Review and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 10. (2/4/1862)

Review and Herald

Feb 4, 1862

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Feb 4, 1862

History of the Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

THE SABBATH DURING THE LAST OF THE SEVENTY WEEKS.

In the fullness of time God sent forth his Son to be the Saviour of the world. He who fulfilled this mission of infinite benevolence was both the Son of God and the Son of man. He was with the Father before the world was, and by him God created all things. Gal. iv, 4, 5; John i, 1-10; xvii, 5, 24; Heb. i. The Sabbath being ordained at the close of that great work as a memorial to keep it in lasting remembrance, the Son of God by whom all things were created, could not be otherwise than a perfect judge of its true design, and of its proper observance. The sixty-nine weeks of Daniel’s prophecy being accomplished, the Redeemer began to preach, saying, “The time is fulfilled.” Dan. ix, 25; Mark i, 14, 15. The ministry of the Saviour was at a time when the Sabbath of the Lord had become utterly perverted from its gracious design, by the teaching of Jewish doctors. As we have already seen, it was to the people no longer a source of refreshment and delight, but a cause of suffering and distress. It had been loaded down with traditions by the doctors of the law till its merciful and beneficent design was utterly hidden beneath the rubbish of men’s inventions. It being impracticable for Satan, after the Babylonish captivity, to cause the Jewish people, even by bloody edicts, to relinquish the Sabbath, and openly profane it as before that time, he turned their doctors so to pervert it, that its real character should be utterly changed and its observance entirely unlike that which would please God. We shall find that the Saviour never missed an opportunity to correct their false notions respecting the Sabbath; and that he selected with evident design the Sabbath as the day on which to perform many of his merciful works. It will be found that no small share of his teaching through his whole ministry was devoted to a determination of what was lawful on the Sabbath, a singular fact for those to explain who think that he designed its abrogation. At the opening of our Lord’s ministry we read thus:

“And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee; and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read.” Luke iv, 14-16.

Such was the manner of the Saviour relative to the Sabbath. It is evident that in this he designed to show his regard for that day; for it was not necessary thus to do in order to gain a congregation, as vast multitudes were ever ready to throng his steps. His testimony being rejected, our Lord left Nazareth for Capernaum. Thus the sacred historian says:

“But he passing through the midst of them, went his way, and came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath-days. And they were astonished at his doctrine; for his word was with power. And in the synagogue there was a man which had a spirit of an unclean devil, and cried out with a loud voice, saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art: the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of him. And when the devil had thrown him in the midst, he came out of him, and hurt him not. And they were all amazed, and spake among themselves, saying, What a word is this! for with authority and power he commandeth the unclean spirits and they come out. And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about. And he arose out of the synagogue and entered into Simon’s house. And Simon’s wife’s mother was taken with a great fever; and they besought him for her. And he stood over her and rebuked the fever; and it left her; and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.” Luke iv, 30-39; Mark i, 21-31; Matt. viii, 5-15.

These miracles are the first which stand upon record as performed by the Saviour upon the Sabbath. But the strictness of Jewish views relative to the Sabbath, is seen in that they waited till sunset, that is, till the Sabbath was past, before they brought the sick to be healed. Thus it is added:

“And at even when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased and them that were possessed with devils. And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.” Mark i, 32-34; Luke iv, 40.

The next mention of the Sabbath is of peculiar interest:

“At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath-day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath-day. But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath-day the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day.” Matt. xii, 1-9; Mark ii, 23-28; Luke vi, 1-5.

The parallel text in Mark has an important addition to the conclusion as stated by Matthew:

“And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27, 28.

The following points should be noted in examining this text: 1. That the question at issue did not relate to the act of passing through the corn on the Sabbath; for the Pharisees themselves were in the company; and hence it may be concluded that the Saviour and those with him were either going to or returning from the synagogue. 2. That the question raised by the Pharisees was this: Whether the disciples in satisfying their hunger from the corn through which they were passing were not violating the law of the Sabbath. 3. That he to whom this question was proposed was in the highest degree competent to answer it; for he was with the Father when the Sabbath was made. Compare John i, 1-3; Gen. i, 1, 26; ii, 1-3. 4. That the Saviour was pleased to appeal to scriptural precedents for a decision of this question, rather than to assert his own independent judgment. 5. That the first case cited by the Saviour was peculiarly appropriate. David, fleeing for his life, entered into the house of God upon the Sabbath and ate the shew-bread to satisfy his hunger. 1 Sam. xxi, 4-6. The disciples, to relieve their hunger simply ate of the corn through which they were passing upon the Sabbath. If David did right, though eating in his necessity of that which belonged only to priests, how little of blame could be attached to the disciples who had not even violated a precept of the ceremonial law? Thus much for the disciples satisfying their hunger as they did upon the Sabbath. Our Lord’s next example is designed to show what labor upon the Sabbath is not a violation of its sacredness. 6. And hence the case of the priests is cited. The same God who had said in the fourth commandment, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work,” had

commanded that the priests upon the Sabbath should offer certain sacrifices in his temple. Num. xxviii, 9, 10. Herein was no contradiction; for the labor performed by the priests upon the Sabbath was simply the maintenance of the appointed worship of God in his temple, and that was not doing what the commandment calls “THY WORK.” Labor of this kind therefore, the Saviour being judge, was not, and never had been, a violation of the Sabbath.

7. But it is highly probable that the Saviour in this reference to the priests, had his mind not merely upon the sacrifices which they offered upon the Sabbath, but upon the fact that they were required to prepare new shew-bread every Sabbath; when the old was to be removed from the table before the Lord, and eaten by them. Lev. xxiv, 5-9; 1 Chron. ix, 32. This view of the matter would connect the case of the priests with that of David, and both would bear with wonderful distinctness upon the act of the disciples. Then our Lord’s argument could be appreciated when he adds, “But I say unto you that in this place is one greater than the temple.” So that if the shew-bread was to be prepared on each Sabbath for the use of those who ministered in the temple, and those who did this were guiltless, how free from guilt also must be the disciples who, in following Him who was greater than the temple, but who had not where to lay his head, had eaten of the standing corn upon the Sabbath to relieve their hunger?

8. But our Lord next lays down a principle worthy of the most serious attention. Thus he adds: “But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.” The Most High had ordained certain labor to be performed upon the Sabbath, in order that sacrifices might be offered to himself. But Christ affirms upon the authority of the Scriptures [Hosea vi, 6], that there is something far more acceptable to God than sacrifices, and that this is acts of mercy. If God held those guiltless who offered sacrifices upon the Sabbath, how much less would he condemn those who extended mercy and relief to the distressed and suffering upon that day.

9. Nor does the Saviour even leave the subject here; for he adds: “The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” If the Sabbath was made, certain acts were necessary in order to give existence to it. What were those acts? (1.) God rested upon the seventh day. This made the seventh day the rest-day or Sabbath of the Lord. (2.) He blessed the day; thus it became his holy day. (3.) He sanctified it, or set it apart to a holy use; thus its observance became a part of man’s duty toward God. There must be a time when these acts were performed. And on this point there is really no room for controversy. They were not performed at Sinai, nor in the wilderness of Sin, but in Paradise. And this is strikingly confirmed by the language here used by the Saviour: “The Sabbath was made for THE man, not THE man for the Sabbath;” thus citing our minds to the man Adam that was made of the dust of the ground, and affirming that the Sabbath was made for him; a conclusive testimony that the Sabbath originated in Paradise. This fact is happily illustrated by a statement of the apostle Paul: “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” I Cor. xi, 9. It will not be denied that this language has direct reference to the creation of Adam and Eve. If then we turn back to the beginning, we shall find Adam made of the dust of the ground, Eve taken from his side, and the Sabbath made of the seventh day. Gen. ii, 1-3, 7, 21-23. Thus the Saviour to complete the solution of the question raised by the Pharisees, traces the Sabbath back to the beginning, as he does the institution of marriage when the same class proposed for his decision the lawfulness of divorce. Matt. xix, 3-9. His careful statement of the design of the Sabbath and of marriage, tracing each to the beginning, in the one case striking down their perversion of the Sabbath, in the other that of marriage, is the most powerful testimony in behalf of the sacredness of each institution. The argument in the one case stands thus: In the beginning God created one man and one woman, designing that they two should be one flesh. The marriage relation therefore was designed to unite simply two persons, and this union should be sacred and indissoluble. Such was the bearing of his argument upon the question of divorce. In relation to the Sabbath his argument is this: God made the Sabbath for the man that he made of the dust of the ground; and being thus made for an unfallen race, it can only be a merciful and beneficent institution. He who made the Sabbath for man before the fall, saw what man needed, and knew how to supply that want. It was given to him for rest, refreshment, and delight; a character that it sustained after the fall [Ex. xvi, 22; xxiii, 12; Isa. lviii, 13, 14], but which the Jews had wholly lost sight of. Thus our Lord lays open his whole heart concerning the Sabbath. He carefully determines what works are not a violation of the Sabbath; and this he does by Old-Testament examples, that it may be evident that he is introducing no change in the institution; he sets aside their rigorous and burdensome traditions concerning the Sabbath, by tracing it back to its merciful origin in Paradise; and having thus disencumbered the Sabbath of Pharisaic rigor, he leaves it upon its Paradisiac foundation, enforced by all the authority and sacredness of that law which he came not to destroy, but to magnify and make honorable. Matt. v, 17-19; Isa. xlii, 21.

10. Having thus divested the Sabbath of all Pharisaic additions, our Lord concludes with this remarkable declaration: “Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” (1.) It was not a disparagement to the Sabbath, but an honor, that God’s only Son should claim to be its Lord. (2.) Nor was it derogatory to the character of the Redeemer to be the Lord of the Sabbath; with all the high honors pertaining to his Messiahship, he is ALSO Lord of the Sabbath. Or if we take the expression in Matthew, he is “Lord EVEN of the Sabbath-day,” it implies that it is not a small honor to possess such a title. (3.) This title implies that the Messiah should be the protector, and not the destroyer, of the Sabbath. And hence that he was the rightful being to decide the proper nature of Sabbatic observance. With these memorable words ends our Lord’s first discourse concerning the Sabbath.

From this time the Pharisees watched the Saviour to find accusation against him of violating the Sabbath. The next example will show the malignity of their hearts, their utter perversion of the Sabbath, the urgent need of an authoritative correction of their false teachings respecting it, and the Saviour’s unanswerable defense:

“And when he was departed thence he went into their synagogue; and behold there was a man which had his hand withered. And they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days? that they might accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and it fall into a pit on the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift out? How much then is a man better than a sheep? Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days. Then said he to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole like as the other. Then the Pharisees went out and held council against him, how they might destroy him.” Matt. xii, 9-14; Mark iii, 1-6; Luke vi, 6-11.

What was the act that caused this madness of the Pharisees? On the part of the Saviour it was a word; on the part of the man it was the act of stretching out his arm. Did the law of the Sabbath forbid either of these things? No one can affirm such a thing. But the Saviour had publicly transgressed that tradition of the Pharisees that forbade the doing of anything whatever toward the healing of the sick upon the Sabbath. And how necessary that such a wicked tradition should be swept away, if the Sabbath itself was to be preserved for man. But the Pharisees were filled with such madness that they went out of the synagogue and consulted how they might destroy the Saviour. Yet Jesus only acted in behalf of the Sabbath in setting aside those traditions by which they had perverted it.

J. N. A.

(To be Continued.)

IMAGINARY EVILS.

By Chas. Swain

Let to-morrow take care of to-morrow; Leave things of the future to fate; What's the use to anticipate sorrow? Life's troubles come never too late! If to hope over much be an error, 'Tis one that the wise have preferred; And how often have hearts been in terror Of evils that never occurred!

Have faith—and thy faith shall sustain thee— Permit no suspicion and care, With invisible bonds to enchain thee, But bear what God gives thee to bear. By his Spirit supported and gladdened, Be ne'er by forebodings deterred, But think how oft hearts have been saddened By fear—of what never occurred!

Let to-morrow take care of to-morrow; Short and dark as our life may appear, We may make it still darker by sorrow— Still shorter by folly and fear! Half our troubles are half our invention; And often by blessings conferred, Have we shrunk in the wild apprehension Of evils that never occurred! [Chas. Swain.

Evidences of Christianity,

By Moses Hull

BY MOSES HULL.

CHAPTER IV.

(Continued.)

We now come to the second point, viz., Have we reason to rely with implicit confidence upon the honesty of the writers of the New Testament? The proof presented of the competency of these writers is also a proof of their honesty. So that instead of feeling that this subject needs more proof, we feel as though we were treading upon forbidden ground when we ask the reader to indulge us in exhibiting a few of the testimonies from the “cloud of witnesses” which surround this subject.

We begin the argument by asking what motive could have prompted the writers of the New Testament to have written what they have, except the consciousness of its truth? It is contrary to nature for men to undertake anything without a motive. So that if no human inducement had been held up before them to publish what is not true, perhaps a higher one has stimulated them to tell the truth.

The apostles did preach and publish that Jesus died and rose again. This was very displeasing to the rulers who had crucified him, and had the disposition to put them to death in the same way. Every point of their doctrine was unpopular. What could excite the ire of the Romans more than to preach “another king, even Jesus?” Especially when they knew that he had been crucified. The crucifixion was the most degrading death that the Roman law inflicted. And what could be more absurd in the eyes of the philosophers of Greece, than to tell them that “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust.” And what could excite the Jew more than to tell him that God was taking “out of the Gentiles a people for his name?” Now the apostles did all this. We ask again what motive could they have had in view? Certainly, if they had been after popularity, they would have taken some other course. Infidels acknowledge that the apostles preached a pure morality; hence it could not have been to obtain license for lust that they confederated together to circulate a falsehood. It must have been to advance themselves either in wealth, honor or power.

But their new religion made no provision for either of these. Peter and John were so poor that when asked by a beggar for alms, Peter answered, “Silver and gold have I none.” Acts iii, 6. And though the friends of Christianity sold their possessions and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet [Acts iv, 34–37], so that they could have made themselves independently rich, had they chosen so to do, instead of managing the money matters themselves, they elect seven deacons to attend to that, and gave themselves continually to the ministry of the word and prayer. Acts vi, 1–6. And after the apostles had labored more than a score of years in the propagation of Christianity, and had almost unlimited success, they could appeal to the churches with language like this: “I have coveted no man’s silver or gold or apparel.” “Yea,” says Paul, “ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that are with me.” Acts xx, 33–41. Those to whom the apostle made this appeal were well acquainted with the fact that while Paul was preaching for a year and a half from Sabbath to Sabbath, in Corinth, he spent the six working days of every week in Aquila and company’s tent factory. Acts xviii. After this, the same apostle, in writing to his

brethren at Corinth, could say in behalf of the apostles, “Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labor, working with our hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” 1 Cor. iv, 11–13. The author of the Christian religion was born in a manger, and was so poor through his life that he had not where to lay his head. Matt. viii, 20. And one of the last writers of the New Testament writes from a dungeon in Rome to his brother Timothy, to bring his old cloak, and “do his diligence to come before winter.” 2 Tim. iv, 13, 21. Thus we discover that whether the apostles were popular or not, they were penniless.

But have they gained honor by propagating this falsehood, if indeed it be a falsehood? Let us see. The very first thing that is done when they commence to tell their story, is to command them to “speak no more in this name.” Acts iv, 17. The next is to imprison and beat them. Acts v, 18, 40. After that a general persecution ensues in which Stephen is put to death, and from this time the witnesses are scattered. Persecution drives them from place to place. Saul, a young and popular lawyer, carries the documents in his pocket which authorizes him to put the saints to death. Thus he persecutes from city to city, until he is arrested and made an apostle of this new religion. And behold the prospect placed before him. Says Jesus, I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. Acts ix, 16. And he says himself, “And now behold I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, Bonds and afflictions abide me.” Acts xx, 22, 23. Hear him give the proofs of his calling of God to the ministry:

“Are they ministers of Christ? I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” 2 Cor. xi, 23–27.

Now if this is merely a contrivance of the writers of the New Testament, is it not strange that they stuck to it as they did? It bitterly opposed all the habits, prejudices, and dispositions of the people, insomuch that all manner of suffering was heaped upon them. They submit to misery and contempt, take joyfully the spoiling of their goods [Heb. x, 34], willingly endure to be counted fools and the offscouring of all things, and rejoice that they are counted worthy to suffer shame [Acts v, 41], fight with wild beasts at Ephesus [1 Cor. xv, 32], and at last die in attestation of the truth of their affirmations, when at any time they can renounce their religion and retrieve their losses. Yes, this is strange conduct. But strange as it is, seven of these witnesses were put to death, and one of them banished for the word of their testimony, and yet not one word of confession was ever extorted from one of them.

As there could have been no inducement for the writers of the New Testament to give publicity to a falsehood, we now proceed to give evidence that they wrote the truth. The manner in which these writers publish their testimony to the world, bears every mark of truthfulness. Their statements are in a high degree circumstantial. False witnesses will not introduce many particulars into their narratives, while “he that doeth the truth cometh to the light.” “Generality is the cloak of fiction, while minuteness is the mantle of truth.”

When the writers of the New Testament record a miracle, they always go into a detail of circumstances, which renders the whole matter easy of reference and exposure if false. The miracles of Jesus Christ were not done in a corner. They were all wrought in public places and in a public manner, so that if a mistake should be made in recording one of them, thousands of witnesses who were present at the time the miracle was performed could correct it. Do the Evangelists record the astonishing miracles of feeding five thousand men upon five barley loaves and two small fishes? They tell the time of the year when, and the place where, it was done, and many other circumstances connected with it. Thus they put it into the power of these five thousand men and myriads of their contemporaries to have exposed the fraud if it had been one.

Again, when John records the resurrection of a dead man, he does not simply state that Christ raised a man from the dead, but he tells you that his name was Lazarus, that he resided in the village of Bethany, about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, that he was laid in a cave with a stone rolled to its mouth; tells the length of time that he had been dead, how he came out of the sepulchre, names several prominent individuals that were present, gives the impression which it made upon the Jews, gives the history of the calling of the council to decide what shall be done with the man who had raised the dead, tells how they were divided in opinion with regard to it, gives the language of Caiphas the high priest, and the subsequent treatment which Lazarus received from the Jews. Surely nothing but truth would dare to deal in such circumstantialities. It looks as if this writer was not afraid of anything that the people of Bethany might do. This one circumstance is enough to prove that this book was written in all the confidence of truth.

Again, when Luke records the miracle of speaking with foreign tongues, he does not simply state that the apostles spoke with tongues. But he tells us where it was done and when. That it was in an upper room where the disciples dwelt in the city of Jerusalem, on the pentecost, after the resurrection of Christ. He also tells us that the men of fourteen foreign nations rushed together, as soon as it was noised abroad, and were confounded at hearing every man speak in his (the foreigners’) own language. He informs them that the whole multitude were amazed, that some asked what it meant; others mocked, and others cried out, They are drunken, and that Peter explained the matter, that he had not finished the explanation until they began to cry out, What shall we do? gives Peter’s answer, and informs us that they were baptized.

Now think you that the book of Acts could have gained circulation if this were not true? Would there not have been books published by men of every nation under heaven, contradicting and repelling the falsehood? I apprehend that certificates would have been circulated with hundreds of names to them, stating that they were at the feast mentioned by Luke, and saw no unusual stir there; that they heard no speaking with tongues, and did not know that there was any baptizing going on. One such testimony as the above would have subverted all that Luke ever wrote. But it was not given, for the very good reason that all who were at the feast knew that Luke had written the truth. While the events recorded were so notorious that those who were not present could not doubt their correctness.

Another evidence of the credibility of the New Testament is found in the fact that its writers exhibit no consciousness of narrating anything about which as a matter of fact, there was the smallest doubt. On the other hand they appealed to those to whom they wrote, as being acquainted with the circumstances which they relate. Would the disciples have dared, had they been conscious of falsehood, to assert that Christ was risen, and that in the very streets of the city where he was crucified? How dare Peter go into the temple, the most public place of resort of the Jews, and tell them that they had murdered the Prince of life, but God had raised him from the dead, if this were not true? If conscious of falsehood, would or could he have said in the presence of the Jewish senate, that the God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree?

How could Paul, when on trial for his life before Agrippa, appeal to him as being acquainted with these facts, if they had never occurred? Hear him: “For the king knoweth of these things before whom I also speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things were hidden from him, for this thing was not done in a corner.” Acts xxvi, 26. Here we might expect, if Paul was not telling the truth, that the king would dispute him, but he did not, but replies, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Verse 28.

In all the apostolic writings there is no attempt to convince those to whom they wrote of the truth of their statements; on the contrary, they are conducted with the manner of those who take their notoriety for granted. They do not commence their writings by giving long accounts of themselves, or a list of reasons why the people should believe them. They go straight forward with their statements, telling the least and the most wonderful circumstances in the same manner, which nothing but the notoriety of what they relate could explain. Nothing is said to explain what might seem incongruous or contradictory, or to defend what might be cavilled at. No attempt is made to harmonize objections, which those who feel that they are relating untruth, or new things, would expect to be compelled to meet. The writers seem to understand that what they are relating is so universally known that, for those living in their age, all this is needless; hence they commit their statements, undefended, unexplained, and unvarnished, into the hands of their contemporaries.

Do they relate the crucifixion of Christ, they do not exhaust the adjectives of the language in which they write in descriptions of his sufferings, nor are they careful about describing the malignity of the Jews. They simply state the fact, “and they crucified him,” leaving others to comment on it as they saw fit.

Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that the apostles were ignorant of the fact that they were relating many very extraordinary events, yet they exhibit no signs of wonder in their own minds, and do not seem to expect any among their readers. This could not have been the case, had the events which they narrated just been conceived in their own minds. They wrote as though the events which they related were perfectly familiar to those for whom they wrote; sometimes stating that as those to whom they wrote, knew “these things,” and were “established in the present truth,” they only wrote to “stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance.” 2 Pet. i, 12, 13; iii, 1; 1 John ii, 13, 14. Hence whatever wonder they excited at first, they expect none now, as they are events perfectly familiar to those to whom they wrote. It is one thing to relate a series of astonishing occurrences to those who never heard of them, and another to relate the same things to those who are familiar with their main features, and only need a more circumstantial and authenticated account of them. In one case the writer would naturally and almost necessarily betray an expectation of wonder from his readers, in the spirit and style of his work, while in the other he would tell his story as if he were only intent upon delivering an accurate account of the circumstances, without reference to whether it was astonishing or the contrary. Thus it is with the New Testament. There is no appearance of any of its writers having felt that any of their testimony would or could be doubted, or that there would or could be any new feelings of wonder excited by reading it.

When the miracles of Christ were first heard of, they excited universal astonishment, insomuch that it is said that “his fame went abroad and all people were amazed,” “and they were astonished with great astonishment.” See Mark v, 42. But at the time of the writing of the New Testament, the excitement had subsided and the wonder died away, on account of their familiarity with the exciting events which it records. Hence in the Gospels the writers go directly forward in the relation of the events exceedingly astonishing in and of themselves, without exhibiting any astonishment in their own minds, or expecting any in the minds of their readers. This can only be explained by supposing that the events which they were recording were perfectly familiar to the minds of those to whom they wrote. This we regard as a strong argument, and hope the reader will weigh it well.

(To be Continued.)

Continue reading: PERPETUITY OF SPIRITUAL GIFTS