Earlier text: General ArticlesTHE BAPTISM OF JOHN
By Editor
THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM—NO. 8.
THERE has been much questioning in regard to the relation of John's baptism to the gospel,—whether or not it was gospel baptism. It may not be of much importance, having but little practical bearing on present duty, but a brief notice of it may not be out of place. Our opinion is, that there is not so much difference between the baptism of John and that of the disciples of Jesus as is generally supposed. Speaking of "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," Mark commences with the baptism of John, and the proclamation of John was identical with the first proclamation of Jesus. John said, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. The Saviour's first preaching was this: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15. John said he preached the baptism of repentance, and faith in him that was to come, that was, Christ. The first sermon after the resurrection of Christ was of repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus. It appears that the whole period from the beginning of the preaching of John until the time when the apostles turned to the Gentiles, about three and a half years after the death of Christ, was one of transition from one dispensation to the full establishing of the other. The two dispensations were for a time interwoven, as the following will show. Jesus and his apostles preached the gospel, and their baptism was certainly gospel baptism. But Jesus, when he healed a certain person, commanded him to show himself to the priests and to offer the offering required by the law of Moses. And thus he recognized the validity of that law of the Levitical dispensation at that time. And the apostles were not permitted to preach to the Gentiles, even after the death of Christ, until they had offered the gospel to the Jews, or until the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 were fulfilled. Yet the New Testament was ratified by the death of Christ, Heb. 9:15-17, and the rites of the Levitical law were taken out of the way by his death, being nailed to the cross. Col. 2:14. Acts 19 does not afford so clear proof that they who were baptized unto John's baptism were again baptized by the apostles as has been supposed by many. This was an unusual case, according to the record. On being questioned by Paul they said, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost." They had not been baptized by John, but by some of his followers, and they had not been instructed as John instructed those who came to him for baptism. Matt. 3:11. Thus it appears that they were not even well-instructed disciples of John, and it seemed just and necessary that the apostle should commence with them as novices. But this instance does present satisfactory proof that it is right to re-baptize those who have not met the requirements of the gospel rite in their first baptism. Of this we may speak more particularly hereafter. Intimately connected with this subject is We do not by this mean that baptism which was taught or administered by Christ, as in the case of John, but that which he received at the hands of John in Jordan. On this also there has been much conjecture. It is mostly supposed to have been merely for an example. Jesus truly was our example; but we think his baptism has a significance beyond that of mere example. And here again, if John's baptism was so essentially different from that of the gospel, as most people suppose, his example under one would carry no weight in favor of obedience to the other. To this point we would call particular attention. Christ was not our example merely, but he came into the world to be our substitute and our sacrifice. They who deny (as some do) the substitutionary or vicarious nature of the work of Christ, set aside the efficiency of his work unto our salvation. His suffering for us was not altogether on the cross; his whole life was one of trial, of temptation, and of affliction. In the garden his soul was exceedingly sorrowful, even unto death; but an angel strengthened him that he might not then sink under the heavy burden of suffering. When Paul said, "He hath made him to be sin for us," he evidently meant he was made to occupy our position, or be a partaker of our condition. And when he said, "He was made under the law," he must have meant that he was subjected to our condemnation; the apostle's argument on the need and work of justification shows that this expression—under the law—signifies under its condemnation. He was made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law. Not under obligation to the law, as some vainly urge, for that condition does not call for redemption. Adam was subject to the law before he fell, but not a subject for redemption. It is a sinful condition, or being condemned by the law, which calls for redemption. It is evident that Christ was "made under the law" in this sense: as "the wages of sin is death," he was "made sin for us," to fall under death for our sakes. And this condition must have dated from his taking upon him the nature or "seed of Abraham." And if he died because our sins were upon him (Isa. 53), and suffered under temptations and sorrows in our behalf and on our account, we must conclude that he was baptized for the same reason. And this is yet more evident when we consider that John's baptism was "the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin." Mark 1:4. There could be nothing appropriate to this purpose in his being baptized for himself; for he had no sins to confess, and needed no repentance. But inasmuch as the Lord "laid upon him the iniquity of us all," it seemed suitable that he should be baptized, even as sinful men, for whom he stood, should be baptized. There is a wonderful significance in his baptism which seems to be entirely lost if we lose sight of this momentous truth. "He bore our sins;" he acted and suffered as our substitute—in our stead. They who pervert or lightly esteem baptism, must lightly esteem the sufferings and the cross of Christ, as well as his example. BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.
Because it is said in Acts 2:38; 8:16, and 19:5, that they were baptized in the name of Jesus, some have inferred that the apostles baptized in the name of Christ only. But this conclusion is very lame. To discover the fallacy of this idea, it will only be necessary to examine the terms of the commission under which they acted. 1. The Saviour told them to teach all nations, and to baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 2. He commanded them to tarry at Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high. They were neither to preach nor to baptize until the Holy Ghost came upon them. 3. The promised power came upon them on the day of Pentecost; and on that day was preached the first sermon after the great commission was given. 4. If they did not baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, they did not obey their Lord's commandment—they did not fulfill the commission under which they acted and by which alone they had authority to baptize. We trust none will be willing to risk such a conclusion as this. If the record in Acts was the only evidence in the case, the omission of the names of the Father and of the Holy Ghost might be taken as decisive. But knowing that they were acting under a commission, the specific terms of which required the use of the three sacred names, the case appears quite different. When we consider the prejudice which existed among the Jews against the person and the name of Jesus, we see good reason why his name should be presented with peculiar emphasis to them, for no such prejudice existed against the names of the Father and the Holy Spirit. But to conclude thence that they did not obey their Lord's commandment—that they did not fulfill their commission to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost—is more than the inspired record will warrant. THE COMMISSION STILL IN FORCE.
There is a large number of persons who appear to be zealous for the rite of baptism, in regard to both its form and its subjects, who yet, to avoid the evidence of the continuous direct presence and influence of the Holy Spirit, affirm that the commission of Matt. 28:19, 20; Mark 16:15-18, was given to the apostles alone and expired with them. But this affirmation places its advocates in a very unenviable and inconsistent position. That commission was the authority by which the apostles baptized; and if the commission has expired, there remains no authority to administer the rite of baptism. It will not then do to say, as they say, that we must follow the example of the apostles in this; for the example of the apostles, when they acted under a special commission given only to them, gives no warrant to others, who never received the commission, to follow in the same action after the commission has expired. Such a course would indicate the boldest assumption of authority under any government. Thus it is easy to see that, when any individuals declare that the commission under which the apostles baptized has expired, it is equivalent to an admission that they administer baptism without divine authority. If the Lord suffered that commission to expire, as it contained the only warrant ever given in the gospel to baptize, then they who continue the practice are acting in defiance of the authority of Him who gave and withdrew the commission. They are usurpers of authority under the divine government. That they according to that commission which they declare to be obsolete, is shown by their using the formula in baptism prescribed only by that commission. We would fain hope that a consideration of this important truth might open their eyes to the inconsistency of their teachings and practice. If their teaching in regard to the great commission is correct, then surely their baptism is invalid, and their use of the sacred names in such a manner, without any authority, is exceedingly sinful—it is taking the name of Deity in vain. And if they persist in their practice of baptizing, then let them acknowledge the force and obligation of the commission, and accept all the consequences which the acknowledgment logically involves. BAPTISM IS NOT CIRCUMCISION.
Baptism has, by very many, been considered the antitype of circumcision, or as filling the same place in the New Testament that circumcision did in the Old. Popular theories have been projected on this hypothesis, and Dr. Clarke in cautiously says, It has never been proved that baptism does not supply the place of circumcision. That is not the correct method of viewing the argument. The question is this, Has it ever been proved that baptism is in the place of circumcision? We know it has been inferred, it has been supposed, it has been asserted; but it has not been proved. If the negative could not be proved, that would not be conclusive evidence that the affirmative is true. But in this case it is easy to prove that baptism is not the circumcision of the New Testament by showing what is that circumcision. In Rom. 2:29, it is said circumcision is that of the heart; in the Spirit, and not in the letter. In chapter 4:11, circumcision is called both a sign and a seal, which, indeed, are the same thing. Eph. 1:13, 14, says, "Ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance." When circumcision was first given to Abraham, it was called the token of the covenant, in which the promise was made that he should inherit the land. Gen. 17:11. Token is the same as earnest or assurance; equivalent also to sign or seal. Eph. 1:13, but confirms Rom. 2:29;—circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit. And this is further confirmed by Eph. 4:30: "And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." Also by 2 Cor. 1:22: "Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit, in our hearts." The Lord said to Abraham that the uncircumcised man child should be cut off; he had no part in the covenant, because he had not the seal or token of the covenant. Even so, we are told in Rom. 8:9, "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." He has no part in the new covenant because he has not the seal of the Spirit—the circumcision of the heart, which is the seal of the new covenant. This is a point of the utmost importance, involving our relation to the covenant of grace. And there is this difference under the arrangements of the two covenants: under the first, circumcision related to the men children; but under the second, "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female;" for such distinctions are not recognized in the provisions of the gospel, but "ye are all one in Christ Jesus." All classes, all nationalities, must245alike receive the circumcision of the heart, and are all, in Christ, "Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:28, 29. There is yet further proof on this point. It has been inferred from the close connection of the statements in Col. 2:11, 12, that baptism is shown to be circumcision, but the proof is decisively to the contrary. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." But baptism is administered by hands, as entirely as was circumcision under the old covenant. Rom. 2:28 says, "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh." This exactly corresponds to the evidence already presented, that circumcision or the seal is that of the Spirit—of the heart. But baptism is an outward ordinance, and therefore cannot be that circumcision which is not outward; and such is the circumcision of the New Testament. Thinking to relieve themselves of this difficulty, the advocates of that theory say that baptism serves now, as circumcision did then, as "an outward sign of inward grace." But this is really no relief at all; it makes baptism fulfill the place of circumcision, the very thing which Paul says it does not, he showing that something else does take its place. That statement is very incautiously and imprudently made. The Abrahamic covenant, identical with the gospel, ran parallel with the first covenant made with Israel. There was no salvation in the covenant with Israel, only as it led to faith in the offerings and promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Heb. 9:8-12; 10:4. "Circumcision of the heart" was taught in the law and the prophets, see Deut. 10:16; Jer. 4:4, etc., because it was their object to direct to the faith and blessings of the new covenant. Of this, outward circumcision was the sign. But Paul shows that there is no such outward sign now; circumcision of the heart, the antitype, alone remains. To baptism is never ascribed the place, nor is it given any of the titles, which the Scriptures apply to typical circumcision. They who give it such place and titles commit two errors; they assign to it that which the Scriptures never assign to it, and destroy the distinctions which exist between the two covenants in regard to the sign or seal, as shown by Paul. This theory that baptism occupies in the new covenant the place which circumcision occupied in the old, was invented to uphold the doctrine of infant baptism. It is a pity that first impressions are so strong in any, that, while they renounce infant baptism, they are slow to renounce the means which have been devised for its support. A LITTLE girl was recently waked in the night by a severe thunder-storm. The vivid lightning and the crashing thunder at first frightened her, and she called to her mother in alarm. Then as her mother came to her bedside the child said, "But mamma, my Sabbath-school teacher told me that Jesus could take care of me now in a thunder-storm just as easily as he did the disciples in the boat; so I won't be afraid." And she quieted down to her sleep again. The child's teacher had made a right use of a Bible-lesson, applying it practically to every-day matters. And the result showed how much of good may come from a wisely spoken word by a loving teacher, even to a child out of a Christian home where the same truth has been often spoken before. The freshness of a teacher's word may give new power to a familiar truth which the parents have by no means ignored.—S. S. Times. Rev. Dr. Patton, in an able article in an exchange on the subject of dancing, thus sums up his conclusions:— Having carefully examined every text in the Old and New Testaments in which the word occurs, we are led to the following conclusions:— 1. That dancing was a religious act among idolaters as well as worshipers of the true God. 2. That it was practiced as the demonstration of joy for victories and other mercies. 3. That the dances were in the daytime. 4. That the women danced by themselves; that the dancing was done mostly by them. 5. No instance is reported in which promiscuous dancing by the two sexes took place. 6. That when the dance was perverted from a religious service to mere amusement, it was regarded disreputable, and was performed by the "vain fellows." 7. The only instances of dancing for amusement mentioned are of the worldly families described by Job, the daughter of Herodias, and the "vain fellows." Neither of these had any tendency to promote piety. 8. That the Bible furnishes not the slightest sanction for promiscuous dancing as an amusement, as practiced at the present time. The dancing professor of religion must not deceive himself with the impression that he is justified by the word of God. You Will Reap What You Sow
If you sow a handful, you will reap a bushel; if you sow the wind, you shall reap the whirlwind. I tremble for those young men who laugh in a scoffing way and say, "I am sowing my wild oats." You have got to reap them. In his address at the New Jersey Sunday-school Convention, Dr. Vincent said in reply to this question:— If I give my boys five gospel truths, and they know them, I have given them five new ideas; but that is not teaching. I meet them during the week, and they recall them through my suggestion. I may give them five new ideas which they may constantly recall; yet that is not teaching. I may give them ideas which will set them to thinking during the week, so that on the next Sabbath they will have five other ideas, a kind of harvest, as it were, but though that approaches teaching, it is not yet teaching. But if I give them Bible truths which makes them think, and say if this is true something else must be true, and if that be true, on what do I stand and what will become of my soul? When I give them the truths in such a way that they not only remember them, think about them, evolve other truth from them, but apply them to themselves—that's teaching. HOW TO WIN YOUR CLASS FOR CHRIST.
DR. RAY PALMER gives in the S. S. Times this recital of how one teacher did his most excellent work for souls. I have personal knowledge of the case of a particular teacher which strikingly shows how greatly defective the service of that teacher is who rests content with mere intellectual teaching, instead of coming to the class with the fixed determination to win all their hearts as soon as possible to Christ. He was an active man of business, calm, but not cold in temperament, deliberate and wise in forming plans, constant to his purpose, and bent on doing the greatest possible amount of good. For a long course of years he was superintendent of the Sunday-school in the large church to which he belonged. In this position it often seemed to me that he exerted scarcely less influence than the average pastors, so thoroughly was he accustomed to prepare himself, intellectually and spiritually, for his Sunday work. Perhaps it was in some degree because of what he saw of the want of spiritual power in many teachers, that he was led to do himself what he did at a later period. Believing at length that a change of superintendent might be beneficial to the school, he resigned that office; and then, taking the place of a teacher, he immediately organized a Bible-class of fifteen or sixteen young ladies, the greater number of whom were not professed Christians. With this class he commenced at once a course of efforts directed to the end of leading them to give their hearts and lives to their Redeemer with the least possible delay. Every Saturday evening, shutting himself into his library, by thorough study of the lesson, and by special prayer for himself and for his class, he prepared himself for his Sunday labor. At brief intervals he invited the class to his house together, where, after a pleasant social interview by way of cultivating easy acquaintance, he pressed on them the question of personal discipleship, and prayed with them and for their spiritual renewing. They soon manifested great readiness to attend these little gatherings; and then gladly gave him opportunity to converse with them severally, and to give such counsel as the particular case required. The class once in operation after this fashion, it required no persuasion to secure attendance. Within two years, every member of it had united with the church, and the school needing additional teachers, they were taken for that service. But the pleasure of being under the care of that teacher, had now come to be so well known, that another class of about the same number and character was formed immediately, the same course was pursued, and with the same result. We knew the history of successive classes, and have witnessed, since, the consistent Christian lives of some of those who were connected with them, and who associate with them and their faithful teacher the beginning of the divine life in their souls. Lessons on Prophecy, For the Bible Class. The lessons on prophecy, as issued with the Youth's Instructor for 1879, are neatly bound in pamphlet form. 10 cts Lessons for Little Ones, No. 2. Designed for children who have completed the first book for little ones. It contains a year's study upon Bible history, from the birth of Moses to the time of Joshua. Flex. cloth, 15c SABBATH-SCHOOL RECORD BOOKS.
The S. S. Class Record for the use of teachers. This book contains full directions for keeping the record, and a sample page showing the complete record of a class for a quarter. The record is very complete, and yet it is so simple that any one after reading the directions can keep it with ease. 15 cts. The Complete S. S. Record and Register. These books are of several sizes, suited to the number of scholars in various schools.
Record B contains 175 pages. Price $1.20.
Record C. Same size as Record B. Price $1.00.
Record D contains 110 pages. Price 75 cents.
Record F has 56 pages, bound in press-sheet covers like the Class Record, and is suitable for a school of less than thirty members for one year. Price, 35 cents. Address, SIGN OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. VALUABLE BOOKS FOR BIBLE STUDENTS.
The Church, School, and its Officers, by J. H. Vincent, D. D. This thoroughly instructive and interesting volume was written mainly for the younger ministers of the church. It also defines the duties of the Superintendent, the Secretary, and the Chorister, upon whom the success of the school so largely depends. 224 pp. 75 cts S. S. Institutes and Normal Classes, by J. H. Vincent, with an introduction by Alfred Taylor. This book will be especially valuable to those who contemplate holding Institutes, and seek direction as to how the time of the sessions may be occupied to the best advantage. Many an Institute has failed because its promoters were short of just such information as is given here concerning arrangement and management. 186 pp. 75 cts Bible Geography, Hand-Book of. (New and Revised Edition.) Containing the Name, Pronunciation, and Meaning of every Place, Nation, and Tribe mentioned in both the Canonical and Apocryphal Scriptures. By Rev. Geo. H. Whitney, A. M. Illustrated by one hundred Engravings, and forty Maps and Plans. Four hundred closely printed pages. 12mo. $2.50 Bible Manners and Customs, Hand-Book of. Containing Descriptions of the Ancient Manners and Customs mentioned in the Bible, and explaining over three thousand Scripture Texts. By James M. Freeman, D. D. Illustrated by 168 Engravings, and accompanied by an Analytical Index, a Textual Index, and a Topical Index. 12mo. 515 pp. $2.50 The Art of Questioning, with an introductory address on Training Classes, by J. G. Fitch. 15 cts The Use of Illustrations in S. S. Teaching, by J. M. Freeman. 15 cts The Art of Securing Attention in a S. S. Class, by J. G. Fitch. 15 cts Pilgrim's Progress. 12mo. edition, printed by Dodd, Mead, & Co. This edition is firmly and beautifully bound, printed on heavy tint paper, contains 36 engravings, and has marginal references to such texts of Scripture as are illustrated by the story. 336 pp. $1.50 Sitting in the school-room, I overheard a conversation between a sister and a brother. The little boy complained of insults or wrongs received from another little boy. His face was flushed with anger. The sister listened awhile, and then, turning away, she answered, "I do not want to hear another word: Willie has no mother." The brother's lips were silent, the rebuke came home to him, and stealing away, he muttered, "I never thought of that." He thought of his own mother, and the loneliness of Willie compared with his own happy lot. Do we think of it when want comes to the orphan, and rude words assail him? Has the little wanderer no mother to listen to his sorrow? Speak gently to him, then. DR. BENSON'S SUNDAY BOOK.
By Editor
"The Lord's Day, The Christian Sabbath, The First Day of the week, Not the Seventh." This is the title of a 70-page pamphlet issued by the Methodist publishing houses of Cincinnati and New York, written by H. C. Benson, D. D., editor of the California Christian Advocate. This pamphlet seems to be somewhat highly considered by the Methodists, as a note says it "was read before the San Francisco Preacher's Meeting, Rev. Dr. M. C. Briggs presiding; also before the Ministerial Association of Petaluma District, Rev. Geo. Clifford, Presiding Elder, presiding. Each body, by a unanimous vote, requested its publication in permanent or book form for general circulation on the Pacific Coast and elsewhere." It has been a great pleasure to us that we have kept on the best of terms with our contemporaries of the religious press on this coast. We have been courteous to all; we have esteemed Dr. Benson as an able editor, and felt some regret when we learned that the M. E. General Conference had placed another in his office. The same feeling of courtesy which has uniformly actuated us, now leads us to notice this little book. He wrote it on our people's account; the preface is devoted to us; he has made large if not altogether honorable mention of us. Under such circumstances he might reasonably feel disappointed if we made no response to his mention. The readers will better appreciate our position in reviewing his work after reading his notice, as follows:— "An organization of Sabbatarians calling themselves 'Seventh-day Adventists,' commenced missionary and evangelistic work on this coast some twelve or fifteen years ago. They travel through the country, circulating their pamphlets and tracts, spending a fortnight or a month in a place; they deliver lectures on prophecy, and with maps and charts make a show of learning. The closing week of a siege is given to lectures on the Sabbath question—urging that the seventh day of the week only ought to be kept as holy. "They usually succeed in bewildering and misleading a few good, earnest Christians of the different Churches, who are frightened at the thought of habitually desecrating the Sabbath. The converts to the dogma are then led away to the most convenient Jordan and immersed. These are the fruits of their labors, the sinners saved by their ministry. "Having realized the object for which they labor they leave their proselytes without pastoral oversight and hasten to other fields, to pass through the same routine of performances. "Christians, once unsettled and drawn away from the fellowship of the Churches in which they were converted, are left outside the fold to be buffeted by the enemy, and to lose their piety and their confidence in the people to whom they are indebted for all the religious instruction they have ever received." We charitably trust that the Doctor did not intend to present our people in a false light, but he has left the reader liable to draw, from the last paragraph in this quotation, a conclusion very far from the truth. Very many people in California are well aware that the Seventh-day Adventists are thoroughly organized, having a conference in this State, and other State Conferences, and a General Conference, also General and State Missionary Societies, the General Conference having the oversight of foreign missions. Our churches are regularly organized, with local elders, deacons, and clerks, maintaining their Sabbath-schools and temperance organizations. Our conferences have Executive Committees, who take oversight of the work during the year, within their respective bounds. Our ordained ministers are all evangelists, not being located, except a few who act as editors of our publications. While the ministers visit the churches to look after their welfare, the churches are taught to be working bodies, and not to look to the preacher as the sole source of their life and strength. Our houses of worship are not closed in the absence of a preacher, as is too frequently the case in other denominations. We do not intend to have them "preached to death" as the editor of the Louisville Recorder says is generally the case in these days. Rejoicing in the precious truth which they have heard and the "blessed hope" (Titus 2:11-14) which they have imbibed, they willingly forego the pleasure of having a settled pastor, outside of their local elders, that the truth may be carried to others who are yet in darkness. We are certain that no other body of Christians of equal members do so much missionary work, or afford so much Bible instruction in their Sabbath schools. If there is any one body of Christians in the land to whom the Doctor's querulous remarks will not at all apply, it is the Seventh-day Adventists. But we do not speak complainingly. It will not injure us. Our "manner of life" is too well known to be seriously affected by such remarks. So much for the personal feature of the book. We will now proceed to pay attention to the argument. We cannot safely judge that a paper is "weighty and powerful" because it has been indorsed by religious bodies, even of eminent men, before whom it has been read. The circumstances are every way unfavorable to their placing a just estimate upon it. 1. It was only read to them, and they could not have the opportunity for a careful and critical examination of it. 2. The case being prejudiced by them, they having a desire to have it even as the Doctor said, their opinion carries but little weight as a critical indorsement of it. Our estimate of it, of course, differs from theirs, and we have the advantage of a careful reading. We think we can point out a number of weak spots, sufficient to place it even below the ordinary rate of controversial pamphlets. The first point in the argument is as follows:— "If Adam kept a calendar in his Eden home, he doubtless made his own first day the date-period, since he could have no method of computing the indefinite periods while matter was in chaos with darkness brooding over it. No importance, however, can possibly attach to the question, since no day was intrinsically holy. The ordinance could require no more than that man should labor on six days and rest on the seventh. The day kept is holy because of the act of obedience; and the moral quality of the act, as in all cases, is found in the intention." This is a hapless paragraph for the writer. Seldom is so much error found in so small a compass. 1. Does the Doctor compute his own week from the day of his own birth? If not, why not? What can he know of the periods preceding his own existence? He might, indeed, say that he received by tradition or transmission a knowledge of events far in the past, and he celebrates those events by reason of the knowledge so obtained. But was Adam ignorant of the work of creation? Did he hold converse with the Creator, and have wisdom to give names to the Creator's works, and be more ignorant of those works than Dr. Benson will allow that himself is? By what authority does he assume that when God sanctified the seventh day, and made the Sabbath "for man," that Adam was ignorant of the fact that it was the seventh day, but mistook it for the first day? 2. By what authority does he say that that sanctified seventh day was Adam's first day? Does he believe that Adam was created on that seventh day? He cannot; for the Bible was created a fully developed man, on the sixth day; so that his first day was. Even the Doctor, we doubt not, counts the day on which he was born as his first day. At least, we never yet knew any man to commence his life-reckoning on a day on which he was not born. Is such a puerility as this worthy of a scholar, and of the indorsement of scholars? 3. We would like to know why the Dr. speaks of "the indefinite periods while matter was in chaos with darkness brooding over it." He professes to hold the Scriptures in reverence while admitting the indefinite-period theory of science (perhaps "falsely so called"—Paul). But how can he be unmindful of the fact that light was shed forth upon this chaotic matter on the first day—the first period, if you like? The reader will notice that every step taken to invalidate the fourth commandment in its literal import, is a step either away from, or in direct contradiction to the inspired word. There were no indefinite periods of darkness while matter was in its chaotic, or unformed state, if the Bible can be depended upon. If it cannot, then we do not care what theory prevails. If you invalidate the Bible, our foundation is gone, and we are thenceforth indifferent to results. But we shall plead for the exact and literal truthfulness of the holy Scriptures, and insist upon our right to hold opponents to that point as long as they profess to believe in them. 4. He says "no day was intrinsically holy." This is not true. Webster says, intrinsically means really or truly. God blessed and sanctified the seventh day. Did he bless and sanctify any day beside the seventh day? He did not. He therefore called the seventh day, the Sabbath, "my holy day," "the holy of the Lord," and said, "It is holy unto me." Will Dr. Benson affirm that all this left the seventh day undistinguished from other days as to sacredness? If he will not venture such a reckless assertion as this, then what do his words mean? We consider that his language is in direct contradiction to the express words of the Bible. 5. We grant that the commandment requires no more than that man shall work six days and rest the seventh day, with the understanding that it refers to that seventh day—namely the seventh day of the week—which God consecrated to sacred uses because that in it he rested from his great work of creation. But the Dr. does not intend to be so understood. His argument tends to leaving it indefinite. In that sense his words are not at all in harmony with what God has revealed on the subject of the Sabbath. 6. "The day kept is holy because of the act of obedience." This is the worst of all, and most subversive of the obligation of the Sabbath law. Question: was the seventh day made holy by the act of man's keeping it, or by God's blessing it and sanctifying it. A mere child who has read the Bible should be at no loss to answer this. When Moses said, on the sixth day, "To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath," did he mean to say—To-morrow will be the holy Sabbath, provided you keep it? In Eze. 22:26 the Lord says they have hid their eyes from his Sabbaths—they have profaned it. On the Dr.'s theory this could not be so. No man could break the Sabbath; no man could profane it; for if he did not keep it, it would not be holy, and hence not subject to profanation. This theory of the Dr., which, however, is not original with him, as it has been many times asserted, is as unreasonable as it is unscriptural. We wonder that the anti-Sabbath writers cling so tenaciously to a position which so evidently betrays their weakness. We affirm with all confidence that the sacredness of the holy Sabbath does not, and never did, rest on the will or the action of man. It was by the express act of Jehovah that it was blessed and hallowed, and to keep it because he sanctified it is the express revelation of his will. In a subsequent paragraph he says: "After the world's seventh period, and man's first day was hallowed," &c. We have a right to protest against such a play upon words to produce an effect upon the minds of the readers. The Bible record of the institution and commandment of the Sabbath says not a word about "man's first day." The hallowed Sabbath was not man's first day—it was his second day. The sixth day of the week was man's first day. But if it had been man's first day, it was not hallowed because of such a fact. It was set apart and blessed as a memorial of all his work which God created and made. It was God's rest day from the whole work of creation, as both Gen. 2 and Ex. 20 positively assert. This lugging in of a supposed first day, and very erroneously supposed at that, can have no object of which we can conceive, but to prepare the way for a transition to the real first day, for which there is no warrant in the Scriptures. We wish, for the sake of that respect which we gladly bear to all who profess to love the Lord, that the Sunday advocates would never try to maintain their theory by such flimsy reasonings and questionable methods. It is not necessary to say much about time varying in different longitudes, as no one supposes it is necessary to keep "the same hours as holy" all around the world. But we affirm that they can keep the same day on all the earth. The same hours are not kept in all places, because the day does not commence in all places at the same time. It takes no great knowledge to understand this. No one doubts that all nations have Sunday—the real, genuine, first day of the week—and that it is observed by many nations in different parts of the earth. But this difficulty over the same time is intended to apply only to the seventh day; it does not at all stand in the way of the first day! So much for chapter 1. We will notice chapter 2 next week.