Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 15. (9/24/1872)

Review and Herald

Sep 24, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 24, 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 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE.

Hitherto I have been on the negative, attempting to show that the passages of Scripture relied on by Eld. Waggoner to prove that the Sabbath was given at creation for man’s observance are thoroughly consistent with the giving of the Sabbath at a much later date. It is with pleasure that I now take the affirmative and attempt to show when the Sabbath was given. If I am successful in locating its origin this side of the exode, my former position will be unanswerably corroborated.

To the reader I would say that our space is limited and I have much to tell; I cannot, therefore, pause to elaborate or repeat, but shall concisely give solid facts and reasons. Were this an oral debate which could be heard but once, I would be at every pains to explain and elaborate, but being written, it is not needed.

I. When an institution is instituted or enacted, or mentioned for the first time, the definite article “the” is always wanting.

Take, for example, the seven annual Sabbaths which the Lord gave to the Israelites:

1 and 2. The first and seventh days of unleavened bread. Ex. 12: 15, 16. “Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first-day shall ye put away leaven out of your houses. . . . And in the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.”

3. Pentecost. Lev. 23: 21. “And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it is a holy convocation unto you; ye shall do no servile work therein; it is a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout all your generations.

4. The first day of the seventh month. Lev. 23: 24, 25. “In the seventh month, in the first day of the month, ye shall have a Sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, a holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein; but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.”

5. The tenth day of the seventh month. The great day of atonement. Lev. 23: 27, 32. “Also on the tenth day of the seventh month there shall be a day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you. . . . It shall be a Sabbath of rest unto you.”

6 and 7. The fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month. Lev. 23: 39. “Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days: on the first day shall be a Sabbath, and on the seventh day shall be a Sabbath.”

It is precisely in this indefinite way that the weekly Sabbath is first introduced to our notice and to the attention of the Israelites. For the sake of easy reference, as well as some criticisms, let me here transcribe so much of the sixteenth chapter of Exodus as we shall have use for.

“(4.) Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from Heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. (5.) And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily. . . . (22.) And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers came and told Moses. (23.) And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath [Heb. and Gr. a rest, a rest of holiness] unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, and seethe that which ye will seethe: and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. (24.) And they laid it up until the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. (25.) And Moses said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath [see also Heb. and Gr.] unto the Lord: to-day ye shall not find it in the field. (26.) Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath [Heb. and Gr.: a Sabbath], in it there shall be none. (27.) And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. (28.) And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? (29.) See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath [Gr. and Heb. the Sabbath], therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days: abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. (30.) So the people rested on the seventh day.”

From this it necessarily follows that the idea of a sacred Sabbath was a new thing; for,

1. This, its first mention, introduces and describes it as a new affair; is introduced and described. Note the language, verse 23, “To-morrow is [not the Sabbath, as if a well-known institution, but] a sabbathism, ‘i. e., a rest. They had often rested when weary and so readily comprehended this, but were surprised that, whether weary or not, the following day must be spent in rest. Then Moses adds another thought, that of sacredness—“a rest of holiness.” But how holy? holy for what? “Of holiness to the Lord.” Thus step by step, as one teaches a child a new thing, Moses taught the Sabbath to the rulers. So also to the people, verses 25, 26, “a Sabbath.”

2. The definite article in the English version is supplied by the translators, who, no doubt, labored under the impression that the Sabbath was an older institution; but there is nothing in the Hebrew or the Greek to warrant it; the article is wanting. In Green’s Hebrew grammar, § 245, 3, we read, The definite article in Hebrew is prefixed when the thing referred to is “suggested by the circumstances, or may be presumed to be well known.” § 248: “Indefinite nouns are characterized as such by the absence of the article.” There are, however, three cases in which a noun is definite without the article. § 246. 1. “Proper nouns, which are definite by signification. 2. Nouns with suffixes, which are rendered definite by the appended pronoun. 3. Nouns in the construct state before a definite noun, whether this has the article, is a proper noun, has a pronominal suffix, or is itself definite by construction.” But the passage under consideration comes under none of these exceptional rules. We are, therefore, shut up to this conclusion, that, had the Sabbath been a pre-existent and well-known institution, the presence of the article would be demanded here, and its absence proves this the first mention of the Sabbath.

The same rule obtains also in Greek. See Crosby’s Greek Grammar, § 469. “The article is prefixed to substantives, to mark them as definite.” § 472: “A substantive not employed in its full extent may be rendered definite, (§ 479) by previous mention, mutual understanding, general notoriety, or emphatic distinction.” Now the term Sabbath (rest) is not employed in its full extent when describing the sabbatic institution, since it does not include all rest. Had it, therefore, been definite by “previous mention, mutual understanding, (or) general notoriety,” the presence of the definite article would have been demanded, in Ex. 16: 23, 25, 26. If this is not proving my position, I know not how any thing can ever be proved. But I will add proof to proof.

3. When the original Sabbath law is elsewhere quoted, the same facts stare us again stubbornly in the face. “These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them: Six days shall work be done, but the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord.” Ex. 35: 1, 3. Here the same rules apply as before. This version is faithful in spite of the translator’s prepossessions which made them turn commentators in the former case, though the construction is the same.

4. The rulers did not expect a Sabbath—it took them by surprise. “And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they [some of the people] gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said [to me and Aaron], To-morrow is a rest, a rest of holiness to the Lord.” Ex. 16: 22, 23. Had the Sabbath been a pre-existent institution, certainly “the rulers of the congregation” would have remembered it. The supposition that they had forgotten it is not sufficient to account for Moses’ answer. In that case he would have said, To-morrow is the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rested from creation, and which he sanctified for man’s observance. Anything short of mentioning the facts of the creation week would have been no explanation.

5. The people knew nothing of a Sabbath. In the beginning of the seventh day after the first falling of the manna, Moses addressed the people thus: “Eat that [extra omer of yesterday’s gathering] to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the Lord: to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days shall ye gather it; but on the seventh day, which is a Sabbath, in it there shall be none.” Verses 25, 26. This we know to have been addressed to the people, since “all the rulers” were informed the day before. Had the people known the Sabbath as an old institution, the laws of every language having a definite article would have required its use here. That the people did not look for a Sabbath, appears also from the fact that some of them did not gather a double quantity of manna on the sixth day, expecting to work on the seventh. “And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none.” Verse 27. Moreover, when the Lord reproved them (no doubt for all past disobedience but), especially for disregard as to the quantity to be gathered on each day, and for breaking the Sabbath given them that day, he spoke of the Sabbath as definite and known. “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that [because] the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore, he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days: abide ye every man in his place on the seventh day. So the people rested on the seventh day.” Verses 28–30. The fact of using the article “the” here, when we know that the Sabbath was known, as well as in Ex. 20: 8, “Remember the Sabbath,” confirms the conclusion I have drawn from the absence of the article in the previous mentions.

II. My second argument is founded on the fact that the Sabbath was given as commemorative of two events: God’s resting on the seventh day, Ex. 20: 8–11, and the deliverance of the Israelites from the bondage of Egypt. Deut. 5: 12–15. Hence it was not given till after such deliverance. He would be a foolish architect who would build a house before all the foundations were laid. I have already sufficiently dwelt on this while on the first proposition, and hence dismiss it with this additional remark: The circumstance that Deut. 5: 15 names an item not found in Ex. 20, proves nothing against its having been given at the original proclamation of the decalogue from Sinai, any more than because all the conditions precedent to the remission of sins under the New Economy, as, faith, repentance, and baptism, are not found in any one record of the Commission, but must be sought by a combination of them all. Besides, Moses expressly declares that all he gives in Deut. 5, as part of the decalogue, was both proclaimed from Sinai, and written on the two tables of stone. Deut. 5: 22.

Moreover, the transactions of Ex. 16, such as the commandments concerning the gathering of the manna, were of a tentative character, preparing the people for the giving of the law; for the Lord himself said it was “that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.” Hence it is that God gave his ordinances as arbitrarily as possible. He required the gathering of an omer of manna for every man, allowed the greedy to have no more, and the indolent no less, even miraculously decreasing or enlarging the quantity when necessary. He required on the sixth day the gathering of a double portion, without telling of a Sabbath to follow, or that there would be no manna on that day to gather, and in the face of the fact that all previous attempts to save it from one day to another had failed. When at length the Sabbath was introduced, it was as arbitrarily as possible; simply, and in keeping with the other requirements, as a rest sacred to God, without any reference to creation, or to their deliverance from bondage. The permanent legislation on the Sabbath, together with the assignation of proper reasons, was reserved to that grand and solemn day when Jehovah strode to his throne on Sinai, and Israel, as a “holy nation,” was born.

III. That the Sabbath was first given in the wilderness, is expressly stated by Nehemiah, chap. 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 thy holy sabbath, and commandedest them precepts, statutes, and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant: and gavest them bread from heaven for their hunger, and broughtest forth water for them out of the rock for their thirst.”

How could it be possible to “make known” the Sabbath to the Israelites, if they knew it already? It is not possible to construe this as a re-making-known of a forgotten Sabbath, since, 1. The parallelism shows that “madest known” is a kind of equivalent for “gavest” and “commandedest.” 2. The Israelites had not forgotten the Lord’s past dealings so as to make it possible to use “make known” as expressive of re-calling their attention to them. Thus (1) They remembered the promises to their fathers. Gen. 50: 24; Ex. 3: 16. (2) The Hebrew midwives “feared God.” Ex. 1: 15, 17. (3) Moses’ parents had faith in God. Heb. 11: 23. (4) The people worshiped God in Egypt. Ex. 2: 23–25. (5) And they observed his ordinances, as circumcision; for this was necessary to eating the passover, and they were ready for it. Ex. 12. Surely, then, the Sabbath could not have been a forgotten ordinance, or institution, but “madest known” expresses an original giving.

SONGS BY THE WAY.

By Sel.

“Thy statutes have been my songs in the house of my pilgrimage.” Ps. 119:54.

I’m a pilgrim, and my journey were a desert one and drear, But for streams along the pathway,—precious springs of wayside cheer; Flowers in barren places blooming,—pictures treasured of the skies, In the sweet home-country shining, where the Father’s mansions rise.

I’m a pilgrim, and at nightfall, when my weary feet are spent, All unsandaled and ungirded in the stranger’s lonely tent, I re-tune my harp and sing, while my heart selects the theme— Not from loves that grow around me—not the poet’s idle dream; But from ones whose inspiration was the breath of Zion’s mount— Bards that drank the living waters of Shiloah’s sacred fount; And I waken in sleep-hours, and my heart repeats the strain; Do I sing, or do I listen to an angel’s sweet refrain?

I’m a pilgrim; night and morning bear me farther on my way, To the home-land of my soul, in the bright, eternal day; But the way has rests of joy, while thy laws my thoughts engage, For “thy statutes are the songs of my house of pilgrimage.”

I’m a pilgrim, and in vision do my yearning eyes behold Where “jasper walls” and “pearly gates” the blessed ones enfold; And I’ll drop my staff with triumph as I near the latest stage, While the victor’s song shall crown all the songs of pilgrimage.

—Sel.

ELD. J. H. WAGGONER'S FIRST NEGATIVE.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

In a discussion of this kind I am opposed to everything that is calculated to merely affect the minds of the readers, and especially if it tends to mislead them. I wish to correct a remark made in the opening of Eld. Vogel's first article. He said, “With him [meaning me], the questions to be discussed are daily themes and daily studies, and have been for years, while with me, this is not the case.” Eld. V. cannot possibly know that this is so; it is very far from being correct. Frequently many weeks and even months pass without this subject being either a “theme” or a “study” with me. But how is it with him? He has but recently been engaged in a discussion in which he passed over the same ground he is now traversing; and therefore he is as well prepared to present his side of the question as any person can be. He accused me of “begging the question.” What is this but begging for a favorable prejudgment?

He said in taking the negative he had only to show that all that I produced is “fully accounted for on the supposition that the Sabbath was not enjoined on man” at creation. I consider it safe to say that in this he most signally failed. Not a reason was given—nothing that can properly be called a reason—for denying that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day according to the order of events laid down in the first two chapters of Genesis.

That the view of Gen. 2 that I advocate is the obvious one cannot be denied; and the obvious meaning of Scripture is always to be accepted unless there is a necessity for accepting another. No such necessity has been shown; and therefore, as yet, my affirmation stands. But he promised that when he took the affirmative he would make it all clear. We shall see how he will redeem that promise. And now, as I am on the negative, if I can show that his conclusions are not absolutely necessary, then the obvious meaning of Gen. 2: 3 stands secure.

In his leading article on this second proposition he endeavors to sustain his affirmation in three particulars. (1) On Ex. 16. (2) On Deut. 5. (3) On Neh. 9.

1. On Ex. 16 he makes his argument two-fold; by a critical examination of the text, and, by parallel scripture expressions.

To draw a safe and correct conclusion in regard to “mutual understanding,” or the “general notoriety” of the Sabbath in the wilderness, he must have positive knowledge and correct views of the actual condition and circumstances of the people at that time. But that this is not the case with him is proven in that he makes some statements for which he has to draw on his imagination and which are not warranted by the record.

He quotes general rules in regard to the use of the article, and tries to leave the impression on the mind of the reader that these rules are invariable in application, which no scholar will claim. After giving the rules on the use of the article, Crosby says, § 480:—

“The insertion or omission of the article often depends, both in poetry and prose, upon euphony and rhythm, and upon those nice distinctions in the expression of our ideas, which, though they may be readily felt, are often transferred with difficulty from one language to another. In general, the insertion of the article promotes the perspicuity, and its omission the vivacity, of discourse. It is consequently, more employed in philosophical than in rhetorical composition, and far more in prose than in poetry. It should be remarked, however, that even in prose there is none of the minutiae of language in which manuscripts differ more than in respect to its insertion or omission, especially with proper names.”

Instances to almost any extent might be given to justify the above remark, but it is not necessary. Now if a rule be given in order to show the necessity of a departure from the obvious meaning of a scripture, the rule itself must not admit of variation or diversity in practice. But Eld. V. gives his rule to invalidate the obvious conclusion from Gen. 2: 3, and he gives a rule which authorities show is not fixed and invariable, and is widely departed from both in the Old and New Testaments. He appears like one elated with the discovery of a mine of supposed value, before it has been sufficiently tested to determine its real worth.

It would be some support to his claim if his argument were cumulative; if his other points seemed to show that his application of the rule is just. But the reverse of this is the truth. He quotes several passages wherein are mentioned “a holy convocation,” and attending sabbaths and memorials, to prove that the first mention of an institution is without the article; but these contain no proof, for they were never mentioned in any other manner. If they were, it would not be decisive in his favor; but as it is, his pretended proof is an element of weakness in his arguments.

His reasoning on Ex. 16 is against both the facts and probabilities. He says, “The rulers did not expect a sabbath—it took them by surprise.” There is still room for “surprise” here. How did he learn this? I appeal to the reader whether it is reasonable to suppose that the people gathered a double portion of manna on the sixth day, according to the order of the Lord, see verse 5, and “all the rulers” were entirely ignorant of the reason of their so doing. Is it not rather reasonable that the rulers, as faithful overseers, reported to Moses that the will of the Lord has been done in the preparation for the holy Sabbath?

In quoting verse 22 he inserts an explanatory clause “(some of the people).” The word “some” has a significance in the text, but it does not belong where he places it. He intends to give the idea that the gathering a double portion on the sixth day was an exceptional thing; whereas the text gives the idea that it was a general thing. “And they gathered it every morning, every man according to his eating; and when the sun waxed hot, it melted. And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man.” The Lord had said they should do so; see verse 5; they did so, and the departures from the order were the exceptions. The facts are entirely against any surprise with anybody.

Again he says, “The people knew nothing of a Sabbath.” To make this appear he says that verse 25 was addressed to the people, as the rulers were informed of the Sabbath the day before; which is to say that on that Sabbath morning was their first knowledge of the Sabbath. But he admits that the reproof of verses 28, 29, was for breaking the Sabbath. But if they knew nothing of the Sabbath, and only “some of them,” and that to the surprise of the rulers, gathered a double portion on the sixth day, what law had they broken? Indeed, if all that he says is correct, they who gathered a double portion on the sixth day were the transgressors, while they who had no bread for the Sabbath (if such were the case) had alone acted up to the usual requirement which had not been reversed or amended as yet; for we cannot believe that even some of the people knew that the Lord had commanded them to gather a double portion on the sixth day and that all the rulers were ignorant of that fact.

And, again, he thinks that if it had been an old institution Moses should have told them all the facts definitely, thus: “To-morrow is the Sabbath, the day on which the Lord rested from creation, and which he sanctified for man's observance. Anything short of mentioning the facts of creation week would have been no explanation.” So he seems to think an explanation was called for. And so I think if it were at that time a new and unheard-of institution, but not necessarily required if it were an old one. But no explanation was given at that time. Yet when an explanation was given, when the facts and reasons of the Sabbath were definitely set forth, the facts of creation only were referred to. On this chapter, I further notice:

(1) The Lord had a law at that time, and the precept of the Sabbath was a part of it, and that part that he chose by which to test their loyalty.

(2) The people were ordered to gather a certain rate of manna every day. This shows that in things secular (or indifferent in a religious view, as in Rom. 14), “every day” does not include the holy Sabbath of the Lord.

(3) Moses approved of their gathering a double portion of manna on the sixth day, saying, “This is that which the Lord hath said [at some past time], To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” As Prof. Bush well observed, It was then the holy Sabbath, though no cessation of the manna had yet indicated it, and the individual day then referred to had not yet arrived. It was the Sabbath by prior appointment.

(4) That it was not a new thing is fairly concluded from the reproof, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments?” This implies a continued observation of the Sabbath. But how, why, and when, the seventh day became the holy Sabbath, Ex. 16 does not inform us. Everything essential to sustain the view of Eld. V. is wanting in this chapter; and, when the origin, the blessing and the sanctification of the Sabbath are recorded, no reference is made to anything that occurred at or after the exode. It has a different basis.

The passover was given to Israel expressly to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt, while the Sabbath is a memorial of creation. Why go beyond the record, and assert what is never revealed? In Deut. 12: 9, &c., spoken forty years after they left Egypt, Moses said, “Ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance which the Lord your God giveth you.” Was that rest to which the Lord promised to lead them when he brought them from bondage a weekly Sabbath? No. They kept the Sabbath forty years in the wilderness before they received that rest, and they kept it forty years before Moses spoke the words which are now relied on to prove that it was a memorial of the exode. If it was such a memorial, they did not know it. They kept it for the reason given, to wit, that God rested from the work of creation on the seventh day, and therefore blessed and sanctified that day.

2. On Deut. 5 he is equally unfortunate. He tries to make it appear that the exact words of verses 7–21 were written by the Lord on the tables of stone. Every reader knows that Deut. 5: 7–21 is not an exact copy of Ex. 20: 3–17; and also that Moses spoke Deut. 5 in a rehearsal forty years after the Lord spoke from Mount Sinai. That Deut. 5 is not the original copy as spoken by the Lord is shown in verse 12, “Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.” And that this refers back to Ex. 20, and not to Ex. 16 (as he unwarrantably claims on Ex. 35: 2), is positively proved by verse 16, “Honor thy father and thy mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee.” No such commandment was given in the Wilderness of Sin, but it was on Mount Sinai.

He, with others, relies on the word “therefore,” in Deut. 5: 15, to prove that their deliverance from Egypt was one “stone” on which the Sabbath was erected. But this must fail him. The Lord delivered Israel that they might serve him. Ex. 8: 1. The obligation to serve him already existed. The rigor of their servitude was such that they could not serve God, and that would interfere with the keeping of the Sabbath more than with the observance of any other precept of God's law. Therefore it is not strange that, when he delivered them, he should prove them by this precept, and that he should remind them of their bond-service when he enforced this duty. But this does not prove that that event was the ground of the Sabbath institution or of Sabbath obligation; for every moral obligation was enforced upon them by the same special reason—with the same “therefore,” which proves too much for his position. His argument, in brief, is this:

Premise: The Jews were commanded to keep the Sabbath because they were brought out of Egypt.

1st conclusion: Therefore the Sabbath was not binding on them before the exode.

2d conclusion: And therefore the Sabbath was not binding on any other people.

Let us test these conclusions by another scripture. Lev. 19: 35–37: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure. Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the Lord your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt. Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them.” See also Deut. 5: 20–25; 24: 17, 18. Upon this, we may frame the same argument.

Premise: The Jews were forbidden to do any unrighteousness because the Lord brought them out of Egypt.

1st conclusion: Therefore to do no unrighteousness (or to do righteousness) was not binding on them before the exode.

2d conclusion: And therefore to do righteousness was not binding on any other people. The same conclusions we must draw in regard to all the commandments he gave to them. This is the great fault I find with that system of error to which Eld. V. is unfortunately committed.

Its tendency is to leave everybody who lived before the exode, or who was not personally concerned in it, without the restraint of law, and without the obligation to obey God. I am aware that in some respects he disclaims this conclusion. But this disclaimer is in conflict with his reasoning. Why insist, against the direct evidence of Gen. 2, that the Sabbath was given to the Jews only, because they were brought out of Egypt, and disregard the truth that every other precept was enforced by the same reason. Blasphemy, or profaning the name of God, is not mentioned in the book of Genesis; and it was the subject of one of the statutes given to Israel because the Lord brought them out of Egypt. According to his argument, this was not a general law, but was peculiar to the Jews! And yet he claims that his conclusions are necessary. I think they are very far from it.

3. On Neh. 9 he has fallen into a similar error by attaching an unwarranted meaning to the phrase “made known.” This does not necessarily mean the first introduction of a thing, as he avers. In Eze. 39: 7, the Lord says, “So will I make my holy name known in the midst of my people Israel.” This does not imply that it was not before known among them, but, rather, that it should be more deeply impressed on their minds, for it points to another declaration, “And I will not let them pollute my holy name any more.” They had known it, but they had polluted it; he would now so make it known to them that they would no more pollute it. And this will apply to the Sabbath, and to all the statutes given to Israel after the exode.

And Neh. 9 says the Lord made known the Sabbath when he came down on Mount Sinai, which is strictly correct according to the idea of that expression given in Eze. 39: 7; but not according to the idea of Eld. Vogel, for it was known to them before they came to Sinai.

But Eld. Vogel undermines his own theory in his comments on Neh. 9. He says, “The parallelism shows that ‘made known’ is a kind of equivalent for ‘gave’ and ‘commanded.’” Very good. But these terms are applied to all the laws which God gave to Israel; and therefore, by his showing, they were all unknown to Israel before the exode, and none of them binding on any other people! “That which proves too much proves nothing.” Every moral obligation to which they were answerable stands or falls with the holy Sabbath.

And this shows that I am correct in regard to the lawless tendency of that theory. Indeed, it needs no confirmation beyond his own words, for he says I did well to say “perhaps” he will claim that the precept, Thou shalt not kill, is directly enforced in the New Testament. Whatever course may be pursued to avoid the natural conclusion from such a position, it will remain true that, to teach that such moral precepts are abolished, and not directly taught or renewed in the New Testament, is to lower the great fundamental principles of morality, and leave minds free from that needful restraint which the authority of God's law can alone enforce, and which is so little felt in these days of laxity of morality, of wide-spreading delusion, and gross self-deception.

A Year of Wonders.

By Wm. Penniman

“The press and the people everywhere seem to have thoroughly arrived at the conviction that the present is a year of wonders, and the wonders being of a natural order—not supernatural—it has been aptly termed the phenomenal year. The extraordinary play of the elements is various, and taking the world over, it runs through the whole gamut of natural phenomena. There was no need in introducing such a fiction as Plantamour’s comet to heighten the interest of the grand performance going on all around us every day and night. The realities are sufficient to rivet the attention, and are well worthy of the comment they have excited in every quarter of the earth. Of course people ask what is the matter with our celestial and terrestrial systems? They want to know the reasons for it all, and it will not do for seers, and philosophers, and geologists, and astronomers, to stand back and acknowledge their ignorance. Among them they are expected to unravel all these mysteries, perform impossibilities, and work miracles. If they do not march promptly up to the scratch of curiosity they may as well throw up the sponge and

acknowledge defeat without striking a blow for truth. Many of them do, and this fact may be added to the other phenomena. The English, scientific, and literary press, are particularly active in endeavoring to account for much that is strange in the heavens and irregular in the earth. They are all at it. Their inquisitions are very learned and plausible and worthy of as serious consideration as any theories are. The London Spectator traces the trouble to a change in the constitution of the sun. Tacchini, an Italian astronomer, has told us that our central orb is just now overcharged by a superabundance of magnesium, causing an unusual intensity of heat.

“Then the newspapers ask how about the volcanic eruptions, earth-shakings, thunderstorms and boreal lights which have made the year so remarkable and our season so notable? The tropics seem to be moving up the globe and threaten to annihilate the temperate zone. Our temperature and our storms have a decidedly tropical flavor and dash. The lightning is its own peculiar 1872 lightning, unlike any other brand of the article with which we have been acquainted. It is more forked, more continuous, has a deeper tone, and is of a different color! Altogether, the lightning is not eminently satisfactory. It has done more striking than is comfortable, and seems to be lying around loose. In a little storm-burst which we had on Tuesday night last, it showed a disposition to get out of the earth, and made innumerable stairs, like Jacob’s ladder, to the clouds, and traveled up them like nothing else except a streak of lightning. The cloud seemed to come over just in the right time to restore an equilibrium and balance celestial and terrestrial accounts. If it had delayed a day or two longer, we would have had more electricity and other fiery fluids in the earth than would have been healthy for us, or it. We are apparently all right for a few days, but what will come next?”

“Meteoric stones have been banging about considerably in various quarters. They are the real article—moon stones, dead planets or the cores of worlds that have been thrown away. All such useless trash seems to come to us through the fields of illimitable space, forgetful that we have enough rubbish already. Here are some of the wonders of the year, and they look rather formidable when summed up: An eruption of Vesuvius, the most terrific in eighteen hundred years, an earthquake that swallowed up Antioch; a drouth and famine in Persia; pestilence in Buenos Ayres; one of the Philippine islands completely swamped and sunk; tremblings and quakings of the earth on both sides of the North American continent. Then the universal and unusually hot weather, and whirlwinds and thunderstorms, and the aforesaid meteoric stones, are also among the wonders. Near Boston, a man who had nothing else to do, timed the lightning, and counted 331 distinct discharges of lightning in seven minutes, each causing a distinct thunder blast, and all the while the moon looked on so greatly magnified by haze and vapor as to make the appearance of half the sky on fire. People are amusing themselves counting the storms in all quarters, and the accounts of damage by them form a staple article of news. The oldest inhabitant everywhere is unanimous in the assertion that he never saw anything like it, and agrees that 1872 is a year of wonders.”

The above, from the St. Louis Republican of Aug. 29, is remarkable, and shows the workings of the human mind in regard to the wonderful phenomena of this year. How prone is man to refuse to see the hand of God in the terrible water inundations, in the thunder, in the terrific lightning, in the hurricane storm, in the whirlwind, in the crashing meteoric stones, in the mighty earthquakes, and in the volcanic heavings of the earth. Then again the same is true in pestilence, drouth, and famine, and in many other scourges which God is sending upon the earth.

In vain may the philosophers and the infidel array the “oppositions of science falsely so called” against the word of God, and attempt to account for all of these wonders on the principle of natural causes. Admitting that they are not all wonders of a supernatural order, is it any the less true that many of them are not signs of the times, and of the coming of the Son of God on the great white cloud to reap the harvest of the earth?

Philosophers may attribute the great heat and the many sun-strokes of this year to a “change in the constitution of the sun:” but if they would study their Bibles more it would cause them to think of the time when “power is given unto him to scorch men with fire.” Rev. 16: 8. Now it is heat; then it will be fire. God, in his great goodness and mercy, has been giving the world signs upon signs, and wonders upon wonders, for over 1800 years, all of them more or less betokening the second coming of Christ; and yet the infidel may attempt to account for all of these on the principle of natural causes. Man is so slow to see the hand of God, and to acknowledge his judgments in the earth, that I have thought that in the seven last plagues they would not at first admit them; and that it will not be until the pouring out of the last vial, when the great hailstones of God’s wrath will fall upon the wicked, that they will fully acknowledge his hand. Wm. Penniman.

Continue reading: HISTORY AND EXPOSITION