Review and Herald, Vol. 52, No. 19.
The Two Hemispheres and the Sabbath, No. 2Page 1
THE TWO HEMISPHERES AND THE SABBATH.—NO. 2.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN. No proposition can be plainer than this: If God designed to construct a law which would give to each individual the privilege of selecting for himself the day of the week which he would hallow, then he has never done anything which would defeat man's enjoyment of this prerogative. God assuredly did for forty years render it impossible for any of the children of Israel, who were then his people, to celebrate for the Sabbath the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth day of the week without violating his positive commands. Do you inquire in what manner he did this? I answer, By enacting that the manna which was to be eaten on the Sabbath day, should be gathered and prepared on the sixth day, and by ordaining that that which was gathered and kept over from any other day should corrupt and breed worms, thereby rendering it utterly unfit for food. As a consequence of this action, each individual was debarred from keeping any day except the seventh by the necessity under which he was thereby placed of abstaining from food entirely for the period of twenty-four hours each week, should he attempt to do so. But, as we have seen above, God's direct providence and laws must harmonize; and, as they could only be made to do so upon the supposition that the seventh day, and that alone, is the one which he would have sanctified by the people, we are again brought to the conclusion that it was the one which the commandment was designed to honor. Since, therefore, the commandment reads the same now as it did then, it must also mean the same; and, therefore, when rightly construed, still commands the hallowing of the definite seventh day of the week. Thus much for the first proposition under discussion. We turn now to the consideration of the second, i. e., Can such a day be celebrated the world around? If the logic employed thus far has been sound, it would seem a work of supererogation to bestow time in elaborating an argument on this phase of the subject. It will be remembered that it is not within the scope of this article to debate the point as to whether the ten commandments are obligatory alike upon Gentiles and Jews; for those whose views we are criticising are agreed with us that this is the case; else there would be no propriety in examining those commandments in reference to our practice in the matter of keeping a hebdomadal rest-day. In other words, there would be no reason in any effort on their part to so construe the fourth commandment in the light of nature as to show that it cannot enforce the observance of a definite day, unless they first concede the point that it does enforce one day or another. We repeat, therefore, that if the conclusion which we have drawn thus far respecting the teaching of the Sabbath law is just, the second point is already proved. For if God has given us a precept worldwide in its requirements and explicit in its declarations, whose injunctions men everywhere are to obey in celebrating a definite and particular day of rest, then it must be true that those men, wherever they may be found, will be able to fulfill the obligation resting upon them; or, at least, if they cannot do so, it will not be because God himself has commanded a thing which is in the abstract impossible. Granting that under some circumstances it might be true that an individual for some temporary cause—as, for example, the being cast away upon a lone island—might be unable to locate the day of rest, still it would never be true that the day itself could not be identified in such a locality provided he had the necessary information for that work. Otherwise—as we have elsewhere said—the God of Heaven might be shown to have stultified himself by commanding that which under any circumstances could not be performed. Realizing the true signification of the work in which we are engaged, and believing firmly in the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, we must either be able to prove that the construction we have just put on the law is altogether untenable, or else we must follow that construction to its legitimate conclusion and decide that, whether we are able to do so or not, there must be some means by which the definite seventh day can be found on any and every point on this globe. Any decision short of this would dishonor God. So far, however, as the construction of the law is concerned, we are confident, on the one hand, that it cannot be overthrown by any line of argument which can be advanced, and, on the other hand, that it can be strengthened and enforced by many very cogent reasons which our space has not permitted us to bring forward. Now, therefore, as we comprehend the situation, and realize that there is nothing less at stake ultimately than the faith of men in the Book of God, let us cast about us with a view to ascertaining, if possible, whether there be not a clew to the situation which, if carefully followed, will lead us out of this labyrinth of deistical sophism. In other words, if we shall find it impossible to elucidate the question perfectly, let us at least make an earnest effort to throw upon it a sufficient amount of light to make it in a very high degree probable that we shall be safe in concluding that a definite Sabbath day can be kept upon a round world. The first step to be taken in this direction will be that of ascertaining what sort of a day is referred to in the commandment. This may be done in brief by stating: 1. That it is a twenty-four-hour day, commencing and ending with the setting of the sun, as proved by the fact that in the twenty-third chapter of Leviticus the Lord expressly directs that they should keep their Sabbaths from even to even; 2. That the keeping of the same Sabbath day by persons in different parts of the world does not involve the hallowing of the same identical hours; but consists in the observance of the same day when it comes to them, and as it comes to them, while it is traveling around the earth. This is proved by the fact that on the eastern hemisphere such a course was pursued by the people under the sanction of the Most High. Having accepted these statements as true, we shall find our work considerably abbreviated and simplified; for, in the first place, we perceive that, as the setting of the sun is a physical event which, in all portions of the world designed for habitation, is clearly discernible, all men everywhere are provided with a means by which they can readily determine the exact period of time when they should commence and end the day of rest. In the second place, we immediately comprehend the fact that if we can locate the point on the earth at which the day commences its journey, we shall be able to fix the precise time when it will pass over any given portion of its surface. We may experience some embarrassment in reasoning in regard to the day as traveling westward around the globe, because we have not hitherto been in the habit of viewing the subject in that light. Nevertheless—practically speaking—we have admitted that it does so. For example: The names applied to the days of the week are uniform in a large portion of the world. Take, if you please, the English-speaking nations; Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, etc., are used by them uniformly to designate the same days of the week. But every well-informed individual knows that Sunday, for instance, is entered upon by the citizens of London several hours before it is by those in New York, and that the latter, in their turn, commence it several hours before it reaches the locality of San Francisco. By this we learn that it passes from continent to continent around the world in a manner similar to that in which a train of cars—provided there was nothing to intervene—might be supposed to pass around our planet, requiring for its transit a period of only twenty-four hours. The only difficulty, therefore, with which we shall meet, as remarked above, will be that of identifying in its passage the particular day which Jehovah has sanctified and blessed, and commanded us to consecrate. Fortunately for us, our labors are largely abbreviated by the fact that both Moses and Christ have significantly located the period in question in both Arabia and Judea. Moses said, “To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord;” and Christ, who kept his Father's commandments perfectly, recognized the truthfulness of the statement of the prophet by observing the same hours which he had pointed out as those which were to be consecrated to the Lord. Moses by inspiration, and Christ by his divinity, spoke with an authority which could not be questioned. Neither could have been mistaken, and neither could have willingly misrepresented. Both were right, and both are to be credited as fully as though the God of Heaven had uttered his voice from the sky and said to them, “The last day of your week harmonizes with that of the creation week, and is the one I have required you to keep holy.” Here, then, we have a starting-point from which to depart in the prosecution of the search before us. We can readily calculate the precise number of hours which regularly intervene between the setting of the sun in Judea, and the same event where we reside. SCIENCE VS. RELIGION.
By Talmage
There is not a fact in science that may not be reconciled with Bible statement. So said Hugh Miller, so said Joseph Henry, so said Professor Hitchcock and Professor Mitchell, and so have said scores of the best scientists of the world. Besides that, have you not noticed that infidel scientists, instead of waging so hot a war against Christianity, are now beginning to fight among themselves? If infidel science came up with solid front, perhaps it might do some damage; but so far as I can read the signs of the times, it is going to be telescope against telescope, Leyden jar against Leyden jar, chemical apparatus against chemical apparatus. Do you think there is any danger that the Bible account of the origin of life will ever be overthrown so long as the scientists differ about the origin of life, some adopting the theory of Biogenesis, and others the theory of Abiogenesis (I use that phrase because it sounds learned!), and while Agassiz comes out and puts both feet on the doctrine of evolution, and rebukes the young scientists of the day by saying: “I have noticed that many of the young naturalists are falling into the mistake of adopting for theories of science that which has never passed under observation.” These scientists are disagreeing. They do not agree in regard to the gradation of the species. They do not agree in regard to embryology. Darwin charging against Lamarck, Wallace spearing Cope, and Herschel denouncing Ferguson. How many colors woven into the light? Seven, says Newton. Three, says David Brewster. How high the aurora borealis? Two miles and a half, says Lias. One hundred and sixty-five miles, says Twining. Herschel devotes one whole chapter to what he calls “Errors of Astronomy.” Laplace says the moon was not put in the right place. He says that if it had been put four times farther off from our world, there would have been more harmony in the universe; while Lionville comes up just in time, and very fortunately, to show that the Lord was wise, and put the moon in the right place. How far is the sun from the earth? Lacaille says seventy-six million miles. Humboldt says eighty-two million miles. Henderson says ninety million miles; and Mayer says one hundred and four million miles. Only a little difference of twenty-eight million miles. The French metric system, which employed the most learned mathematicians of the day, is found to have wrong calculations. Geologists differ. Zoologists differ. Anatomists differ. Astronomers differ. Mathematicians differ. Talk about exact sciences! They are inexact. I have looked all over for something worthy of the complimentary adjective, and I tell you the only exact science is Christianity146. There is nothing under which you may with so much propriety write quod erat demonstrandum. Now, there has been a great trial going on in the world—a very great trial. It is skepticism, the plaintiff, versus Christianity, the defendant. All the scientists have been out on the jury; they have been out for centuries. They are coming in. I rap the court room to order. Gentlemen of the jury, have you agreed on your verdict? “No,” they say, “we haven’t agreed.” Then I say, “Go back to your room and stay another century, and then we’ll discharge you if you don’t agree.” Now would the meanest man in a police court room be condemned by a jury that could not agree? And yet you ask us to reject our glorious Christianity when this jury of scientists come in, and they are all differing. I move a non-suit.—Talmage. THE COMING OF THE LORD.
By L. D. Santee
Up to the solemn arch my eyes are turning, And slow I see the white-winged clouds go by, For His dear presence how my soul is yearning, Who sometime will appear in yonder sky. Days still pass, and evening's starry banner Follows after day's retiring king; And yet I list in vain for the hosanna That all the white-robed, bloodwashed throng shall sing. Mornings come, and on the earth's broad bosom Soft I see the wavering shadows lie; But I look in vain to see the glory Christ will throw upon the morning sky. Earth with funereal draping lies in sorrow; Deep the serpent-trail that sin has worn; Shall we vainly wait the promised morrow, When shall come relief to bosoms torn? And the deep, the restless ocean hoary, As its tides accustomed reaches span, Seems to moan the tale of sin's sad story Since the morning stars together sang. The sad sea ever tells of lost dominion, As its billows weep upon the shore, When the dove of peace, with weary pinion, Left bright Eden to return no more. Six millenniums, with their changing seasons, Have slowly wheeled their cycles in the past; Human souls, although endowed with reason, Deeper into sin their lives have cast. And the earth, in sin and darkness lying, While her voice of music now is dumb, Up to Heaven still lifts her hands, while crying For the Lord of mercy soon to come. Soon will the earth behold his chariot nearing,— God to fulfill his promise is not slack,— Sinners will stand aghast with woe and fearing, When he appears upon his flaming track. Saints shall dwell with Christ, at peace forever Their feet shall rest upon the jasper sea, And all the ties that cruel death has severed Forevermore shall reunited be. Welcome the rest beside life's flowing river; Pleasures shall last through God's eternal years; Blest shall we be with Christ, the gracious giver, Joys without end all free from pains and tears. Up to the solemn arch my eyes are turning, And slow I see the white-winged clouds go by; My faith is strong, and still my heart is yearning, For I shall see Him coming by-and-by. MILES GRANT ON THE SABBATH.
By R. S. Owen
Probably no individual has labored more tenaciously to oppose the Sabbath reform than Eld. Miles Grant. His voice and pen have both been trained to war against the Sabbath and those who observe it. After, as he says, giving the Sabbath question his special attention, he has written a pamphlet upon the subject, into which he has condensed his strongest arguments. This pamphlet has been extensively circulated the past summer in the vicinity where we have labored. Several have desired that we should review some of his arguments. We offer a few thoughts upon them, hoping that the eyes of some honest persons may be opened to see the true character of the opposition we have to meet. Eld. G. is a man of ability, and has given much attention to his subject, so if he has the truth, we may expect to see it firmly established on a good foundation and fortified by strong arguments. The title presents a subject worthy of our attention,—“The True Sabbath.” This is a sacred institution. The times demand that it should be defended. The no-Sabbath views are having a sad and blighting influence upon the morals of our country. But what must be our surprise, as, upon opening the pamphlet, we find the first twenty-four pages devoted to the work of trying to tear down the only Sabbath God ever gave to man! His “conclusion” is, “The Scriptures do not teach that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment of the decalogue is now binding upon mankind.”—P. 24. Nearly all that is said in the pamphlet upon the Sabbath question is to prove this proposition. A title more consistent with the character of the work would have been: “The True Sabbath Abolished.” Its author himself has said, “It is a fact that there is but one weekly Sabbath mentioned in the Bible.”—Grant’s Debate with Cornell, p. 115. That is the Sabbath that he claims is abolished. 1. He starts out with an argument on the two covenants, claiming that the ten commandments were the old covenant which is done away. We need not dwell upon this, as so much has already been said upon that subject in the REVIEW. Under the new covenant, the law was not to be done away, but written upon the heart. See Jer. 31:31–33. 2. The Sabbath Jewish. Eld. G. makes many assertions on this point. On page 7 he says, “The rest of the Jews was not given to other people for the obvious reason that they were not delivered from Egyptian bondage.” His proof that the Sabbath was a memorial of their deliverance is found in Deut. 5:15, where Moses makes an appeal to their gratitude, as he does in many other places in reference to other duties. If this makes the Sabbath a memorial of their deliverance, then every one of God’s commandments was given to commemorate the same event. See Deut. 7:8–11; 8:2–7; 24:17, 18; Lev. 19:35–38. When God gave a Sabbath law, he gave a reason for it. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.” That is the event which the Sabbath commemorates. Eld. G. unwittingly acknowledges it on page 51. When upholding the seventh-part-of-time theory, he says, “Whoever does this [keeps one-seventh part of time] follows the example of his Creator, and thereby acknowledges him as the one who made the heavens and the earth in six days, and rested on the seventh.” But now he wishes to make it appear Jewish. On page 6 he says: “The Lord instructed them [the Jews] to work six days and rest the seventh. It appears that this special arrangement began when they came out of Egypt. Their first rest-day in the wilderness must be so arranged that there would be six days of labor between it and the time they left their state of bondage.” Yes, it “must be” so if his theory is true; but let us see if it was so. According to Eld. G.’s arrangement, the seventh day from the time they left their state of bondage was the Sabbath, likewise the fourteenth, twenty-first, twenty-eighth, and thirty-fifth days. But notice the facts. We learn from Ex. 12 that their deliverance took place the night following the fourteenth day of the first month. They arrived at the wilderness of Sin on the fifteenth day of the second month (Ex. 16:1), after a journey of thirty days. The next day the manna began to fall. They gathered it for six days, then Moses told the rulers, “This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Thus the Lord has the Sabbath come on the thirty-seventh day, while, according to Eld. G., “it must” be on the thirty-fifth day! Another effort to prove the Sabbath Jewish is made on page 20. Here we find a daring misquotation of Scripture to make it serve his purpose. Thus he says: “We read in Neh. 9:13, 14, ‘Thou camest down also upon Mount Sinai, and spakest with them from Heaven, and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good statutes and commandments; and madest known unto them the holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant.’ Here is a time specified when the Lord made known unto the Jews their Sabbath, implying very clearly that it was a new day, not observed by their fathers.” Whose Sabbath was made known—God’s Sabbath, or rest-day, or a new day? That is shown by the adjunct preceding “holy Sabbath,” and here is just where Eld. G. has dared to tamper with the scripture. He puts in the word “the” instead of “thy,” thus robbing God of his just claims, that he may give the Sabbath to the Jews, saying “their Sabbath, implying very clearly that it was a new day.” We have endeavored to look upon this as an oversight in the writer, but cannot for several reasons. One is that if he had quoted correctly, it would have destroyed his own argument, by showing that it was God’s Sabbath and not “their Sabbath.” Another is, that he quotes from that verse again, and does it in such a manner as to prove positively that he knew the text did not read as he had previously quoted, and that he did not design to quote it as it does read. Here it is just as he has it on page 51: “The Jewish rest-day was peculiar to them, hence we read the Lord made ‘known unto them’ the ‘holy Sabbath . . . by the hand of Moses.’” Now why does he throw “the” out of the quotation marks? Because he knows it is not so in the text; and why he does not quote it as it is, the reader may judge. On page 1, he says that all he desires is to please the Lord. He must have strange ideas in regard to what is pleasing to the Lord. The same prayer recorded in Neh. 9 says, “Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them.” Verse 20. If Eld. Grant’s argument is sound, the Spirit of the Lord is Jewish, it was not enjoyed by their fathers, and is not given to other nations. However well Eld. G.’s theory may apply to himself, we would prefer not to be deprived of God’s Spirit or his Sabbath, simply because it was enjoyed by the Jews when they were his chosen people. 3. Manner of keeping the Sabbath. Pages 12, 13: “The Sabbath feast-day must be kept in a particular way, or it was broken. If it was not kept according to the prescribed manner, . . . it was violated. For instance, those who kept the Sabbath day holy were required to offer on the Sabbath day two lambs of the first year, without spot. . . . Num. 28:9, 10.” He then asks, “Who keeps the Sabbath now?” and goes on to condemn as Sabbath-breakers all who do not offer the two lambs. He here conveys the idea that each individual who kept the Sabbath was required to offer two lambs in order to keep the day holy. This would make offerings to the amount of one hundred and four lambs per year for each person. Read Num. 28 and 29, and we find that if these were individual offerings, then each person must offer in a year over one thousand sheep and lambs, more than one hundred head of cattle, besides between forty and fifty barrels of flour, nearly as much oil, etc. Does he believe this was required of each individual? He knows better. This was the work of the priests, which has been superseded by the priesthood of Christ. See Heb. 8:1–5. The followers of Christ could observe the Sabbath according to the commandment (Luke 23:56) after he had caused the sacrifice to cease. Eld. G. claims that it cannot be done. 4. The Sabbath a shadow of Christ. After such a labored effort to make the Sabbath a memorial of the rush out of Egypt, we should suppose he would be content to let it remain so. But no; he now calls the Sabbath a shadow. On page 24, he quotes Col. 2:16, 17, and remarks, “The shadow never extends beyond the body,” and concludes that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not now binding. Paul evidently refers to the ceremonial sabbaths connected with meats and drinks, and so say all our commentators. Barnes, in his note on Col. 2:16, says, “There is not the slightest reason to believe that he meant to teach that one of the ten commandments had ceased to be binding. . . . No part of the moral law could be spoken of as a shadow of good things to come.” Tract No. 177 of the American Tract Society on Col. 2:16 says, “No allusion whatever is made to the weekly Sabbath.” A. Clarke on this text says, “Sabbaton, of sabbaths or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks.” Eld. G. seems soon to forget about his argument from Col. 2:16. On page 33 he says, “The ten commandments have nothing in them that has the least reference to Christ.” Then certainly the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not a shadow of Christ. It is a remarkable fact that almost every argument that Eld. G. urges against the Sabbath is refuted by himself before he gets through. Notice a few more instances. On page 13 he claims that we cannot keep the Sabbath according to the law without offering two lambs, while on page 23 he says, “All the law ever required was to work six days and rest the seventh.” Although he labors hard to show the fourth commandment abolished, yet on page 23 he admits that a moral benefit was derived from the keeping of the seventh day; and on page 7 he says, “The moral principles . . . did not begin with the Jews nor end with them; they are co-existent with the human race.” On page 23 he argues that we cannot keep the identical day that was observed at Sinai, because in Joshua’s time “sunset was put forward about twelve hours, thus changing the beginning of the Sabbath day at sunset, and all other days, to a time about twelve hours later.” According to this, no day of the week is now identical with the days before Joshua’s time. Yet on pages 50 and 51, and elsewhere, he claims that “the original rest-day kept in Eden” is the very day that Christians now keep. Did not the sun’s standing still affect Sunday as much as it did the seventh day? The fact is, that no day lost its identity. God blessed the seventh day, and when that came it was the Sabbath, whether the other days had been longer or shorter. On page 22 he claims that we cannot keep the particular seventh day, because the world is round and time differs in places according as they are east or west of a given meridian. On page 53 he says, “He who refuses to make the first day his rest-day . . . virtually joins with the enemies of Christ.” Does the world become flat on Sunday, so that all can keep it? But enough of this. Now for his proof for Sunday. “Astronomical calculations give evidence that the Lord’s day now observed by Christians generally, is the one first kept in Eden.”—Page 20. We should be greatly astonished at this statement were it not that our minds, by this time, are prepared for almost anything. Has Eld. G. the records of astronomical observations reaching back to Eden? I have before me a discussion between Elds. Grant and Cornell, in which Eld. G. says, “It is a fact that there exists no proof that man kept, or was required to keep, a Sabbath from creation to the exode, a period of about twenty-five hundred years.” Eld. G. makes a calculation on page 6 which, as we have seen, falls short two days in the short space of five weeks. Here he would have us trust his calculations for six thousand years, with no records to calculate from, to show that Adam kept the first day of the week, when, according to his own testimony, he did not keep any day! We now come to the foundation of his first-day theory. He says a great deal about obeying Christ and keeping his commandments, so we naturally look for him to establish Sunday-keeping upon Christ’s words. But no; he brings not a word from Christ in regard to it. We next look for testimony from the apostles; but they, too, are silent on the subject. So leaving the word of God without one text to prove the change of the Sabbath, he attempts to build upon history. Those Sacred Scriptures which will thoroughly furnish unto all good works do not give a particle of evidence for his first-day Sabbath. An authority no less than Grant himself has said, “It is a fact that there is but one weekly Sabbath mentioned in the Bible.”—Grant’s Discussion with Cornell, page 115. His “true Sabbath,” then, is not a Bible Sabbath. His first testimony, he professes to quote from Ignatius’ epistle to the Magnesians. “Let us [Christians] no more Sabbatize,” he says (that is, keep the seventh day as the Jews did), “but let us keep the Lord’s day.” In regard to this testimony, several points are worthy of notice: 1. This epistle is acknowledged by almost universal consent of critics to be spurious; 2. This extract is a fraudulent translation; the original does not contain the term “Lord’s day”; 3. The writer was not speaking of Christians then living, but of the ancient prophets who waited for Christ. Eld. G. next tells us that Irenaeus says, “On the Lord’s day let every one of us Christians keep the Sabbath, meditating on the law and rejoicing in the works of God.” Our objection to this is that the above sentence, or anything like it, is not to be found in the writings of Irenaeus. This has several times been quoted by first-day writers, but Sir Wm. Domville, of England, years ago exposed it as a false quotation. Other historians have since done the same, yet Eld. G. quotes it with as much apparent confidence as though he could point to the chapter and section where it is found. This he does not attempt to do. Irenaeus does say, in book 4, chap. 15, sec. 1, when speaking of the decalogue, “Which, if any one does not observe, he has no salvation.” Tertullian is his next witness. We are not surprised that he quotes him. There is a certain similarity between the two men; that is, Tertullian’s writings, like Eld. Grant’s, abound in contradictions. It seems that this writer lived in a time and place of great apostasy. He says, “We have nothing to do with the Sabbath.” Does Eld. G. agree with him? Yes. He quotes him as though he were our pattern. He also says, “We make offerings for the dead.” “We make Sunday a day of festivity.” “At every forward step, . . . in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead, the sign [of the cross].” Does Eld. G. do all this? If we make such men our guides in one thing, why not in all? The epistle of Barnabas is the next authority. Mosheim, Neander, and Kitto condemn that as a forgery. Domville says it would be a disgrace to the Christian religion to ascribe that epistle to the companion of St. Paul. Eusebius says it is spurious. Milner says it is an injury to his name to call it his. Such is the opinion of leading first-day men. Grant’s remaining historical evidence is brought mostly from men who lived after the Sunday of the heathens began to be introduced into the apostate church. Dr. A. Clarke, speaking of these fathers, says, “their authority is with me nothing.” Yet such worthless authority is the best that is offered in support of the first-day Sabbath. We are to be judged by God’s law. That stands unharmed amid all the fierce assaults of its enemies. God in speaking of his law147says he will not alter the thing that has gone out of his lips. Ps. 89:30–34. Christ did not destroy his Father’s law. Matt. 5:17–19. Paul delighted in it. Rom. 7:12, 22. The remnant church keep God’s law. Rev. 12:17; 14:12. Notwithstanding all the heterogeneous mass of contradictions found in his writings, Eld. Grant still occupies a position as contributor to the World’s Crisis. In the issue of Oct. 9 we find the following from his pen: “It is asked, Does Matt. 28:1 afford evidence that Christians should observe the seventh-day Sabbath? . . . It is a well-known fact that the first day was kept by the primitive Christians in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. As he was not raised when Mary Magdalen and the other Mary came to the sepulcher, of course the time had not arrived to keep the first day.” Had “M. G.” ever read the sixteenth chapter of Mark’s Gospel? That inspired penman informs us that when the Marys came to the sepulcher they found the stone rolled away, and saw in the sepulcher a young man clothed in white, “And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.” How “well known” the “fact” is that the first day was observed by the primitive Christians will be seen from the testimonies of some of our most learned men. Sir Wm. Domville says, “Centuries of the Christian era passed away before the Sunday was observed by the Christian church as a Sabbath.” Dr. Heylyn says, “Take which you will, either the fathers or the moderns, and we shall find no Lord’s day instituted by any apostolical mandate; no Sabbath set on foot by them upon the first day of the week.” A. Campbell says, “Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? No.” Coleman says, “Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church.” Morer says, “The primitive Christians had a great veneration for the Sabbath, and spent the day in devotion and sermons. And it is not to be doubted but they derived this practice from the apostles themselves.” THE VOICE THAT CALMS.
By Edward A. Barnes
Upon that night,
That stormy night on Galilee,
When wind and wave were high,
When o'er that vessel, drifting on,
There hung a gloomy sea;
When terror came to those on deck
Who feared the angry deep;
While Jesus, 'mid the danger wild,
Lay on his couch, asleep:
'Twas then he rose, and lo! his voice
Did soothe their wild alarm;
He hushed the wind and stilled the sea;—
He wrought a wondrous calm
On Galilee! When sorrow's storm
Comes darkly o'er the way of life,
That we in heart must brave;
And when we seem adrift at sea,
'Mid stormy wind and wave;
'Tis then, before the eye of faith,
This same blest Lord appears.
He speaks, and lo! his sacred voice
Is full of love that cheers;
He soothes us as we weep and sigh,
With his all-soothing balm;
While o'er the billows of our grief
He brings a blessed calm,—
His sweet relief! The Law of God.
By A. Smith
The Bible very clearly proves it to be the duty of the Christian to keep the law of God. Notwithstanding it has been said, and very truthfully too, that “there is no redeeming quality in law,” and that “by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight;” yet, when one is freed from the condemnation of the law through Christ, it becomes to him a rule of life, and he is under obligation to keep it. See Rom. 3:31. “This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.” 1 Tim. 1:15. Now there could be no sinners in the world unless men had sinned, and this they could not do unless some law existed which they had transgressed. Paul tells us that “by the law is the knowledge of sin;” Rom. 3:20; that “where no law is, there is no transgression;” Rom. 4:15; and that “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Chap. 5:13. John also testifies that “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. And that we may have no doubt in regard to what law is intended, Paul testifies, “I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Rom. 7:7. See also James 2:8–12. Christ, by the psalmist, thus testifies of himself: “I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. (Compare verse 9 with Ps. 119:172.) Just before his death, our Saviour declared that he had kept his Father’s commandments. See John 15:10. Christ is our Exemplar, and it is our duty to walk as he walked. 1 John 2:6. Christ honored his Father’s law, and taught that however much persons may profess to honor the Son, those only who do the will of the Father can enter the kingdom of Heaven. Matt. 7:21. Christ taught his disciples to pray that the will of our Father in Heaven might be done on earth as it is done in Heaven. We do not see how this prayer can be answered until all mankind honor God’s moral law, which the psalmist declares to be perfect, converting the soul. Ps. 19:7; James 1:21. If the law which God wrote with his own finger upon tables of stone, and promised afterward to write in the hearts of his people, is perfect, we do not see how it can possibly be improved by any change, or any abrogation and re-enactment whatsoever. That the views we advocate are not peculiar to Seventh-day Adventists or Seventh-day Baptists, the following extracts very clearly prove:— “85. What does God require of man? “Obedience to his revealed will. ‘Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.’ Eccl. 12:13. “86. What is the rule of our obedience? “The moral law. ‘If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ Matt. 19:17. “87. Where is the moral law given? “103. Are all Christians under obligation to keep the law? “Yes; they are ‘not without law to God, but under the law to Christ.’ 1 Cor. 9:21. [In this connection the following texts are quoted in full: 1 Cor. 7:19; Matt. 5:17, 18.]”—Catechism of the M. E. Church, No. 2. “No Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.”—Methodist Discipline, p. 11, art. 6. “Are we under obligation to keep the moral law? “Yes; because that is founded on the nature of God and cannot be changed.”—Luther’s Shorter Catechism, art. 5. “The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard to the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.”—Confession of Faith of the “Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.” Barnes, in his notes on Matt. 5:18, says, “Of this kind are the ten commandments; and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded;” and that, by his coming “the moral law was confirmed and unchanged.” Dr. Adam Clarke, in his notes on Rom. 3:31, says:— “We may understand also, the moral law, that which relates to the regulation of the manners or conduct of men. This law also was established by the doctrine of salvation by faith; because this faith works by love, and love is the principle of obedience, and whosoever receives salvation through faith in Christ, receives power to live in holy obedience to every moral precept.” A. Smith.