Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 7.

History of the Sabbath

Review and Herald

Jan 14, 1862

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 14, 1862

History of the Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

THE FEASTS, NEW MOONS AND SABBATHS OF THE HEBREWS.

WE have followed the Sabbath of the Lord through the books of Moses. A brief survey of the Jewish festivals is necessary to the complete view of the subject before us. Of these there were three feasts; the passover, the pentecost and the feast of tabernacles; each new moon, that is, the first day of each month throughout the year; then there were seven annual sabbaths, namely, 1. The first day of unleavened bread. 2. The seventh day of that feast. 3. The day of pentecost. 4. The first day of the seventh month. 5. The tenth day of that month. 6. The fifteenth day of that month. 7. The twenty-second day of the same. In addition to all these every seventh year was to be the sabbath of the land, and every fiftieth year the year of jubilee.
The passover takes its name from the fact that the angel of the Lord passed over the houses of the Hebrews on that eventful night when the first-born in every Egyptian family was slain. This feast was ordained in commemoration of the deliverance of that people from Egyptian bondage. It began with the slaying of the paschal lamb on the fourteenth day of the first month, and extended through a period of seven days, in which nothing but unleavened bread was to be eaten. Its great antitype was reached when Christ our passover was sacrificed for us. Ex. xii; 1 Cor. v, 7, 8.
The pentecost was the second of the Jewish feasts and occupied but a single day. It was celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first fruits of barley harvest had been waved before the Lord. At the time of this feast the first-fruits of wheat harvest were offered unto God. The antitype of this festival was reached on the fiftieth day after the resurrection of Christ, when the great outpouring of the Holy Ghost took place. Lev. xxiii, 10–21; Num. xxviii, 26–31; Deut. xvi, 9–12; Acts ii, 1–18.
The feast of tabernacles was the last of the Jewish feasts. It was celebrated in the seventh month when they had gathered in the fruit of the land, and extended from the fifteenth to the twenty-first day of that month. It was ordained as a festival of rejoicing before the Lord; and during this period the children of Israel dwelt in booths in commemoration of their dwelling thus during their sojourn in the wilderness. It probably typifies the great rejoicing after the final gathering of all the people of God into his kingdom. Lev. xxiii, 34–43; Deut. xvi, 13–15; Neh. viii; Rev. vii, 9–14.
In connection with these feasts it was ordained that each new moon, that is, the first day of every month should be observed with certain specified offerings, and with tokens of rejoicing. Num. x, 10; xxviii, 11–15; 1 Sam. xx, 5, 24, 27; Ps. lxxxi, 3. The annual sabbaths of the Hebrews have been already enumerated. The first two of these sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the feast of unleavened bread, that is, the fifteenth and twenty-first days of the first month. They were thus ordained by God:
"Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses. . . . And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an 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." Ex. xii, 16; Lev. xxiii, 7, 8; Num. xxviii, 17, 18, 25.
The third in order of the annual sabbaths was the day of pentecost. This festival was ordained as a rest-day in the following language:
"And ye shall proclaim on the selfsame day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein; it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations." Lev. xxiii, 21; Num. xxviii, 26.
The first day of the seventh month was the fourth annual sabbath of the Hebrews. It was thus ordained:
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, in the first day of the month shall ye have a sabbath, a memorial of blowing of trumpets, an holy convocation. Ye shall do no servile work therein; but ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord." Lev. xxiii, 24, 25; Num. xxix, 1–6.
The great day of atonement was the fifth of these sabbaths. Thus spake the Lord unto Moses:
"Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you. . . . Ye shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even to even shall ye celebrate your sabbath." Lev. xxiii, 27–32; xvi, 29–31; Num. xxix, 7.
The sixth and seventh of these annual sabbaths were the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month, that is, the first day of the feast of tabernacles, and the day after its conclusion. Thus were they enjoined by God:
"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 eighth day shall be a sabbath." Lev. xxiii, 39.
Besides all these every seventh year was a Sabbath of rest unto the land. The people might labor as usual in other business, but they were forbidden to till the land, that the land itself might rest. Ex. xxiii, 6, 7; Lev. xxv, 2–7. After seven of these sabbaths, the following or fiftieth year was to be the year of jubilee, in which every man was to be restored unto his inheritance. Lev. xxv, 8–54. There is no evidence that the jubilee was ever observed, and it is certain that the sabbatical year was almost entirely disregarded. Lev. xxvi, 34, 35, 43; 2 Chron. xxxvi, 21.
Such were the feasts, new moons and sabbaths of the Hebrews. A few words will suffice to point out the broad distinction between them and the Sabbath of the Lord. The first of the three feasts was ordained in memory of their deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and was to be observed whenthey should enter their own land. Ex. xii, 25.
The second feast, as we have seen, could not be observed until after the settlement of the Hebrews in Canaan; for it was to be celebrated when the first-fruits of the wheat harvest should be offered before the Lord. The third feast was ordained in memory of their sojourn in the wilderness, and was to be celebrated by them each year after the ingathering of the entire harvest. Of course this feast, like the others, could not be observed until the settlement of the people in their own land. The new moons, as has been already seen, were not ordained until after these feasts had been instituted. The annual sabbaths were part and parcel of these feasts, and could have no existence until after the feasts to which they belonged had been instituted. Thus the first and second of these sabbaths were the first and seventh days of the paschal feast. The third annual sabbath was identical with the feast of pentecost. The fourth of these sabbaths was the same as the new moon in the seventh month. The fifth one was the great day of atonement. The sixth and the seventh of these annual sabbaths were the fifteenth and twenty-second days of the seventh month, that is, the first day of the feast of tabernacles, and the next day after the close of that feast. As these feasts were not to be observed until the Hebrews should possess their own land, the annual sabbaths could have no existence until that time. And so of the sabbaths of the land. These could have no existence until after the Hebrews should possess and cultivate their own land; after six years of cultivation the land should rest the seventh year, and remain untilled. After seven of these sabbaths of the land came the year of jubilee.
The contrast between the Sabbath of the Lord and these sabbaths of the Hebrews is strongly marked. 1. The Sabbath of the Lord was instituted at the close of the first week of time; while these were ordained in connection with the Jewish feasts. 2. The one was blessed and hallowed by God, because that he had rested upon it from the work of creation; the others have no such claim to our regard. 3. When the children of Israel came into the wilderness, the Sabbath of the Lord was an existing institution, obligatory upon them; but the annual sabbaths then came into existence. It is easy to point to the very act of God while leading that people, that gave existence to these sabbaths; while every reference to the Sabbath of the Lord shows that it had been ordained before God chose that people. 4. The children of Israel were excluded from the promised land for violating the Sabbath of the Lord in the wilderness; but the annual sabbaths were not to be observed until they should enter that land. This contrast would be strange indeed were it true that the Sabbath of the Lord was not instituted until the children of Israel came into the wilderness of Sin; for it is certain that two of the annual sabbaths were instituted before they left the land of Egypt. Ex. xii, 16. 5. The Sabbath of the Lord was made for man; but the annual sabbaths were designed only for residents in the land of Palestine. 6. The one was weekly, a memorial of the Creator's rest; the others were annual, connected with the memorials of the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. 7. The one is termed "the Sabbath of the Lord," "my Sabbaths," "my holy day," and the like; while the others are designated as "your sabbaths," "her sabbaths," and similar expressions. Ex. xx, 10; xxxi, 13; Isa. lviii, 13; compared with Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 39; Lam. i, 7; Hosea ii, 11. 8. The one was proclaimed by God as one of the ten commandments, and was written with his finger in the midst of the moral law upon the tables of stone, and was deposited in the ark beneath the mercy-seat; the others did not pertain to the moral law, but were embodied in that handwriting of ordinances that was a shadow of good things to come. 9. The distinction between these festivals and the Sabbaths of the Lord was carefully marked by God when he ordained the festivals and their associated sabbaths. Thus he said: "These are the feasts of the Lord which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, . . . beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. xxiii, 37, 38.
The annual sabbaths are presented by Isaiah in a very different light from that in which he presents the Sabbath of the Lord. Of the one he says:
"Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me: the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them." Isa. i, 13, 14.
In striking contrast with this, the same prophet speaks of the Lord's Sabbath:
"Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment and do justice, for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed. 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. 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. 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; 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. 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; 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." Isa. lvi, 1–7; lviii, 13, 14.
Hosea carefully designates the annual sabbaths in the following prediction:
"I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast-days, her new moons, and HER sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts." Hosea ii, 11.
This prediction was uttered about B. C. 785. It was fulfilled in part about two hundred years after this, when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. Of this event Jeremiah, about B. C. 588 speaks as follows:
"Her people fell into the hand of the enemy, and none did help her; the adversaries saw her, and did mock at HER sabbaths. . . . The Lord was an enemy; he hath swallowed up Israel, he hath swallowed up all her palaces: he hath destroyed her strongholds, and hath increased in the daughter of Judah mourning and lamentation. And he hath violently taken away his tabernacle, as if it were of a garden; he hath destroyed his places of the assembly; the Lord hath caused the solemn feasts and sabbaths to be forgotten in Zion, and hath despised in the indignation of his anger the king and the priest. The Lord hath cast off his altar, he hath abhorred his sanctuary, he hath given up into the hand of the enemy the walls of her palaces; they have made a noise in the house of the Lord, as in the day of a solemn feast." Lam. i, 7; ii, 5–7.
The feasts of the Lord were to be holden in the place which the Lord should choose, namely, Jerusalem; Deut. xvi, 16; 2 Chron. vii, 12; Ps. cxxii; and when that city, the place of their solemn assemblies, was destroyed and the people themselves carried into captivity, the complete cessation of their feasts, and as a consequence of the annual sabbaths, which were specified days in those feasts, must occur. The adversaries "mocked at her sabbaths, by making a noise in the house of the Lord as in the day of a solemn feast." But the observance of the Lord's Sabbath did not cease with the dispersion of the Hebrews from their own land; for it was not a local institution, like the annual sabbaths. Its violation was one chief cause of the Babylonish captivity; Jer. xvii, 19–27; Neh. xiii, 15–18; and their final restoration to their own land was made conditional upon their observing it in their dispersion. Isa. lvi. The feasts, new moons and annual sabbaths were restored when the Hebrews returned from captivity, and with some interruptions, were kept up until the final destruction of their city and nation by the Romans. But ere the providence of God thus struck out of existence these Jewish festivals, the whole typical system was abolished, having reached the commencement of its antitype, when our Lord Jesus Christ expired upon the cross. The handwriting of ordinances being thus abolished, no one is to be judged respecting its meats or drinks or holy days or new moons or sabbaths, "which were a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ." But the Sabbath of the Lord did not form a part of this handwriting of ordinances; for it was instituted before sin had entered the world, and consequently before there was any shadow of redemption; it was written by the finger of God, not in the midst of types and shadows, but in the bosom of the moral law; and the day following that on which the typical sabbaths were nailed to the cross, the Sabbath commandment of the moral law is expressly recognized. Moreover when the Jewish festivals were utterly extinguished with the final destruction of Jerusalem, even then was the Sabbath of the Lord brought to the minds of his people. Thus have we traced the annual sabbaths until their final cessation, as predicted by Hosea. It remains that we trace the Sabbath of the Lord until we reach the endless ages of the new earth, when we shall find the whole multitude of the redeemed assembling before God for worship on each successive Sabbath.

FOR ME AND THEE.

WHat to that for which we're waiting Is this glittering earthly toy?— Heavenly glory, holy splendor Sum of grandeur, sum of joy; Not the gems which time can furnish, Not the hues that dim and die, Not the glow that cheats the lover, Shaded with mortality. Heir of glory, That shall be for me and thee!
Not the light that leaves us darker, Not the gleams that come and go; Not the mirth whose end is madness, Not the joy whose fruit is woe; Not the notes that die at sunset, Not the fashion of a day; But the everlasting beauty, And the endless melody. Heir of glory, That shall be for me and thee!
City of the pearl-bright portal, City of the jasper wall; City of the golden pavements, Seat of endless festival. City of Jehovah Salem, City of eternity, To thy bridal-hall of gladness From this prison would I flee. Heir of glory, That shall be for me and thee!
Ah! with such strange spells around me— Fairest of what earth calls fair,— How I need thy fairer image, To undo the syren snare, Lest the subtle serpent tempter Lure me with his radiant lie; As if sin were sin no longer,— Life were no more vanity. Heir of glory, What is that to thee and me?
Yes, I need thee, heavenly city, My low spirit to upbear; Yes, I need thee, earth's enchantments So beguile me with their glare. Let me see thee,—then these fetters Break asunder,—I am free; Then this pomp no longer chains me,— Faith has won the victory. Heir of glory, That shall be for thee and me!
Soon where earthly beauty blinds not, No excess of brilliance palls, Salem, city of the holy, We shall be within thy walls! There beside yon crystal river, There beneath life's wondrous tree, There with naught to cloud or sever,— Ever with the Lamb to be! Heir of glory, That shall be for thee and me!
London Journal of Prophecy.

Obedience Without Asking Why

If God command, you have no right to ask for a reason; all you have to do is to obey: he says, "I will be glorified."

Evidences of Christianity.

By Moses Hull

BY MOSES HULL.

CHAPTER II.

(Continued.) PROPOSITION 4. The ancient enemies of the New Testament have virtually admitted its authority. Infidels often object to the mode of argument which has been pursued, that our testimony has come from the friends of Christianity: to be of weight it should come from enemies. Profundity of logic! An infidel would not dare to testify to the authenticity of Paine's "Age of Reason," because forsooth he believes the doctrine contained in it!! Now let me ask who would be a better witness than the most rigid Christian? Think of Paul. One day his heart is filled with malice and revenge, being "exceedingly mad against" Christians, and going about to put them to death, compels them to blaspheme; the next day becomes convinced that Christianity is true, he becomes an humble penitent, and though "bonds and afflictions await him," and no earthly prospect before him, he spends the remainder of his days in advocating Christianity. Is his testimony not good? Recollect the friends of Christianity from whom we have quoted were all once enemies, but the preponderance of evidence being in behalf of Christianity, they were compelled to yield. Now will the infidel dare to say that their testimony is not so good as if they had become convinced of its authenticity and genuineness and still remained opposers? We think the fact of their being Christians gives weight to their testimony. But we will gratify the infidel by compellingopposers to admit the authenticity of the New Testament.
As the fact that Thomas Paine wrote against the New Testament in the eighteenth century proves its existence at that time, so the fact that the apostate Julian wrote against it in the year 361, proves its existence at that time. And think you that if its authenticity could have been called in question, he would not have done it? He concedes and argues the early date of the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, but picks flaws with the doctrines of the New Testament. "He has also quoted or plainly referred to the epistles to the Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians, and nowhere insinuates that the authenticity of any portion of the New Testament could reasonably be questioned."
Mr. Campbell quotes Julian as saying to Christians, "You are so unfortunate that you do not continue in those things which were delivered to you by the apostles. For their successors have dressed them up for the worse, and more impiously. For neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark ventured to call Jesus, God. But that good man John, perceiving that numbers of the Grecian and Italian cities were caught with that distemper, and hearing, as I suppose, that the sepulchres of Peter and Paul were privately worshipped, was the first who had the boldness to pronounce it." Further, he objects to what John says, No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath revealed him. Whether then is this God word made flesh, the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father? and if he is the same as I think, then certainly even you have seen God; for he dwelt among you, and you beheld his glory.—
Let us ascend a little higher. In the year 270, Porphyry wrote a work against Christianity. It is said that he was the most severe and formidable adversary that Christianity had to meet with in all primitive antiquity. He was well acquainted with the New Testament. "In the little that has been preserved of his writings, there are plain references to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and John, the Acts of the Apostles and the epistle to the Galatians." Marsh says, "It never occurred to Porphyry to suppose it (the New Testament) was spurious.
This ingenuous writer denies the authenticity of the book of Daniel, and think you he would not have denied that of the New Testament if he could?
Celsus, a man of learning, wrote about seventy-six years after the last of the apostles. No one ever manifested a greater zeal in trying to ruin Christianity. His work lacks nothing in point of antiquity. If there was anything suspicious about the authorship of the New Testament, he must have known it. His book entitled "The True Word," is not extant, but the answer written by Origen, contains many long extracts from it. From the fragments of his work quoted by Origen, we can gather all of the particulars of the teachings, miracles, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, of Jesus Christ. Hence the New Testament is authentic, our enemies themselves being judges.
PROPOSITION 5. The language and style of the New Testament indicate that it was written by Jews who lived before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Upon this point Mr. Campbell remarks: "Each of these pieces was deemed by the writer perfectly sufficient to accomplish the object which he designed by it. But when all is collected into one volume, corroborating and illustrating each other, how irresistible the evidence, and how brilliant the light which they display! To him who contemplates the New Testament as the work of one individual, all written at one time, and published in one country; and to him who views it as the work of eight authors, written in different parts of the world, and at intervals in the extreme more than half a century apart, how different the amount of evidence, intrinsic and extrinsic, which it presents! The writers themselves, though all Jews, born in different provinces of the Roman empire, having each a provincial dialect, a peculiarity of style, and some of them of different ranks and avocations of life, give great variety to the style, and weight to the authority of this small volume. They are eight witnesses, who depose not only to the original facts on which Christianity is based, but to a thousand incidents directly or indirectly bearing upon the pretensions of the Founder of this religion; and from the variety of information, allusion, description, and reference to persons, places, and events, which they present to us, they subject themselves not only to cross-examination among themselves, but to be compared and tried by cotemporary historians, geographers, politicians, statesmen, and orators. In fact, they bring themselves in contact with all the public documents of the age in which they lived and wrote."
If the position taken by Mr. Campbell be true (and its truthfulness cannot be disputed) we have a three-fold cord against imposture. Would an impostor of the third or fourth century, if he were going to write a book to impose upon the people as an apostolic document, commence it in this wise? "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Cæsar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness, and he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." Luke iii, 1-3. Here in one sentence are twenty-three historical, geographical, political, and genealogical references; and it is said that every one of them can be confirmed by reference to secular history. The combined efforts of the enemies of Christianity have never been able to disprove one out of hundreds of such statements as the above. Such statements show where, and when the New Testament was written. They are characteristics of the apostolic age, also the nation and circumstances by which they were surrounded. The writers of the New Testament were Jews by birth, by education, and numerous strong attachments, and in different associations. The greater part of their writings were addressed to the Jews, hence their efforts in all their writings to remove Jewish prejudice and superstition. The religious institutions of the Jewish nation were in full establishment until after the death of all the apostles except one, hence we could not expect but that Jewish peculiarities should be found in the apostolic writings. Indeed we would look with suspicion upon any writings which did not abound with such peculiarities.
The national polity of the Jews ended at the destruction of Jerusalem, hence we should not expect the writings of those born this side of that event to be filled with such peculiarities. The New Testament is filled with words and phrases which are known to have been peculiar to Judea, in the times of the apostles. The continual allusions to the temple-services of the Jews as then existing, and which soon passed away, and the manner of expression used in the New Testament are such as none but Jews, brought up under the Old Testament were accustomed to use. The New Testament abounds with quotations from the Old, and references to the types and shadows of the law, with which none but Jews were familiar, and which could not have been introduced into writings as late as the second century without extreme awkwardness, inasmuch that the forgery would have been detected.
M'Ilvaine says: "In the times of the apostles, Greek was almost a universal language. It was spread over all Palestine. The Jewish coast on the Mediterranean was occupied by cities either wholly or half Greek. On the eastern border of the land from the Arnon upwards, toward the north the cities were Greek, and toward the south in possession of the Greeks.
Being thus favored on all sides, this language was spread by means of traffic and intercourse, through all classes, so that the people, though with many exceptions, considered generally, understood it, although they adhered more to their own language. But the Greek thus spoken in Palestine was not like that of Attica, nor of the cities of Asia Minor; but having become degenerated in consequence of its associations with people whose native tongue was Hebrew, by means of Chaldee and Syriac intermixtures, into western Aramean, it contained a large share of the idioms and other peculiarities belonging to its heterogeneous neighbor. Such was the language in which the apostles must have written. Now if the books of the New Testament be their writings, they must contain the characteristic features of that Palestine Greek. Such is most manifestly the case. These books are in Greek, not pure and classic, such as a native and educated Grecian would have written, but in Hebraic Greek; in a language mixed up with the words and idioms of that peculiar dialect of the Hebrews which constituted the vernacular tongue of the inhabitants of Judea and Galilee in the age of the apostles. Had it been otherwise, were the language of the New Testament pure and classic, then the writers must have been either native and educated Grecians, or else Jews of much more Attic cultivation than the apostles of Christ. In either case a suspicion would attach to the authenticity of our sacred books. Neither case being true, the evidence of authenticity is materially confirmed. But we go further.
"The Greek of the New Testament could not have been written by men who had learned this language after the age of the apostles. This mingling of Grecian and Aramean as it is preserved in the New Testament, ceased to be the familiar tongue of Christians in Palestine before the death of St. John. When Jerusalem with the whole civil and religious polity of the Jews was in the seventieth year of the Christian era, entirely destroyed, and the descendants of Abraham were rooted out of the land, and foreigners came in from all quarters to take their places, the language of the country underwent such changes, that except with a scattered few who had survived the desolation of their country, the Greek of the New Testament was no more a living language. When St. John died there was probably not a man alive who could speak or write precisely that tongue. In the second century an attempt to compose a book in the name of the apostles, and in imitation of their Greek, would have been detected as easily as if a full-bred Frenchman, never out of France, should attempt to compose a volume in a dialect of English, and endeavor to pass it off as the work of a plain, sensible but unpolished Yorkshireman. Hence, while doubts were entertained for a while in some parts of the church, as to the authenticity of some portions of the New Testament, it was never doubted whether they were written by men who had lived when the Greek of Palestine, as it had been in the apostolic age, was yet alive." Evidences, pp. 112-114.
PROPOSITION 6. The Christian ordinances testify to the authenticity of the New Testament. Suppose it were possible for some one to conceive the idea of framing a document and passing it off upon the people of Michigan as their State Constitution, one which was adopted when this State became an Independent Sovereignty, and which had been obeyed from that time to this. How far would he proceed on such an errand until he would be told that the people of Michigan knew nothing about such a book, that indeed we had a State Constitution, but that this book never had been known, much less obeyed in this State. Suppose that in addition to the Constitution under which this State was organized, this book professes to contain certain historical facts, and among other facts which it professes to relate, it states that there was a terrible battle fought at the city of Detroit between the white inhabitants of the State and the Indians, on the tenth of August in the year 1804, in which the whites gained a great victory, and that from that time to the present every 10th of August had been celebrated asa memorial of our deliverance; would not the fact that no such celebrations are or ever have been known be sufficient to refute the whole book? This illustration is feeble, but let us apply it. Supposing the New Testament to be a forgery of the third or fourth century. Somebody wrote the New Testament, and made Christians believe that for two or three centuries they had been reading it, referring to it as authority and obeying it. Moreover, it claims to have ordinances (baptism and the Lord's supper) which were instituted when the Lord was on earth, by which we remember his death, burial, and resurrection. Would not such a person be assured that we never heard of such a person as "Jesus of Nazareth," much less his death, burial, and resurrection? Not only so, but the celebrations your book speaks of are not found among us.
Again, it is a notorious fact that we have Christian ministers in this age. When did they commence, or how? The New Testament says that Christ ordained them and sent them out to preach, and promised to be "with them to the end of the world." Now suppose there were no ministers, would it not be objected that that part of the gospel narrative is false? If so, will not their existence prove the authenticity of that book which tells when they began their existence, and how?
Permit us here to leave the question of authenticity. When we consider the cloud of witnesses with which the Lord has encompassed this subject, we do not wonder that Sir Isaac Newton said, "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the New Testament than in any profane history whatever." Its integrity will claim attention in our next chapter.
(To be Continued.)
Continue reading: FIFTY UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENTS