Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 18.

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

Review and Herald

Oct 15, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 15, 1872

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

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

SECOND PROPOSITION.

“Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day was made a Sabbath after the Exodus of the Israelites out of Egypt?”
Eld. Vogel, affirms; Eld. Waggoner, denies.

ELD. PETER VOGEL’S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE.

I will proceed with my affirmative argument, leaving Eld. W.’s last paper to be reviewed in my next.
IV. The Sabbath was given by Moses in a sense that circumcision was not. But Moses gave circumcision as a pre-existent institution, incorporated into the law. Gen. 17:9–14; Lev. 12:1–3. If, therefore, the Sabbath was given by him in a different sense, it was not pre-existent, but originated with him.
John 7:22, 23: “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers; and ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the Sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken [margin, without breaking the law of Moses]; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day?”
1. The king’s translators placed “without breaking the law of Moses” in the margin, accompanied by parallels (||), to indicate that in their judgment it is equal to the rendition in the body of the work.
2. “The Student’s Treasury Bible,” published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., and prepared by “a late Regius Professor of Biblical Criticism and of Biblical Antiquities,” retains the marginal reading of the common version, because the rendering of the body of the work is considered to be “defective.”
3. Tholuck, a commentator of no mean ability and repute, in his work on John, interprets this passage in accordance with the English marginal reading. And his testimony has more than ordinary weight since it is against the tenets of his school. What but a stubborn necessity could have wrung from him the following paraphrase: “Ye transgress the law [the Sabbath] to perform a sacred, beneficent work [circumcision], on that one portion of man; will you be angry at me, when I perform a work with the same characteristics, on the entire man?” p. 202.
But I do not rest my cause on the authority of others. A good reason stands with me high above all human authority. I submit the following as conclusive proof that the marginal reading is substantially correct, and that the Sabbath originated with Moses:
1. If the reading in the body of the Bible be correct, and it be true that the Sabbath was given at creation, then there is no force in the Saviour’s calling attention to the fact that circumcision was not of Moses, but had an earlier existence, since this would be equally true of the Sabbath.
2. There is evidently a contrast instituted between the Sabbath and circumcision to the effect that one was of Moses in a sense that the other was not. But on the supposition that the Sabbath had a prior existence as well as circumcision, such a contrast would be impossible.
3. On the supposition that the Sabbath was the older law, the Jews could have replied to Christ effectually and without embarrassment, thus: The older law is set aside by the later, so far as it comes in conflict with it, as when God commanded the Jews to march around Jericho and spoil the city on the Sabbath. Josh. 6:2–5, 21. So in the case of our circumcising a man on the Sabbath we obeyed the later law.
4. On the supposition that the Sabbath was the later law, and so of Moses in a sense that circumcision was not, and on this only is there any point in the Saviour’s attack upon the Jews. His argument may be stated thus:
a. The Sabbath is the later law, since circumcision though given by Moses is not of Moses, i.e., did not originate with him. The later law should, as a rule, obtain or have the precedence in case of conflict.
b. But ye on the Sabbath day circumcise a man, and yet claim not to have violated the law of Moses. You have made the later law yield to the older and think you have done no wrong!
c. How then can you charge upon me a violation of the Sabbath, the later law, by following the older, the eternal principle of mercy, in healing a man on the Sabbath? You are inconsistent. Moreover, in your case it was a conflict of positive with positive law, in mine, of moral with positive. And further, I have in this really followed a later law than the Sabbath, a special command of my Father: “The works which my Father hath given me to finish.” John 5:36. Thus we see the full force of Christ’s charge: “Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?” John 7:19.
V. The Sabbath was a type. But a type in Eden and before the fall, where Eld. W. places the origin of the Sabbath, would have been out of all character. Therefore it was not given in Eden, and was not based on what my brother calls “primary truth,” since “no typical institution or merely positive duty can grow out of original relations.” And thus is he stripped of the last vestige of difference between the seventh day and yearly sabbaths, which he so confidently insisted on in his opening article. And when the Sabbath is once torn away from Eden, where can we so naturally place this typical institution as in the typical dispensation of Moses? Where can we find authority to place it anywhere else?
But was the Sabbath a type? So Paul says. Col. 2:16, 17: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow [type] of things to come; but the body [casting the shadow, the antitype] is of Christ [i. e., the gospel].” I am not now concerned respecting what the Sabbath was a type, but simply about the fact that it was a type.
The expression, “Sabbath days,” I here understand to refer to the weekly Sabbath exclusively. It may be possible, as Macknight understands it, that it refers to sabbaths of every description, annual and weekly; but it does not seem so to me.
Compare 1 Chron. 23:31, with Col. 2:16, where the same terms occur.
1. The plural form often refers only to the weekly Sabbath.
b. It is common in Greek to use the plural of Sabbath for the singular. See, e.g., Ex. 16:23, 25, 26, 29; 20:8, 9; Matt. 12:1, where the Greek is plural, but rendered by the singular in English. These references show that the plural form in Col. 2 is not against me.
2. The “Sabbaths” of Col. 2:16, refer exclusively to the weekly Sabbaths, since the seven annual sabbaths are included in and described by the term “holy day” (Gr. heortee). For,
a. What other office can we assign to heortee, in Col. 2:16?
b. This term is used in Acts 18:21, to describe Pentecost, one of the annual sabbaths; and in Lev. 23 it is used to designate every one of the seven yearly sabbaths, being the only term rendered “feast” in that chapter. See verses 2, 4, 6, 39.
VI. The Sabbath was pre-eminently Jewish, given to them only, and observed by them alone.
1. This follows from the fact already noticed, that it was given in memory of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage. Deut. 5:15.
2. It was commanded to their fathers, but is nowhere else said to have been commanded to any other people. Jer. 17:21, 22: “Thus saith the Lord: Take heed to yourselves, and bear no burden on the Sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem; neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the Sabbath day, neither do ye any work, but hallow ye the Sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers.”
3. It was a “sign” between God and the Hebrews only. Eze. 20:12: “Moreover also I gave them [the Israelites] my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them.” Ex. 31:13–18: “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations; that ye may know that I am the Lord that doth sanctify you. Ye shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. . . . Wherefore [all the world? No, but] the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath. . . . It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.”
Eld. W. labored to show that the Sabbath is not a sign between the Jews and the Gentiles. This man of straw he kills completely; but it is only a man of straw. These passages, however, prove what he does not want them to prove, namely, that the Gentiles had not the Sabbath; and hence also that the Sabbath was not made at creation, for then they would have had it. Had the Sabbath been observed also by the Gentiles, had it been a general thing, it could not have been a special sign. The Masons and the Odd Fellows have signs. A is at the head of both, and issues their pass-words. Let the pass-word of the Masons be used also by the Odd Fellows, and it ceases to be a sign by which A distinguishes the Masons. To be a Masonic sign, it must be their exclusive property. So let the Sabbath be GENERALLY observed and it is no longer a “sign” between God and the children of Israel. Eld. W. appealed to the wrong passage to sustain his cause.
VII. The Sabbath was not given to the Gentiles; hence not at creation, and not even to the Jews till to them as a people.
Ex. 20:10: “But the seventh day is the Sabbath of Jehovah thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates.” From this it follows,
1st. that “strangers” generally did not keep the Sabbath, but only such as were slaves to the Hebrews—“thy stranger.”
2d. When that slave was not “within” the gates of his master, that is, did not work for him, he was not required to keep the Sabbath. The reason of this prohibition obviously is that no Jew might work by proxy, just as his “cattle” were not allowed to work for him on that day.
Again. Isa. 56:1–8: “Thus saith the Lord, keep ye judgment and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. (2) Blessed is the man that doeth this, and the son of man that layeth hold on it; that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and keepeth his hand from doing any evil. (3) Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. (4) For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant; (5) Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. (6) Also the sons of the stranger, that join themselves to the Lord, to serve him, and to love the name of the Lord, to be his servants, every one that keepeth the Sabbath from polluting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; (7) Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called a house of prayer for all people. (8) The Lord God which gathereth the outcasts of Israel [the eunuchs] saith, Yet will I gather others to him, besides those that are gathered unto him.”
Isa. 54–56:8, is a prediction concerning the gospel dispensation. 1. Compare Isa. 54:1 and 56:1 with Gal. 4:27; also 56:7 with Matt. 21:13. 2. The “stranger” (Gentile) is to have a share in the favors spoken of as well as the Jew. Isa. 56:3, 6, compare Acts 10, Eph. 1 and 2. 3. The eunuch is to be also admitted with the Jew. Isa. 56:3–5, 8, compare Acts 8:26–40. But among the Jews they had no part. Deut. 23:1.
This prepares us to consider the following facts: In enumerating the glorious promises that shall be realized in the new dispensation, Isaiah calls attention to this, that the “stranger,” or Gentile, shall be admitted to the keeping of a day here predicted and described by the name of Sabbath; hence it follows that under the old dispensation the Gentile, or stranger, had no such right or privilege, that the Sabbath was not given to such, nor observed by them. Isa. 56:3, 6, 7. Had, however, the Sabbath been given at creation, or for all mankind, then the Gentile would have been under obligations to keep it during the old dispensation, as well as the Jew. This seems to me as final. What think you, reader?
So far, I sum up the argument, on this and the former propositions, thus:
I. I have, undoubtedly, approved precedent or example of keeping the Sabbath since the exodus, while Eld. W. has not shown, and cannot show, one before that event.
II. Argument No. 3 gives an express statement that the Sabbath was given since the exode, while there is none in favor of an earlier date, and in the nature of things cannot be, since God cannot lie or contradict himself.
III. All my other arguments, six in number, necessarily imply the giving of the Sabbath since the exode; and Eld. W. has failed to produce a single necessary implication of the giving of the Sabbath at creation.
IV. No argument attempted by Eld. W.in favor of the first proposition, even if successful, rises above a probable inference, which we have seen in the very outset “can never outweigh or stand against an approved precedent, a necessary inference, or an express command.”
V. The strength of my position is further seen in this: Suppose now that all my arguments are overthrown but one, then the field is still mine, since, whichever argument stands, it is above the probable, and so beyond the reach of his.
From this also follows this conclusion, namely, that Eld. W. has not established a single probability in favor of the first proposition, since the Bible does not furnish a fair probability against itself.

ELD. WAGGONER’S SECOND AFFIRMATIVE.

Eld. Vogel’s second affirmative is before me. In this he makes four points, marked IV to VII, which I will notice in order.
“IV. The Sabbath was given by Moses in a sense that circumcision was not.” In the sense that he intends, this is not proved. Indeed, I think I never saw an argument of the same length containing so many non-sequiturs—so many large conclusions from small premises—as his article under consideration. But the Sabbath was given in a sense that circumcision was not. It was given by the voice of Jehovah when he spake his “ten words” in the hearing of all his people. It was twice written by the finger of God on the tables of stone, as one of the immutable precepts of the Most High. No mere type or shadow ever had such honor.
Eld. V.’s argument for this point is based on the marginal reading of John 7:23. He says, “The king’s translators placed ‘without breaking the law of Moses’ in the margin, accompanied by parallels (||), to indicate that in their judgment it is equal to the rendition in the body of the work.” This sentence “accompanied by parallels (||),” stands in the above as giving weight to the marginal reading. The parallel (||) has no significance whatever, being only a mark of reference, and answers the same purpose as the asterisk (*), or the figure (2), in this text in my Bible, which is London print. Eld. V. shows a peculiar aptness to throw in such coloring sentences, which may well raise a suspicion of his argument. Truth does not need them.
1. There is no contrast raised by the Saviour between the Sabbath and circumcision. Nor is there any evidence or reasonable inference that Jericho was taken on the Sabbath. The “first day” and the “seventh day” are mentioned in the cases of the feasts, as in Lev. 23:4–8; but they are the first and seventh days of the feast; not of the week. So Jericho was to be compassed seven days, and the record refers to the days of the compassing, and not to the days of the week.
2. Tholuck’s paraphrase is of no weight at all, because he makes the Saviour say that to circumcise a man (child) on the Sabbath was a violation of the Sabbath; which he does not say. He vindicated his acts of healing on the Sabbath because they were “lawful.” Matt. 12:10–13. Even admitting the marginal reading,—“without breaking the law”—this paraphrase contradicts it. It is evidently used for effect—not for its relevancy.
3. It is often the case that the marginal is the better reading, but not in this. It is here inadmissible. On the text I quote,
Am. Bible Union.—“That the law of Moses may not be broken.”
Wakefield.—The same.
Alexander Campbell’s “Living Oracles.”—“That the law of Moses may not be violated.”
Murdock’s Translation of the Syriac.—The same.
Campbell and Macknight.—The same.
Anderson’s Translation, (Disciple).—Same as Bible Union.
Diaglot.—“So that the law of Moses may not be violated.”
Do., interlinear rendering.—Hina that mee not luthee may be loosed ho the nomos law Moseos of Moses.
And so Olshausen.—“Hina mee luthee ho nomos Moseos, is to be understood thus: in order that the law should not be broken.”
Clarke, (Comment.)—“That the law might not be broken which had enjoined the circumcision to take place at that time. Lev. 12:3.”
Parkhurst, Robinson, Liddell and Scott, Greenfield, Groves, Donnegan, &c., give, as the definition of hina; that; so that; to the end that; in order that. And of hina mee, that not; lest; lest that. No author- ity gives any “various reading” to the Greek. Several of the authors cited above were “no Sabbath” in theory. Every one can see that the common version is strictly correct, fixing the “law of Moses” to circumcision.
4. Another point is settled by this text. Eld. V. said that “‘made known’ is a kind of equivalent for ‘gavest,’” and then said that that which was known could not be made known. But Eze. 39:7, disproves that assertion. Here the Saviour says Moses gave them circumcision, and says also it was “of the fathers,”—they had it from Abraham. If it came down to them from Abraham, and was observed by them before the exode, how could Moses give it to them? But the Saviour says he did. Here is a settler for Eld. Vogel’s misconception of Neh. 9. It was not the original giving.
“V. The Sabbath was a type.” This he confidently affirms, and I as confidently deny it. His remark, “I am not now concerned respecting what the Sabbath was a type,” shows commendable discretion! To endeavor to find the antitype of the weekly Sabbath is a hopeless task. On this point he rests his case on Col. 2; that he misconstrues the text is easily shown.
He says that “sabbath days” here refer exclusively to the weekly Sabbath, since the annual sabbaths are described by “holy day,” and asks, “What other office can we assign to heortee in Col. 2:16?”
Heortee occurs 27 times in the N. T., rendered feast 26 times; holy day once, (this text), Heortazo, once, keep the feast. There were (annual) sabbaths connected with their feasts, but a feast day was not necessarily a Sabbath day; there were more feast days than there were Sabbath days. Hence the distinction in this passage. (Acts 18:21, Clarke says “most likely the passover.” But the whole clause is either rejected or marked doubtful by Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Sinaitic MS.; it is entirely wanting in many MSS.). Heortee refers to the feast days; “Sabbath days” to the annual sabbaths. They were alike in their origin. But Eld. V. exclaims exultingly, “Thus is he stripped of the last vestige of difference between the seventh day and yearly sabbaths.”
Not so fast, dear sir. It happens that not a point of difference that I claimed has yet been set aside.
a. It was based on the facts of creation. No annual sabbath was referable to creation.
b. It was the rest day of the Almighty. He did not rest from his work on any of the annual sabbaths.
c. God spake it with his own voice from Sinai. He did not name any of the annual sabbaths.
d. It was twice written by the finger of God on the tables of stone. No annual sabbath was placed there nor written by him.
e. It was put in the ark as a part of that moral code over which the priest sprinkled blood to make atonement. But the annual sabbaths were a part of that system which contained the priestly service.
f. Its sanctification (setting apart, appointing) rested solely on the work and acts of God. The other sabbaths were of the typical system (restitutionary), made necessary by the wrong-doing of man. Not one of these points of difference can be moved.
Eld. Vogel has said and re-iterated that he has “shown” that there is no difference. If his assertion is a showing, then he is right; otherwise, not. He has found fault with me because I say the work of, and rest from, creation is the reason of the appointment of the Sabbath. He may renew his complaint; I will a little further elucidate this grand truth. Notice the terms used in the fourth commandment. Wherefore—for this reason; the Lord blessed—spoke well of, put honor upon; the Sabbath day—the day of his rest from the work of creation; and hallowed it—set it apart, appointed it for observance. With these definitions in view, I will contrast his words with the words of Jehovah.
“Strictly speaking, God’s resting had but little to do with the Sabbath as a sacred rest.”—Eld. Vogel’s second reply.
The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work: for (because) in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; FOR THIS REASON the Lord put honor upon the rest-day and set it apart to a sacred use. This is exactly the signification of the terms used in the commandment. It is God’s own reason and his only reason for the appointment of the seventh day. Why not let the word of Jehovah settle this controversy? I confidently appeal to the reader as to whether I hazard anything in saying that God appointed the seventh day for this reason—that he rested thereon when he made heaven and earth. He expressly says so.
Now for Col. 2:16, 17. Paul speaks of meats, drinks, new moons, feasts, and sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come. We can point definitely forward to the work of Christ in the annual sabbaths; but when we take the word of Jehovah for the sanctification of the weekly Sabbath, it points only back to creation. Paul’s qualifying sentence, Col. 2:17, absolutely shuts out the Sabbath from his list of types.
“VI. The Sabbath was pre-eminently Jewish.” And wherefore?
“1. It was given in memory of their deliverance from Egypt.” No scripture says so. Its sanctification is never referred to anything of the kind. His inference from Deut. 5:15, has been shown to be unwarranted.
“2. It was commanded to their fathers.” True, and so were all moral duties without exception. He can no more prove that it was given to them only than he can prove that the precept to honor father and mother, or that forbidding profanity, was given to them only. No mention is made of blasphemy before the exode. Then the precept was “given to the Jews”—“commanded to their fathers.” Dare he undertake to show that it was given to any others? They were to honor their parents, that their days might be long upon the land which he gave them—Canaan. Was this precept given to the Gentiles, or to any who did not inherit that land? Is it not Jewish also? And thus it is that WHATEVER SUBVERTS THE SABBATH SUBVERTS ALL MORALITY. On this declaration I take my stand, prepared to defend it.
“3. It was a sign between God and the Hebrews only.” He says I completely killed the “man of straw,” that the Sabbath was a sign between the Jews and Gentiles (I said “to keep a distinction between them.”) It is a man of straw that I have had to demolish every time I have met a man of Bro. Vogel’s views. When he said I had completely killed it, I thought perhaps he might let it rest. But, no; he has to use it to evade the force of my reasoning. In his illustration, the Masons and Odd Fellows are made to represent the Jews and Gentiles. He says, “Let the pass-word of the Masons be used also by the Odd Fellows, and it ceases to be a sign to distinguish the Masons.” There is your straw man again! It is the very point at which I struck. Where does the Bible say it is a sign to distinguish the Jews from the Gentiles? It is a sign to distinguish the true God; it is a sign because he made the world in six days and rested the seventh day. Ex. 31. It is a sign that they might know he is God. Eze. 20:20. He thinks I have appealed to this text in vain, because he entirely misapprehends it. After confessing that I have killed the man of straw, he sets it up and adopts it as his own!
He says the Sabbath was not general, for if it had been given to and observed by the Gentiles, it would not have been a special sign. What does he mean by special? The Sabbath was God’s sign of creation. Israel had covenanted to keep God’s commandments—the Sabbath being one of them. Had they kept them, they would have been to him “a peculiar treasure above all people.” Ex. 19:5–8. Why? Because “all people” had turned away from God. But had all people served and obeyed God this peculiarity would not have existed. If the Jews would know that he was God—the Creator—by keeping creation’s memorial, so would the Gentiles. In the N. T., Christians are designated “a peculiar people.” What would the reader think if I should argue that the gospel cannot be general in its design, for if everybody should embrace it there would be no peculiar people? That is just what his argument amounts to.
Again he says, “‘Thy stranger within thy gates’ was to keep the Sabbath; therefore strangers generally were not to keep it!” Most singular conclusion! This does not indicate to whom the obligation extends, but, how far the individual responsibility of the householder extends.
Isa. 56:1–8, doubtless refers to the calling of the Gentiles; but that it teaches the introduction of a new Sabbath is quite another thing. A careful reading of Isaiah will show that chapters 53 to 59 are consecutive prophecy. Briefly I notice. Chapter 53 describes the passion of the Saviour; 54, the New Jerusalem; 55, the call to the gospel feast; 56:1–8, some blessings and duties concerning specified classes; 56:9, and 57, the great apostasy; 58, the reformation, from first to last, ending with a Sabbath reform, now, under God’s providence, in progress; 59, the end of the priesthood of Christ, the time of trouble, and the Judgment.
Now it will take more than Eld. V.’s assertion to make it appear that when the Lord says “my Sabbaths,” in chapter 56, he means something different from his Sabbath—his holy day—in chap. 58; or that in either text he refers to a new, and unknown, and unexplained institution. Eld. Vogel says, because the Gentile may “join himself to the Lord and keep his Sabbath in the new dispensation,” “hence it follows that under the old dispensation the Gentile or stranger had no such right or privilege.” Most of his “hences,” “it follows,” and “therefores,” are about of this kind. See Num. 15:14–16: “And if a stranger sojourn with you, or whosoever be among you in your generations, and will offer an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord; as ye do, so he shall do. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever in your generations; as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the Lord. One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.” Thus is his conclusion disproved. That the Gentiles had the privilege of sojourning among them and enjoying religious privileges, is also shown by Deut. 23:15, 16; Ex. 12:48, 49.
The Lord said by Jeremiah (12:14–17), concerning his “evil neighbors” who spoiled the inheritance of Israel, that he would pluck them out of the land; yet, “if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, The Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people. But if they will not obey, I will utterly pluck up and destroy that nation, saith the Lord.” Character was always more than birth in the sight of God.
When the Lord promised the kingdom to David and his seed, he said he would visit their transgressions with the rod if they kept not his commandments. Ps. 89:30–32. Their enjoyment of the kingdom depended upon their obedience to the law of God, Sabbath included. Jer. 17. But they did not obey; they were “a disobedient and gainsaying people.” And Jesus said to them, “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Matt. 21:43. James says the kingdom is promised to them that love God; chap. 2:5; and John says, “This is the love of God that we keep his commandments.” chap. 5:3. And Jesus again in Matt. 5:17–21, refers the consequences of keeping or breaking the commandments to the kingdom of Heaven. The conditions of the kingdom were never changed. The change of dispensation in respect to its object and effect will yet come up for investigation, and this subject will be further considered.

“THROUGH PEACE TO LIGHT.”

By A. A. Proctor

I do not ask, O Lord, that life may be A pleasant road; I do not ask that thou would’st take from me Aught of its load.
I do not ask that flowers should always spring Beneath my feet; I know too well the poison and the sting Of things too sweet.
For one thing only, Lord, dear Lord, I plead— Lead me aright, Though strength should falter and though heart should bleed, Through Peace to Light.
I do not ask, O Lord, that thou should’st shed Full radiance here; Give but a ray of peace; that I may tread Without a fear.
I do not ask my cross to understand, My way to see; Better in darkness just to feel thy hand And follow thee.
Joy is like the restless day, but peace divine Like quiet night; Lead me, O Lord, till perfect day shall shine Through Peace to Light.—A. A. Proctor.
Continue reading: The Coming of Christ—No. 7