Earlier text: PATIENCETHE accounts from different parts of the field are encouraging. The brethren stand firm. The excitement on definite time has not moved them. Why should it? Their position in all respects being explainable, they cannot be shaken. The true Sanctuary and its cleansing is the link connecting the past with the present and future. Other adverse influences have as little effect upon those who know their true position from the word of God. It is a matter of great encouragement, that a few restless spirits, who have been a perplexity and burden to the cause, have taken a stand by themselves. If they continue their present work till they draw out from the Lord's flock all of their kind, it will afford everlasting relief to God's people. If we still pursue our work, and do our duty and no more, and let the Lord take care of the jewels, we shall soon see them all united with the body in spite of the Dragon. We are happy to learn that the brethren in Orangeport, Barre, Mill Grove, Clarkson and Parma, are united and free. A number have stopped the REVIEW (not Sabbath-keepers) since the commencement of the present volume, but not as many as might be expected; and their places have been fully filled, and perhaps more by new subscribers. We have no real cause of discouragement. The REVIEW has been freely and fully sustained, and will be. Those who have the cause at heart will cheerfully see to this. The debts of the Office, of which we spoke last week, have not been occasioned by the publication of the REVIEW; but by the publication of large editions of important works very much needed. We expect that the Office will be relieved immediately by the sale of Tracts, and payment for the REVIEW in advance. This is a favorable season of the year to spread the truth before our friends, and all who will listen to its voice. They now have more time to read our works and compare them with the Scriptures of truth. We now earnestly invite our friends to aid us by purchasing our works for circulation, and thus do their duty to their fellow-men. By untiring efforts the cause has been advanced in times past, and God calls on all, by his word and providence, to arouse themselves to greater zeal in this glorious work. There can be no doubt respecting this being the period of the third call to the great supper. See Luke xiv, 15-24. The Master is now saying to his servants, "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled." From this we may learn that the message is not to the proud and rich. Self-righteous professors have not an ear to hear. They will seldom open their houses of worship, or come to hear us. But our message is to the mixed multitude, in the highways and hedges, rich and poor, professors and non-professors. "He that hath an ear, let him hear." We may also see that greater efforts are required now than formerly. "Compel them to come in," is the language employed, which signifies the earnest entreaties to be used to constrain men to come to the truth. We must labor zealously and patiently to accomplish anything for God. We must sacrifice for the truth in this last compelling message as we never have before, and as others before us have not done. In the highways and hedges we must call unto our fellow-men to come into the Lord's house, "whose house are we," says Paul, "if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." We should take the best, and all proper means to get them out to hear the message, the brethren and sisters should talk it by the fire-side, and they should judiciously scatter publications far and near. The providence of God is opening the way for the message to be brought before the people. From all parts of the field are calls for some one to come and preach the truth. The people wish to hear. This is encouraging, yet it is painful that there are so few among us to go with the message. "The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest." Let one united cry go up to the Lord of the harvest for laborers, to enter the wide fields already white for the gospel sickle. Formerly we have not been able to get access to the people; now the people want to hear, and in many places are calling for some one to come and preach the message to them. The church should keep pace with the opening providence of God. By her faith, her sacrifices and her faithful warnings and entreaties, she can accomplish the great work left to the remnant church to perform. The destinies of souls hang upon her faithfulness. O that the church of God could feel the importance of this hour, and the responsibility that rests upon her. Time is flying. The command has gone forth, "Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in," yet but few feel that they have a part to act in this matter. Dear reader, awake to your own condition, the shortness of probationary time, and the importance of acting a part for God and his cause, while you may. How sad the lamentation, how dreadful will soon be the wail—"The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved." Jer. viii, 20. It is a matter of great encouragement that God has blest every effort judiciously put forth to advance his cause. We would here mention the Tent-meetings held the past season in Michigan and New England. It was rather an experiment, but has met with far greater success than was expected. Much can be done with Tents, and but little can be accomplished in the summer season in any other way. For example—One year since at our conference in Springfield, Mass., a good Hall was obtained, and the people were notified by hand-bills, and through a daily paper, yet on First-day but few were present excepting believers. But on the 6th inst. 1200 persons were assembled to hear the word at the Tent-meeting held in that city. It is thought that there should be as many as five Tents moving next season. Brethren, make up your minds to work for God, and to see the cause advance gloriously. Be ready with your means to act well your part. The Law of God and Baptism.
THE Apostle, in Rom. vi, anticipates the objection of those who would make void the law through faith—make Christ the minister of sin—and sin that grace may abound—professing to commend God's righteousness through Christ by their own unrighteousness, or sin. He says we shall not continue transgressing the law that grace may abound; for if we are in Christ, we are dead to sin; if dead to it, we cannot live in it, as death and life are opposites. Here we must proceed in our examination with great caution, as many have misconstrued or perverted the language of the Apostle in Chaps. vi and vii. First, we must ascertain what is meant by being dead to sin. It is clearly shown in Chaps. ii and iii, that all the world, both Jew and Gentile, are under the law because all have sinned, or transgressed the law. Thus also Christ was made under the law, because he was made sin for us. He took our condition, was made sin for us, that he might occupy our position, be under the law, that he might redeem them that were under the law, that they might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. v, 21; Gal. iv, 4, 5. Perhaps no scripture can be found more strongly expressive of the perpetuity and justice of the law, than that which shows that after the Saviour died to meet the demands of the law for us, we must reckon ourselves dead with Christ, and are held under the law, as being condemned by it, until we die with him. But if on the other hand, our opponents have the truth, viz., that the law is dead, then we have presented to us the singular anomaly of a living man being held under the dominion of a dead law! If Christ had abolished the law at his death, or if we could make it void through faith in Christ, then we should certainly be freed from it, without dying to it. All are under sin, and the wages of sin is death; [Rom. vi. 23;] and for this reason, that the law demands the life of the transgressor, the law hath dominion over a man, or he is under the law, so long as he liveth. Chap. vii, 1. The endeavor has been made to use the illustration presented in this chapter to teach an opposite doctrine. The woman is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is free from the law of her husband, and may be married to another. Then as we are married to Christ, as is taught in verse 4, some argue that we are represented by the woman, the law being represented by the husband that is dead. But this is a very unjust conclusion. The illustration plainly teaches that death is necessary to change the woman's relation to the law, while no change in the condition of the law is intimated. But the Apostle draws his own conclusion; he says: "Ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ;" and in verse 1, before he brings in the illustration, he says, "the law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth." The whole tenor of his argument in both these chapters proves it; and in the margin of verse 6 it reads, "being dead to that wherein we were held;" [Whiting's translation;] "being dead to that by which we were held." [Macknight, verse 4.] "Ye have been put to death by the law;" [verse 6;] "having died in that by which we were tied;" [Campbell and Doddridge;] "having died with Christ, we are released from the law." If we are dead to the law, we are no longer under the law: we are free from its curse; and to us there is no condemnation. Our sins are borne away by Christ, who died for them; we die with him to have them removed from us; in this manner being free from, or dead to them; and if dead to sin, we cannot live in it; [Chap. vi, 2;] and that we are dead to sin we have manifested by being baptized into the death of Christ. Verse 3. As we have died with him, so we have been buried with him by baptism into death; [verse 4;] and as he was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we emerge from the watery grave to live another, or a new life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Verse 5. If implies, or introduces a condition. In order to the enjoyment of the promised blessings, we must comply with the condition on which it is based. In order to be in the likeness of his resurrection, for which Paul labored, as well as the ancient worthies; [Phil. iii, 10; Heb. xi, 35;] we must be planted or buried by baptism in the likeness of his death. There is a resurrection not unto life; [John v, 29; Rev. xx, 6;] therefore we must labor to secure, not merely a resurrection, but a "better resurrection," even the "likeness" of Christ's resurrection. So the condition is not merely "being buried," but "being buried with him by baptism into death"—"planted in the likeness of his death;" and the order as given in the scripture is this: [1 Cor. xv, 3, 4;] Christ first died for our sins, next was buried, and then rose again. In like manner, or in this likeness, we must first die to the law, then be buried by baptism, and then rise to walk in newness of life. How can this be done by those who deny the obligation to keep the law under this dispensation; who say the law is dead, and that they do not die to it? If the law is dead they cannot be held by it; and if they are not held by it, they do not die to it. But if they do not die to it, they cannot be buried by baptism into death, but must, if baptized, be buried alive, or without dying. Hence, they cannot walk in newness of life, or in a new life, but must be living the same old life they formerly lived—under sin. But he that is dead is free from sin. Verse 7. As Christ died for sin once, but now lives to God, so we must be dead to sin, but alive to God through Christ. If we have been freed from the service of85sin, or transgression, we should not let it reign in our mortal bodies, or triumph over us, to cause us to serve it in lust. Verse 13. Neither suffer our members to be used as instruments in the service of sin, but yield ourselves to God, and our members as instruments in the cause of righteousness, or right doing. Then we shall be free from sin, it having no more dominion over us, because we have died to it, Christ having redeemed us from the curse of the law, and placed us under grace. The word psuche, is the only word in the New Testament which is translated soul. The following list presents every instance of its occurrence in the New Testament; the word in italics, being the rendering of this word in every case. Matt. ii, 20. which sought the young child's life. vi, 25. Take no thought for your life, what ye — Is not the life more than meat, x, 28. but are not able to kill the soul, — to destroy, both soul and body in hell. 39. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake, xi, 29. and ye shall find rest unto your souls. xii, 18. in whom my soul is well pleased: xvi, 25. whosoever will save his life shall lose it; and whosoever will lose his life, 26. and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? xx, 28. to give his life a ransom for many. xxii, 37. with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, xxvi, 38. my soul is exceeding sorrowful. Mark iii, 4. to save life or to kill? viii, 35. whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever shall lose his life, 36. gain the whole world, and lose his own soul 37. give in exchange for his soul? x, 45. to give his life a ransom for many. xii, 30. with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, 33. the understanding, and with all the soul, xiv, 34. My soul is exceeding sorrowful. Luke i, 46. My soul doth magnify the Lord, ii, 35. shall pierce through thy own soul vi, 9. to save life or to destroy it? ix, 24. whosoever will save his life shall — whosoever will lose his life for my sake, 56. is not come to destroy men's lives, but x, 27. all thy heart, and with all thy soul, xii, 19. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou 20. this night thy soul shall be required 22. Take no thought for your life, what 23. The life is more than meat, xiv, 26. yea, and his own life also, xvii, 33. whosoever shall seek to save his life xxi, 19. In your patience possess ye your souls. John x, 11. the good shepherd giveth his life for 15. I lay down my life for the sheep, 17. because I lay down my life, 24. How long dost thou make us (lit. our soul) xii, 25. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this 27. Now is my soul troubled; xiii, 37. I will lay down my life for thy sake. 38. Wilt thou lay down thy life for my xv, 13. that a man lay down his life for his Acts ii, 27. thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, 31. that his soul was not left in hell, 41. about three thousand souls. 43. fear came upon every soul: iii, 23. every soul, which will not hear iv, 32. were of one heart and of one soul: vii, 14. his kindred, three-score and fifteen souls. xiv, 2. and made their minds evil affected 22. Confirming the souls of the disciples xv, 24. subverting your souls, saying, 26. Men that have hazarded their lives xx, 10. for his life is in him 24. neither count I my life dear xxvii, 10. lading and ship, but also of our lives. 22. there shall be no loss of any man's life 37. two hundred three-score and sixteen souls. Rom. ii, 9. upon every soul of man that doeth xi, 3. I am left alone, and they seek my life. xiii, 1. Let every soul be subject unto xvi, 4. have for my life laid down (soul) 1 Cor. xv, 45. The first man Adam was made a living 2 Cor. i, 23. I call God for a record upon my soul, xii, 15. gladly spend and be spent for you; (lit. for your souls.) Eph. vi, 6. doing the will of God from the heart; Phil. i, 27. with one mind, striving together for ii, 30. not regarding his life, Col. iii, 23. whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, 1 Thess. ii, 8. but also our own souls. v, 23. your whole spirit and soul Heb. iv, 12. dividing asunder of soul and spirit, vi, 19. we have as an anchor of the soul. x, 38. my soul shall have no pleasure 39. that believe to the saving of the soul, xii, 3. lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. xiii, 17. for they watch for your souls. James i, 21. which is able to save your souls. v, 20. shall save a soul from death, 1 Peter i, 9. even the salvation of your souls. 22. Seeing ye have purified your souls ii, 11. which war against the soul; 25. and Bishop of your souls. iii, 20. few, that is, eight souls were saved iv, 19. commit the keeping of their souls 2 Peter ii, 8. vexed his righteous soul from 14. beguiling unstable souls: 1 John iii, 16. he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives 3 John 2. even as thy soul prospereth. Rev. vi, 9. I saw under the altar the souls of them viii, 9. which were in the sea, and had life, died, xii, 11. they loved not their lives unto the xvi, 3. every living soul died in the sea. xviii, 13. and slaves, and souls of men, 14. the fruits that thy soul lusted xx, 4. the souls of them that were beheaded for DON'T BREAK THE SABBATH.
By Uriah Smith
WHEN, on the subject of the Sabbath, which occupies so prominent a place in the creeds of almost all denominations, we see publications written by doctors of divinity, and issued by such associations as the American Tract Society, we are bound to consider them standard works, and the best that can be produced for their respective positions. Whatever admissions they make, and whatever positions they assume, we must regard as the voice of all those who practically adopt their sentiments. We have a Tract before us, the leading title of which is expressed in the above heading. It was written (although we do not sanction giving titles to mortal men, which belong to God alone, see Ps. cxi, 9) by Rev. William Nevins, D. D., and published by the American Tract Society. Having said this, it is hardly necessary to state, that like all other writings on this subject which have the approval of popular theology, it goes on to assume that the first day of the week is the Sabbath for this dispensation. It is to the manner in which it does this, that we wish to call attention. That a treatise holding such a position in regard to Sunday-keeping, should make the admissions which we here find, is not a little singular. It may be interesting to notice a few of its statements. It contains some good reasoning on the obligation and perpetuity of the law; but it has positions which we wish to compare with the word of God; if by this unerring standard they shall be disproved, neither the authority of doctors of divinity, nor the sanction and patronage of the American Tract Society should shield them from just condemnation. It opens as follows: "Some people consider that this caution [don't break the Sabbath] is quite unnecessary; that we have no Sabbath now which we are under any particular obligation to keep, and therefore no Sabbath to break; that it is a privilege of the new dispensation over the old, that it has no day of rest, but now they are all working days; that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, and is done away. "It is very true, that the Sabbath is done away in the practice of many, but I know of no precept doing it away. The subject may have done it away, but the Lawgiver has not. Now, I very much question the right of the subject to do away a law. I can show any one, who wishes to see it, the enactment of the law of the Sabbath. I can tell him when it was enacted, under what circumstances, and in what language. But can any one point me to the repeal of the law? When was it repealed? Where is the account of it?" Again, in disproving the idea that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution, the writer says: "Are not all mankind equally interested in the creation of the world? Do not all alike need a memorial of it? Or, if that was a reason why the Sabbath should be in force 4,000 years, is it not equally a reason why it should be in force 6,000 years? Should the creation of the world be forgotten, and cease to be commemorated, at the end of 4,000 years? It is strange that since the reason of the Sabbath is not exclusively Jewish, the obligation of it should be supposed to be. It seems surprising that God should derive the reason of a particular law from a general event—an event in which the whole race are equally interested, and which it is equally important all should remember." Two beautiful facts are here admitted, viz., that the Sabbath has been in force since the creation of the world, and that it is a memorial of that work; and, says the writer, "Do not all alike need a memorial of it?" and, "Should the creation of the world be forgotten, and cease to be commemorated, at the end of 4,000 years?" "But why need we spend time in showing that the Sabbath was not exclusively a Jewish institution? Our Saviour, it seems to me, settles that point. He says, 'The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.' Now, he would not be the Lord of it, if there was to be no Sabbath under his dispensation, unless some one will say that he was the Lord of it just to do it away, in opposition to his own declaration that he came not to destroy any part of the law: and in defect of any precept repealing it; and in contrariety to his own practice, which was a strict observance of it." It is here admitted that for Christ to destroy any part of the law would be in direct opposition to his own declaration; that there is no precept repealing it; and that the practice of our Lord was a strict observance of it. "There is another remark of Christ which, it seems to me, decides, beyond all question, that the Sabbath was not exclusively a Jewish institution. He says, 'The Sabbath was made for MAN,' employing the most unrestricted and universal term he could select. It was made, not for this or that man—the Jewish man, the man86of past centuries—but for man in all his universality and perpetuity—in all his generations and dispersions. It is a law for the whole race, and for all time; an institution adapted to human nature, and intended for the human family. The Sabbath was made for man. I stand upon this passage, and proclaim the institution universal and perpetual, and challenge confutation. It belongs as much to the American of the 19th century, as it did to the Jew before the Christian era." "I am aware that some persons are not entirely satisfied when we show them that there is no repeal of the law of the Sabbath in the New Testament. They would have had it re-enacted; they wonder why it was not. But do laws require to be re-enacted in order to remain in force? Who ever heard of such a thing as re-enacting unrepealed laws? Do human legislatures so? and should the divine Lawgiver resort to that novelty, that trifling?" A just and fitting rebuke for those who foolishly insist upon a re-enactment of the Sabbath law. But he proceeds:— "I do not at all like some of the CONSEQUENCES which follow from the doctrine that the Sabbath is done away. Then we have but nine commandments left us: only nine of the ten written by the finger of God on the tables of stone are in force. We do as bad as some others; they erase the second, and we the fourth. Now, the second was not re-enacted by Christ any more than was the fourth; he left them all just as he found them." In treating still further upon the view that the Sabbath is done away, our author says: "Another consequence of this doctrine is, that we have no day now which is a memorial of the great works of God. There used to be a day to remind men of the work of creation; but, according to this view, there is none now." He shortly adds, however, "Reader it must be that we have a Sabbath—a consecrated seventh of time. Yes we have a Sabbath; the ten commandments are all obligatory. We have a memorial of the creation of God, and a pledge of the heavenly rest. There is something to break; and the caution with which this tract commences is not superfluous." Thus far if we rightly apprehend he has reasoned correctly. With the exception of one declaration that the early christians observed the "Lord's day" in commemoration of the "new creation," we find nothing that militates against the word of God; nothing which deviates from its plain teaching that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and that the claims of this holy institution are universal and perpetual. But the teaching of the Bible must not be left in its simplicity; for from this alone no one would ever mistrust that he must observe the Sunday: something must be said to justify the prevailing practice of the present day. This Mr. Nevins now endeavors to do; and in his very first attempt he runs off upon an unqualified assumption. He exclaims, "But why was the DAY CHANGED?" Now why does he ask this question? Where has he received any intimation that the day has been changed? has he found it in the Scriptures? He has not yet produced it. It must be on account of the practice of christendom. And this is considered sufficient ground (!) for assuming absolutely a point without producing the first shadow of evidence in its favor! Thus at the very outset of his First-day theory, we find him taking for granted what he should have proved; following tradition, not truth. But, still speaking of the change, he continues, "Why was that liberty taken with the Sabbath? If that might be taken, why not another and still another?" We repeat, Why not? and were the writer now among the accountable inhabitants of earth, we would submit the question to him, and we doubt seriously whether he could answer it, though it be one of his own asking. It is well said, "Why was that liberty taken." To take the liberty to do anything, is, according to Webster, to use freedom not specially granted. In speaking of a law or an institution, this expression could not apply to its author; and to apply it to any one else is to admit that they used freedom not granted; therefore those who changed the Sabbath, did what they had no warrant for doing—a truth which all should admit. Why this liberty was taken, at first, and by whom, is told us by the prophet Daniel, chap. vii. 25. Why it would not be just as proper to take any and every other liberty with the Sabbath, is a question for Sunday-keepers yet to answer; we contend that it would. But it might be expected that he would endeavor to make some defense of the position he has taken. Hear then what he says: "The change is not material; the substance of the law is retained; only a circumstance of it is altered. Now, does a change in a mere circumstance of a law authorize a taking away of the entire substance of it? The Sabbath is still a seventh portion of our time. The week is no longer, and the day is as long, and it comes as the other did, a day of rest after six days of labor. Where is the very great change? It is true, we call our Sabbath the first day of the week, but it is the seventh with reference to the preceding six of labor." A poor plea for the palliation of the outrage committed against God's holy law. No attempt is made to offer the shadow of reason for the change but to justify the deed an attempt is made to gloss the matter over, and make it appear not so great a change after all. On the claims of his reasoning we need not comment. Again he says, "We hallow the first day of the week, because the apostles observed that day, and doubtless it was by the authority of their Master, who being the Lord of the Sabbath, had of course a right to change the day on which it should be kept, and call it after himself, 'the Lord's day.'" Here then we have fairly laid out the foundation of Sunday-keeping. He says, "We hallow the first day of the week," &c. That is true so far as the day is hallowed; for God, at the beginning, hallowed a different day, even the seventh, from which he has never taken his blessing; and he has never hallowed any other. How then will this man-sanctified day meet the demands of the Sabbath law. As a reason for this act he says it is because the apostles observed that day (a pure assumption) and doubtless (!) it was by the authority of their divine Master who being Lord of the Sabbath, had, of course, a right to change the day on which it should be kept, and call it after himself, the Lord's day. If ever a man could be said to be building on sand, it might be said of him who would attempt to build a theory upon such a foundation. That the apostles observed the day is an unscriptural assertion; but admitting that they did, had they any direction for so doing from the great Teacher? According to Mr. N.'s own admission, even this is all a matter of uncertainty; though "doubtless!" they had. But how does this agree with some statements which we have already noticed? There are but two ways in which our Lord could have made known to his apostles their duty to observe Sunday: that is either by precept or practice; but Mr. N. has already admitted that the practice of our Saviour was a "strict observance of it." What day did he observe? The seventh of course; for no one claims that during his ministry the time had come for any change. So far then as our Lord's practice is concerned, it sanctions the seventh not the first day. But what in regard to precept? As the Sabbath is embraced in the law, the declaration of our Saviour that he came not to destroy it, embraces that also; and here we find it admitted that there is no precept repealing it. Neither is there any, changing it; and God cannot change it and be true to himself; for he has declared that he would not alter what has gone out of his lips. Ps. lxxxix, 34. What has gone out of his lips? Amid the thunders of Sinai we hear him declare, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." But another declaration demands more special attention. Speaking of the commandments we have heard him say, "Now the second was not re-enacted by Christ any more than was the fourth; he left them all just as he found them." How did he find them? He found them as they were uttered by Jehovah from Mt. Sinai. He found the fourth commandment requiring the observance of the seventh day which God had specified. He found a people observing that day, and he himself observed it. Did he leave it as he found it? So says this statement; but not so the other which says that the apostles observed the first day, doubtless by the authority of their divine Master, who being Lord of the Sabbath, had a right to change the day on which it should be kept. Here then we find at least one palpable contradiction in the Doctor's theory. Considerable stress is laid upon the fact that the Sabbath is a memorial of the creation. He says, "The ten commandments are all obligatory. We have a memorial of the creation of God." We ask now, Will the first day answer these conditions. It will be readily admitted that an event which requires for its commemoration the observance of some day, cannot be commemorated by observing any other day than that on which it occurred. Therefore we cannot commemorate God's rest on the seventh day, by observing the first; for that is not the day on which it occurred. The fourth commandment enjoins the observance of a day which will commemorate the rest of Jehovah; if the first day will not do this, it will not satisfy the requirements of that command; and hence it will be seen that by observing it, the commandment is disregarded, and the Sabbath institution totally destroyed. Mr. Nevins then does in reality what he denounces when done openly. He claims that if we should deny the existence of the Sabbath, we should do as bad as some others; for while they erase the second, we should the fourth. While therefore Mr. N. does this in effect, we can but regard him and his adherents as "as bad as some others." Still further we read, "If we have no recorded precept, directing us to keep our Sabbath on the first day of the week, yet we have what is as satisfactory, the practice of men, who, in matters of religion, acted never without divine direction." In the first place we deny that we have any such practice as is here spoken of; but even if we had, should this be as satisfactory as a plain command of God? But did this reason originate with Mr. N.? We think not. There is another class of people who have long urged this in defense of the institution of Sunday-keeping. We will hear their testimony: "Question. What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath which was the Saturday?" "Ans. We have for it the authority of the Catholic Church, and apostolic tradition." "Q. Does the Scriptures anywhere command the Sunday to be kept for the Sabbath?" "A. The Scripture commands us to hear the church [Matt. xviii. 17; Luke x. 16.] and to hold fast the traditions of the Apostles. 2 Thess. ii. 15. But the Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath."—Catholic Christian Instructed. "Question. By whom was it changed?" "Answer. By the Governors of the church, the Apostles, who also kept it; for St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, (which was Sunday,) Apoc. i. 10."—Abridgment of Christian Doctrine. (Catholic.) "Question. Had the church power to make such a change?" "Answer. Certainly, since the Spirit of God is her guide, the change is inspired by that Holy Spirit."—Catholic Catechism of the Christian Religion. The fact that this reasoning for Sunday-keeping is drawn from the Papacy, is sufficient comment. He next asks, "How are we to spend this seventh portion of time?" This question we will let those answer who instituted this seventh portion of time. "Question. Which are the chief duties of religion, in which we should spend the Sundays?" "Ans. Hearing mass devoutly, attending vespers, or evening prayers; reading moral and pious books; and going to communion."—Butler's Catechism. He asks again, "Have we any rule to direct us how to observe it? It would seem as if we ought to have one. But we have none unless the fourth commandment is that rule; and if the fourth commandment is still obligatory, it must, since it relates to the manner of observing a day, be designed to instruct how we are to keep our Sabbath, or Lord's day. The inference is irresistible." This is the extremity to which all First-day observers are driven. They find no precept enjoining the observance of that day; they find no direction how it should be observed; but they must have something of the kind to give it sanctity; therefore they rob the true Sabbath of the law which God gave to sustain it, and with that stolen command endeavor to enforce the observance of the next day. "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me." Mal. iii, 8.87Thus they make void the fourth commandment, and directly violate the eighth, in their attempts to sustain this offspring of Paganism. There is one more singular admission which we can but notice. It is this: "The law proceeds, 'but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' Sabbath means rest. The seventh is the rest of the Lord and therefore should be ours." This is a true statement, and in harmony with Scripture; but it is directly contrary to other statements which as we have seen he has previously made. Is he so blind, or does he think his readers so blind as to perceive no contradiction to think that when a person says the seventh, he means the first? or to think that any other day than that which God has commanded will answer his requirements? And will the plea that the first is the seventh with regard to the preceding six, avail him anything? What if it is? So is any day; and thus in a summary manner we might make the commandment of God void and of none effect. Or does he think that the people of the present age are in possession of that faith which has been described as "—a lazy, corpulent,
And over-credulous faith, that leaned on all
It met, nor asked if 'twas a reed or oak;
Stepped on, but never earnestly inquired
Whether to heaven or hell the journey led?" If so they may rest upon the arguments here presented for Sunday-keeping as perfectly satisfactory, and never once inquire on what they are based; otherwise they will not. Had the tract been written for a priest-ridden people who take his word for their gospel and receive unquestioned, whatever comes from his lips, as sacred truth, we had not wondered at it; but when a man in an enlightened land cautions his fellowmen not to break the Sabbath, we are surprised to see him endeavor, by a few baseless inferences, to destroy the institution, and turn men to the observance of another day which will not answer the requirements of the Sabbath law.
U. S. THE above is taken from Bro. Waggoner's work on the Law of God, pp. 61—64, which we fully endorse. In regard to re-baptism we have seen fanaticism, persons being immersed a number of times, without being able to assign any good reason for so doing. This has led us to move cautiously. But the above throws light upon the subject. A scriptural death and burial are set forth in a clear light, and both are certainly necessary. Says the Apostle, when speaking of the Royal Law, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, (shall fail with respect to one precept, Macknight,) he is guilty of all." James ii, 10. Do not those who observe the first day of the week instead of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, fail in one point, or precept? Most certainly they do. Then they are guilty of all, or are guilty of the transgression of the law of God. "For he (or that law, margin) that said, Do not commit adultery, said, also, Do not kill." The same law says, "Remember the Sabbath day," &c. "Here are they that keep the commandments of God," &c. The law of God is now presented in the manner of a special message. It is the instrument by which the sinner is slain. See Rom. vii, 7-12. Here is presented a scriptural death to sin. Burial follows of necessity. May not those therefore, who are convinced of transgressing the fourth commandment, that they are guilty of breaking God's law, and are slain by the truth, and thus die a Bible death, have a Bible burial. The Word HELL in the New Testament.
THERE are three words in the New Testament which are rendered into the English by the word hell. These are hades, gehenna and tartaroo. The first, which occurs eleven times, signifies the place of the dead, the place from which the righteous and the wicked will be brought by the resurrection. The second, which occurs twelve times, signifies the place of future punishment—the lake of fire. And the third, which occurs but once, signifies the place to which the fallen angels were cast. The words in italics are the ones by which these words are rendered into English in the following list: