, What was the work to which the seventh-day rest stands related? And no question can be more definitely settled by the Scriptures, than is this. Gen. 2:1, 2. “Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;” Ex. 20:10, 11; “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day.” The same in Ex. 31:17; “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” And it is repeated in Gen. 2:3, where the reason is given for its sanctification; “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

This testimony is too plain to need comment, and too decisive to admit of an appeal. Its relation to obligation must be mostly reserved for the second part of my argument.

Though in strict justice nothing is required to prove the relevancy of all of the texts above quoted, or to show their evident connection, yet when wrong impressions have obtained, it becomes necessary to guard the truth from their influence. Because the law is not given in form in Gen. 2, and because the observance of the Sabbath was directly enforced after the exode, it has been thence inferred that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was instituted in the wilderness of Arabia, and that it is not identical with that of Gen. 2:3. But that inference is not in harmony with the Scriptures, and is altogether unwarranted.

Ex. 16 does not give any reason why the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord; why that title was given to that day instead of to another. There is therein a truth stated, viz., the seventh day is the Sabbath. There is also a duty enjoined in view of that truth, viz., to abstain from secular labor on that day. Therefore Ex. 16 does prove that the seventh-day Sabbath existed before it was proclaimed on Sinai; and it does prove that the obligation to keep it holy existed before its proclamation on Sinai. But it does not show why the seventh day was called the Sabbath; it does not state how or by what act it was made a Sabbath. It was recognized, not instituted; and enforced on the recognition. I repeat, in Ex. 16 there is found neither any act of instituting nor any reason for the institution.

The commandment given on Sinai gives the same reason for the Sabbatic institution that is given in Gen. 2, and it gives no other. Both Gen. 2 and Ex. 20 say that God made the world in six days; both say that he rested on the seventh day; both say that he blessed the seventh day; and both say that he sanctified or hallowed his rest day. That which is said by one is said by the other precisely. Though there can be no reasonable doubt that the Sabbath of Ex. 20:8–11, is the same day that was enforced at the falling of the manna, circumstances plainly showing it, as it continued to be pointed out in the same manner for years after the commandment was uttered; yet the identity of these days is not so clearly shown in the record as is the identity of the Sabbath of Ex. 20 and the rest day of Gen. 2. For, as above stated, Ex. 16 does not give the history of the Sabbatic institution as it is given in Ex. 20, and in Gen. 2.

That the absence of the word Sabbath in our English version of Gen. 2 has no bearing against this position, is shown in that (1) the words rest and Sabbath are the same. (2) The Lord said the seventh day is the Sabbath, and this because of his resting thereon. And (3) He did not make it a Sabbath in the act of blessing it, but in the act of resting on it. In one text it says “he blessed the Sabbath day;” and therefore it was already the Sabbath day when he blessed it. In the other it says he “blessed the seventh day, because that in it he had rested,” or sabbatized, which teaches the same thing. There may be local reasons given for enforcing its observance, as there are in regard to all other duties (see Lev. 19:35–37, &c.), but the reason for the institution is given in Gen. 2, and Ex. 20. And there is no act of instituting it connected with, or relating to, any other reason than that therein given, or any other work than that of creation.

As preparatory to the second part of the argument on this proposition, and as showing the importance of a correct construction of the phrase, “the Sabbath of the Lord,” I notice that the seventh-day Sabbath stands apart from all the other sabbaths, which were afterward ordained in respect to its title, the reason of its institution and the nature of the obligation to observe it. And 1st, Its title. In any and all of the yearly sabbaths, such as were peculiar to the Jewish system, there is no rest of the Lord from any work, given as their basis; and therefore they are not the sabbaths of the Lord as is the seventh day his Sabbath, or rest day. We find this distinction recognized in the Scriptures, as in Lev. 23. The yearly sabbaths are enumerated and enforced, “beside the Sabbaths of the Lord.” Verse 38. As all the other sabbaths were local and contingent, limited to that dispensation to Israel, it was said in prophecy, “I will cause all her sabbaths to cease.” Hos. 2:11.

2dly, The reason of its institution. We take the first sabbaths given Israel as peculiar to their dispensation: the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month, connected with the feast of the passover. These, as each of the other sabbaths peculiar to their system, were (1) to commemorate an event in their experience; (2) they were typical of future events; (3) they were yearly and not weekly sabbaths. The weekly sabbath, the seventh-day Sabbath, was made at creation, and commemorated that work; and in its institution was related to God's work only. But the others were related to man's action and condition as a sinful being. I cannot conceive how a greater difference could exist.

Had man never sinned it would then have been forever true, as it is to-day, that God made the world in six days. Had no system of redemption been devised or needed, it would still have been eternal truth, that God rested the seventh day, and that he blessed and sanctified his rest day.

But, on the other hand, had not man sinned; had no system of redemption been promised; had no types of the Redeemer's work been ordained; then none of the typical or yearly sabbaths would have been instituted. Had man not sinned, the whole train of circumstances by which those sabbaths were called into being, would not have existed. They all stand related to man's action as a sinner, and to Christ's work as redeemer. And as they point to, and have their fulfillment in, his work, they are appropriately denominated, “A shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Col. 2:14–17. But the Lord's Sabbath, as has been shown, is of an entirely different nature. It is not so related to man's action as a sinner, nor to the work of redemption. It was not based upon any contingency, or upon any future work. But it had for its foundation a glorious work all finished and completed “when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy;” a work in which Jehovah himself delighted, and which he pronounced “very good.”

And, 3dly, The nature of its obligation. A difference in this is the necessary result of the truths before stated. In three respects I notice this difference.

a. The obligation to keep the seventh-day Sabbath is based on primary and eternal truth. By primary truth I here mean that which grows out of the action of God alone—out of the original constitution of things; truth that existed before the fall of man, and would ever have existed had he never sinned. There is a class of secondary truths growing out of a perversion of God's work; out of the contingent relation we sustain to God since the fall. And all institutions, and obligations corresponding thereto, growing out of these secondary relations, are necessarily limited by their nature; they are typical or shadowy. I think that no person, on reflection, will dispute the ground I here take, that NO TYPICAL INSTITUTION OR MERELY POSITIVE DUTY CAN GROW OUT OF ORIGINAL RELATIONS; i. e., out of those relations existing from creation and by virtue of creation. And, on the other hand, NO MORAL OBLIGATION CAN ORIGINATE IN, OR SPRING FROM, A SECONDARY RELATION; i. e., a relation growing out of man's act of rebellion. In God's own mind all moral relations and duties originate. Man may, and he did, create the necessity for a scheme of restitution and redemption; but no part of this plan

is elementary. It owes its origin to wrongdoing; its necessity is laid in sin and rebellion.

b. The seventh day was from the beginning a hallowed or sanctified day. It was “holy to the Lord.” Ex. 16:23; 31:15, “The holy of the Lord.” Isa. 58:13, “My [the Lord's] holy day.”—Id. The obligation to observe it has sacredness as its basis; the commandment guarded an original, sacred institution. The Sabbath, like its twin sister, marriage, though often and much abused, comes down to us from Eden's purity and glory.

c. It is based on the right of property. God always claimed the seventh day as his; and this claim he based on facts as old and as unalterable as creation itself, as has been abundantly shown. But the obligation of the other sabbaths did not rest on any such original relation; and coming yearly, they fell at different times on all the different days of the week which God gave to man for his own work. The days of the week on which any of them fell (except when they fell on the seventh day) were not holy by reason of any blessing or sanctification ever put upon those particular days. The consecration, in their cases, attached to institutions which were temporary, and (as to the days of the week) were movable. God never claimed the right in them that he did in the seventh day. He did not rest from his work on any of them. They could not be the Lord's Sabbaths, or rest, as the seventh day was and is. In a word, the duty to keep the seventh day holy is based on the original right of property, specifically declared. And if the eighth commandment is moral because it guards the right of property, the fourth is moral for the same reason. Certainly, every relation upon which the institution and obligation of the seventh-day Sabbath depended, is as old as creation itself—as old as any of man's moral relations possibly can be.

The second part of this proposition—“For man's observance”—has very positive statements of Scripture to sustain it. But were that not the case, it grows so evidently out of the evidence here adduced, that it might even then be easily maintained if this argument be not overthrown.

THE LIVING-WATER WELL.

[“If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldst have asked of Him, and He would have given thee living water.”—John iv. 10.]

Well of earth's blessing, living well, Thy healing wonders who can tell! Well of earth's blessing, clear and bright, I quaff thy waters with delight; They satisfy my appetite, O living-water well!

Well of earth's blessing, how I see Thy depth's great fulness all for me; Thy depth a rich, exhaustless store, Great depth of purity and power; I draw and drink, and thirst no more, O living-water well!

Well of earth's blessing, full and pure, With Thee all blessing is secure; For Thee sin's cisterns I forego, Nor want nor weariness I know; Thy waters satisfy me so, O living-water well!

Well of earth's blessing, full and more, Full to the rim and running o'er; Thy streams, like those from Horeb's side, That flashed their liquid, limpid tide, Have maddened millions satisfied, O living-water well!

— N. Y. Observer.

ELD. VOGEL'S FIRST REPLY.

By Eld. Vogel

It is with pleasure that I enter upon the work now before me and attempt to throw some light on this and kindred questions. I am, however, quite as busy as Eld. Waggoner with other duties, and am in addition under the following disadvantages: With him, the questions to be discussed are daily themes and daily studies, and have been so for years; while with me, this is not the case. Having once fully settled in my mind on which side the truth lies, I have dismissed the subject to be recalled only on occasions like this, or once in a long while as a brief pulpit topic. Should Eld. Waggoner's arguments prove inconclusive, it will most likely be, not for the want of careful preparation, but for the lack of scriptural basis. Having an abiding faith that truth will triumph, I welcome this opportunity to give it expression.

So far as our readers are concerned, I expect a careful weighing of the evidence in order to an enlightened conclusion. I cannot ask you to lay aside prejudice, save in that mean sense which closes one's eyes against the admission of light; but in that noble sense of having already judged the case so far as investigated, you cannot but cling to present convictions unless a fuller and juster view of truth should hereafter compel a change. No one can set aside his convictions at will, but only upon evidence preponderatingly to the contrary. Remember, however, that willful ignorance is sin. “He that knew not (his lord's will), and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten.”

For the sake of future reference as helps to investigation, and in order to prevent tedious repetitions, I will proceed to lay down some rules upon which, I think, we will not disagree. These I denominate

FIVE DIFFERENT WAYS OF ASCERTAINING BIBLE TEACHING.

Evidence may be of five different kinds; that is, Bible truths may be taught or made known in five different ways.

1. By express command or statement.

2. By necessary implication or inference.

3. By probable implication or inference.

4. By inference less than probable.

5. By approved precedent or example.

(1) An express command or statement is one where the command, fact, or truth in question is fully, clearly, and unmistakably expressed; as, “Thou shalt not kill.” Deut. 5: 17.

So clear and expressive is this language that by no possible construction could a Jew make it lawful to kill.

(2) A necessary inference or implication is one where the doctrine taught, or the truth or fact communicated, is not expressly stated, but necessarily implied; as, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers,” 2 Cor. 6: 14–18.

Marriage is here not named as forbidden, yet who can escape the conclusion that it is unlawful to marry an unbeliever?

(3) A probable inference or implication is one where the matter in question is neither expressly stated, nor yet necessarily implied, but quite likely meant; as, among the works of the flesh, Paul names “revelings.” Gal. 5: 21. The revel (koomos) was “a festive procession in honor of Bacchus (which was led through the villages, koomoi, with songs, games, &c.). In N. T. a nocturnal revel, lascivious feasting and revelings with songs and music. Rom. 13: 13; Gal. 5: 21; 1 Pet. 4: 3.—Greenfield.”

This is a darker picture than the modern dance presents, yet it has so many features like it as to be probably included in this prohibition.

(4) An inference less than probable is one where the evidence is not definitely in favor of a given position, and yet there is nothing against it; or, where facts seem to point both ways, but with unequal force and the preponderance is feeble.

Thus, the Jewish Christians were in doubt respecting meats and days. The fact that God had formerly forbidden them to eat certain meats, and had enjoined certain days upon them as holy, led them to think that these observances may yet be acceptable to him; while the fact that they were now under a new dispensation seemed to indicate that they could now only in such ways please him as were enjoined or divinely recognized under this new dispensation. This is the field of “doubtful disputations,” and here all are free to do as they like. See Rom. 14: 1–6.

(5) An approved precedent or example is such practice of the apostles or apostolic churches as met apostolic approval and was not in its nature temporary or local. Thus,

a. It is right to follow the approved practice of apostles and apostolic churches. See Phil. 3: 17; 1 Thess. 1: 7; 2: 14.

b. Some practices were not approved; these we are not to follow. See Acts 15: 37–39.

c. Some practices were temporary and local in their nature; such as,

(a) The Nazaritic vow with its attendant sin-offerings. Acts 21: 23–26; 18: 18; comp. Num. 6: 1–21. This was local, being practiced only by Jewish Christians; and temporary, having met its antitype in Christ, and the temple being now destroyed, no such sin-offering can be made. It took some time to fully understand the fact that Christ was the end of these things.

(b) Circumcision. This was local, being practiced by converts from the Jews (Acts 16: 3; 21: 21; 1 Cor. 7: 18, 19), but not by the Gentile Christians (Gal. 2: 3; 5: 2; Acts 21: 21, 25); and temporary, having an antitype. Col. 2: 11.

(c) Paul kept Jewish Sabbaths. We read, Acts 18: 21, that he bade the Ephesians farewell, saying, “I must by all means keep this feast which cometh at Jerusalem.” This feast I think was Pentecost, which was a yearly sabbath. I am aware that some commentators think it was the passover; if so, there were two yearly sabbaths to be observed in keeping this feast, since it began and ended with a sabbath. See also Acts 20: 16. The sacrifices which were included in keeping such feasts, we have already seen to be local and temporary, and so were the feasts and sabbaths which Paul kept. Col. 2: 16, 17.

The reason why Paul and other enlightened teachers observed all these things and allowed others to regard them is found in 1 Cor. 9: 20, and is declared to be one of expediency. “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under (the) law, as under (the) law, that I might gain them that are under (the) law.”

When summed up, we have the following:

THE VALUE OF THESE FIVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF EVIDENCE:

I. An inference which is less than probable has only a speculative value; that is, it may be a basis for an opinion, but not a basis for faith, being too far removed from certainty.

II. A probable inference partakes more or less of certainty, and is a sufficient basis for moral action. Where nothing better can be had it is decisive, but can never outweigh or stand against an approved precedent, a necessary inference, or an express command.

III. A necessary inference is as conclusive as an express command or statement, since it admits no other conclusion.

IV. An approved precedent is an authoritative example, and remains in force till authoritatively set aside.

V. An express command or statement is an end to all controversy.

With these preliminaries, I proceed to review Eld. Waggoner's first letter. Let it, however, be well understood that I am strictly on the negative, that I have nothing to establish, but that it is my duty to examine the scriptures relied on by Bro. W., and show that they are inconclusive as respects his affirmation. This may be done in two ways: (1) By showing that they are irrelevant; or, (2) That they are fully accounted for on the supposition that the Sabbath was not enjoined on man for sacred observance till after the exodus out of Egyptian bondage.

I agree with Eld. W. that the design of Genesis was not to furnish a rule of life for the patriarchs, but to give the Israelites and posterity a bare outline of the history of that period which it covers. That Moses wrote it, is conceded by all Christians; and that he did this after he had written Exodus and Leviticus can be clearly established by such considerations as these: (1) There can be nothing but unsupported conjecture urged in favor of an earlier date. (2) He could not have written it before he came to deliver the Israelites from bondage; for in Gen. 17, circumcision is so impressed on his mind as to render such neglect as is recorded in Ex. 4: 24–26, improbable. (3) From the Exodus till Exodus and Leviticus were written, or at least the history therein contained had transpired, we find Moses so busy as to have no time for such a work.

That the patriarchs, especially the antediluvians, had rules of life traditionally preserved, and enlarged by their prophets, which are very meagerly reproduced in Genesis, is unquestionably true. But in speaking of these things, Eld. W. makes an unwarranted assertion. “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3: 4.

Therefore, they had the law given to them. The expression, “the law,” when the “the” is not the result of renewed mention, has a definite meaning and refers to the whole Mosaic code, as I shall show under the third proposition; but with Eld. W., it means only the ten commandments, and all of them. This is a convenient way he has of begging the question by assuming that the Sabbath then existed. The patriarchs had indeed a law; for “where no law is there is no transgression,” but they had not the law. McKnight justly renders 1 John 3: 4, thus: “Every one who worketh sin, worketh also the transgression of law; for sin is the transgression of law.”

“Ex. 16,” Bro. W. says, “does prove that the seventh-day Sabbath existed before it was proclaimed on Sinai; and it does prove that the obligation to keep it holy existed before its proclamation on Sinai.” Granted; but this is no proof that man was under obligation from creation to keep it. What he says respecting its not having its origin there and then will be remembered and refuted when I take the affirmative of the next proposition.

I freely admit (1) that Gen. 2 speaks of the Sabbath as hallowed for man; and (2) that Ex. 16: 20; and Gen. 2, are identical as to the day of the week. I know well what has been said to the contrary on both of these points, especially on the last by Peter Akers, in his Chronology; but all these positions are untenable and untrue, as will abundantly appear, though indirectly, as we proceed.

My brother reasons from the fact that the Sabbath in the ten commandments is associated with the Lord's resting at creation that it existed for man's observance ever since. “Sabbath means rest; the Sabbath day is the rest day. Then to ascertain how and when the seventh day was made a Sabbath day, we must find the act by which it was constituted a rest day; and that will absolutely decide the question.

As a rest necessarily supposes some work performed, the rest must be his, and his only, who performed the work.” And so; but as man performed no work in creation, he could not rest, could have no Sabbath then, since “a rest necessarily supposes some work done.” There may have been a Sabbath then for the Lord to keep, and for him only; he only worked, and “the rest must be his, and his only, who performed the work.”

I would further add, that there is no such moral or necessary connection between God's resting and man's, that man must rest simply because God rested; for if man must rest simply because God rested, then man must work six days because God worked six in succession, and he dare not take a holiday at the peril of his salvation! This argument proves too much, and therefore nothing. The fact is, God's resting on the seventh day had nothing to do with man's resting till God sanctified or set apart that day, by express command, for man's observance. The connection between God's resting and man's having a Sabbath to observe is not necessary or moral, but arbitrary and positive. The Sabbath, therefore, is a positive institution, founded, not in the original constitution of things, but based on the mere will of the Law-giver. Before, then, any one can prove a Sabbath for man's observance to have existed from the beginning, it must be shown that at creation God so sanctified it. This, Ex. 20 does not do. It simply tells us that God “blessed” and “hallowed” the seventh day, but not when. For aught that appears in this chapter to the contrary, God may have blessed and hallowed it but the day before. Note also, it does not read, “God rested on the seventh day and this hallowed it,” but he “rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord, blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” Since man's obligation to observe the Sabbath depends solely on the Law-giver's will, when God saw fit to enjoin on man a Sabbath, any day could have been made equally holy.

That God had some reason for hallowing the seventh day in preference to any other, and that this reason was commemorative, may be very true. But all commemorative institutions are positive, and dependent as to obligation on the will of the institutor, and hence not binding on man till formally proclaimed. If there is an exception to this, I hope my brother will produce it.

From the preceding, it follows that all that Eld. W. has said concerning the nature of the Sabbath's obligation falls to the ground, and needs no detailed reply. I would only say that the Sabbath as obligatory on man is the Lord's property in no higher sense than any other positive or commemorative institution is.

My brother talks about “the reason” of the Sabbath's institution. Had he said the reasons (for there are at least two), he would be nearer the truth. The Sabbath is an edifice built on two foundation stones; namely, God's resting from his work, and Israel's resting from bondage. Deut. 5: 15. As a wise master-builder, God would not erect his superstructure till all the corner-stones are laid. And the fact that the Sabbath is built also on the last-named stone destroys much of the difference which my brother attempts to find between it and the annual sabbaths.

He asserts that “the commandment given on Sinai gives the same reason for the Sabbatic institution that is given in Gen. 2, and it gives no other.” Again: “The reason for the institution [of the Sabbath] is given in Gen. 2 and Ex. 20. And there is no act of instituting it connected with, or related to, any other reason, than that therein given, or any other work than that of creation.” Can it be possible that my brother has never read Deuteronomy? In chapter 5: 15, we read, “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Is not this another “reason” than that given in Ex. 20, and another “work” than that of creation? And is this found in Gen. 2? Did not the Lord assign this as a reason on Sinai, and himself write it on the two tables of stone? Moses certainly is competent to testify, and he says, “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” Deut. 5: 22.

“With my brother's argument from Gen.

2, I find the same fault as with that from Ex. 20. It does not say when God “blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.” That passage was written long after the Exodus, after the Sabbath had been given. It merely identifies the seventh day of the creation week with that seventh day which was at some time made a Sabbath for man's observance. But of this, more fully hereafter.

He hath Nothing in Me.

By E. H. Whitney

In that sweet chapter wherein are transcribed Jesus’ words of pitying comfort to his disciples—troubled and grieved at heart at the strange things that were about to come upon him and so reflect upon them—he says, “Hereafter I will not talk much with you; for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.” John 14: 30. “And hath nothing in me!” Note the richness of the thought.

During all the life of Jesus, from early childhood he had been subject to all the attacks of the enemy; for the apostle tells us, “He was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” Satan had “nothing in him.” For forty days, when he was worn and weakened by fasting and trial, every device our ingenious enemy could invent was brought to bear upon him; yet, when all was done, he had “nothing in him.” All through his ministry, temptations of every nature met him on every hand, yet at the close of this ministry he could still say of the arch enemy, he “hath nothing in me.” And this he said to the disciples who were trying to make his life a pattern; this is transcribed “for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” What a lesson for us. Surely it was not idly given, nor without intent. There are more of us who, strongly as we may desire to be like Jesus, can truly say that we have so nearly attained to our perfect Pattern that Satan hath nothing in us—that all his darts fall powerless from our shield.

No; the wounds and bruises at every joint of our often-too-carelessly-adjusted armor testify that he has too much power over us. Few of us have nearly overcome the world—none of us I think entirely, while many of us, I fear, are in the back-ground, contesting the same ground that has been fought over so many times. If we have prayed earnestly for help, have we not failed in watching thereunto? Else why is the enemy in possession of the same points that we wrested from him months, or perhaps years, ago?

We cannot rise up and throw off at once the shackles of sin and then sit down in peace to await our Lord’s coming. We must press on patiently, perseveringly, closely watching the ground we gain lest the enemy regain possession of it; and this not of ourselves, but through Christ who strengtheneth us. He over whom Satan had no power stands ready to help us. Why then are we not overcoming? We know that our robes must be made clean—why do we not succeed better in putting away our defilements? There are words to be spoken for the truth. Why are we not ready to speak them? There are sad hearts bowed down with discouragement and weariness. Have we no words of comfort and encouragement for them? There is work for us to do on every side. Why are we not ready to do it? Is it not because the prince of this world has such a hold upon us? Shall we yield ourselves to him and give up eternal life with the gates of the heavenly city just in sight?

If we felt ourselves in the grasp of some terrible foe would we not make every possible effort to escape? Would we not struggle for life? How much more then should we strive to escape from the hold of this strongest and most terrible of foes, who would drag us down from eternal life to inevitable ruin and death? Could we realize, when we are dallying with sin, even our favorite sins, that are so hard to give up, that we are playing with eternal life as with a toy, would we do it? Could we realize that every time we yield to temptation or pause irresolutely before what we have felt to be wrong that we are weakening our powers of resistance and so lessening our chances of eternal life, would we hesitate? Surely, the enemy hath blinded us or we could not thus trifle. Surely, the prince of this world hath much, very much in us. Our days of probation are nearing their close. Swiftly they pass on, one by one, and already we hear the rumbling wheels of the chariot that will usher in the last one.

Where are we? Drawing nearer to God, gaining victories daily? or, drifting unconsciously further and further from him, while the chains that will drag us down to death are tightening around us? Oh! may we awake to a sense of our danger and, believing in God, so resist and overcome that when the redeemed of the Lord shall come to Zion we may be among them, and, looking back upon our life-struggle with gratitude beyond expression toward Him who hath delivered us from its snares and pitfalls, say of the defeated enemy, he hath now “nothing in me.”

E. H. WHITNEY.

Kirksville, N. Y.

Continue reading: Improve Thy Gift