Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 43, No. 18.

THE SABBATH AT THE FALL OF THE MANNA

Review and Herald

Apr 14, 1874

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 14, 1874

THE SABBATH AT THE FALL OF THE MANNA.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.
TEXT: “Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in; and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily.” Ex. 16:4, 5.
The first fall of the manna in the wilderness constitutes a memorable epoch in the history of the Sabbath. The origin of the Sabbath is dated at this point by all who hold it to be a mere Jewish institution. But all who believe that the Sabbath was made for the human family date its origin at the close of creation. Here is a very wide difference, certainly. One of the parties must be in serious error. There are, however, several tests by which we may determine where the truth lies.
1. Was the law of the Sabbath in existence before the fall of the manna? or was it enacted on that occasion, and to meet that very circumstance?
2. Was the violation of the Sabbath a sin which Israel here, for the first time, committed? or was it one of which they had long been guilty?
3. Was the Sabbath instituted to commemorate the fall of the manna? or was the fall of the manna made to conform to the sacredness of the Sabbath?
4. Does the Sabbath commemorate the flight of Israel out of Egypt? or is it a memorial of the creation of the heavens and the earth?
The answers to these questions must determine, beyond all reasonable dispute, which class is right respecting the origin of the Sabbath. And certainly the questions themselves do admit of definite answers.
1. Was the law of the Sabbath in existence before the fall of the manna? or was it enacted on that occasion, and to meet that very circumstance?
(a) When God announced to Moses his purpose to feed the people with bread from heaven, he referred to his law as an existing code. He said that he would prove the people, whether they would walk in his law, or not. When they were subjected to the proof, it turned directly upon the observance of the Sabbath. See Ex. 16:4, 5, 22–29. It is certain, therefore, that God had a law in existence before the fall of the manna, and that one precept of that law required the observance of the Sabbath.
(b) When the people had violated the Sabbath by attempting to gather manna upon it, God said, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?” This shows with certainty, first, that God had commandments and laws at that very time; and, secondly, that one of those commandments related to the observance of the Sabbath.
(c) It is to be specially noticed that although the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, in many ways, recognizes the sacredness of the Sabbath, it contains no precept expressly enjoining its observance till after the people had violated it. Thus we are clearly taught that the law of God relative to the Sabbath did not originate in that chapter nor at that time.
(d) The existence of the law of God from the beginning has been established by proofs which can never be invalidated. And, moreover, the existence in particular of the law of the Sabbath from the time that the Creator set apart the seventh day in Eden in memory of his own rest on that day, has been plainly proved. These four points do, therefore, certainly determine the fact that the law of the Sabbath existed before the fall of the manna.
2. Was the violation of the Sabbath a sin which Israel here, for the first time, committed? or was it one of which they had long been guilty?
(a) The words of the Lord to Moses very clearly answer this question. When the people went out to gather manna on the Sabbath, the Lord said, “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?” Verse 28. This language does certainly imply the long-continued violation of the Sabbath. It is certain that God was particularly testing them with reference to it. Verse 4.
(b) The evidence already adduced to show that the law did not originate at this time, proves that they had long been under obligation to observe it. But, when in Egyptian bondage, they could plead, as a body, the difficulty, and perhaps impossibility in the case of many, of observing this sacred day. Now that God had broken their yoke, and changed their condition from that of servitude to that of freedom, and had begun to feed them from Heaven in such a manner that every facility for observing the Sabbath was now theirs, he could say of his providence, for he had done nothing by way of adding to his law on the point, that he had given them his Sabbath. It is in evident allusion to the fact that, though their difficulties had been great in time past in the observance of the Sabbath, and had been, therefore, some sort of excuse, now such excuse did not exist. When, therefore, the people were thus subjected to the test, to prove them respecting the Sabbath, and a portion of them continued to violate it, though God had made everything perfectly ready to their hand, he uses the strong language already quoted respecting their long-continued disobedience. We may be certain, therefore, that this was not their first transgression of the Sabbath law.
3. Was the Sabbath instituted to commemorate the fall of the manna? or was the fall of the manna made to conform to the sacredness of the Sabbath? Or, to state this question in a different form, Did the seventh day become the Sabbath by virtue of the fact that the manna did not fall that day? or did the manna cease from falling on that day because it was the sacred rest-day of the Lord?
(a) Certainly, it makes very great difference which way this question is answered. And yet there can really be no serious difference as to the true answer.
(b) Either the cessation of the manna on the seventh day made that day to become the Sabbath; in which case it follows that the Sabbath is a memorial of the fall of the manna;
(c) Or, the existing sanctity of the seventh day caused the Author of the Sabbath to withhold the manna on that day. In this case, the Sabbath is proved to be more ancient than the fall of the manna.
(d) But we do know that the Sabbath does not allude to the six days’ fall of the manna, and the cessation thereof on the seventh day (see Gen. 2:1–3; Ex. 20:8–11; 31:17; Heb. 4:4); but to the six days’ work of creation, and the rest of the Creator on the seventh.
(e) It is not recorded that at the fall of the manna God rested upon the seventh day, nor that he blessed the day at that time, nor that he did then sanctify it.
(f) But all these things were done at the close of the creative work.
(g) It does, therefore, follow that the institution of the Sabbath did not originate at the fall of the manna, but did originate at the creation of the heavens and the earth; and that the seventh day did not become the Sabbath in consequence of the cessation of the manna on that day; but that the manna itself ceased on that day because of the existing sanctity of the Sabbath.
4. Does the Sabbath commemorate the flight of Israel out of Egypt? or is it a memorial of the creation of the heavens and the earth?
The following reasons are assigned to prove that the Sabbath commemorates the flight of Israel from Egypt:—
(a) The Sabbath originated in the Wilderness of Sin, about one month after the flight out of Egypt.
(b) When Moses, in Deut. 5, repeats the ten commandments, he closes the fourth precept with these words: “And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand, and by a stretched-out arm; therefore the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.” Verse 15. Our opponents, therefore, claim that the Sabbath is a memorial of the flight out of Egypt.
(c) God said to Moses respecting the Sabbath: “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.” Ex. 31:17. See also verse 13, and Eze. 20:12–20. The Sabbath, in the view of our opponents, is therefore a Jewish institution, made for them, beginning with their flight out of Egypt, designed to commemorate that event, and expiring with the call of the Gentiles.
Such are the grounds for asserting that the Sabbath is a memorial of the flight of Israel out of Egypt. Let us now weigh them one by one.
(a) The first of these is of no account, simply because it is not founded in fact. It has been shown that the Sabbath originated at the close of the work of creation, and did not originate at the fall of the manna. This fact is not only fatal to the first of these three reasons, but to all three of them. For if the Sabbath of the Lord was made at creation, it is not a memorial of an event that did not happen till twenty-five hundred years afterward.
(b) Nor does the second reason possess any real force, even though the fact, that the Sabbath originated long before the flight out of Egypt, be left out of the account. For these words of Moses are the last which he utters in behalf of the Sabbath, and are his final appeal to that people who had so generally violated it during the forty years he had led them in the wilderness. See Eze. 20:13–24. It would seem very strange, if the Sabbath was ordained to be a memorial of the flight of Israel from Egypt, that Moses should not tell them of that fact till forty years afterward. But it does not appear that he made such a statement even then. One of two views must be taken of his words. Either they were designed to teach that the Sabbath commemorates the deliverance out of Egypt, or they were simply an appeal to their gratitude for such mercies, that they should honor God in the observance of his Sabbath. It is in our power to test this thing by quoting, from the same book, other words of Moses, which form an exact parallel to the text under consideration. Thus Moses says (Deut. 24:17, 18): “Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stranger, nor of the fatherless; nor take a widow’s raiment to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee thence; therefore I command thee to do this thing.” These words, relative to not oppressing the widow and the fatherless, are the same that Moses uses concerning the Sabbath. If they prove in the one case that the Sabbath is a memorial of the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, they prove in the other that acts of justice and mercy toward the widow and the fatherless are also a memorial of the flight out of Egypt! Again, if they prove respecting the Sabbath that it was not obligatory upon men till the deliverance from Egypt, they prove in the other case that justice and mercy toward the widow and orphan was not a part of man’s duty till after the Israelites left Egypt! But such conclusions need only to be stated, in order to show how unreasonable are the premises that lead to them. There is another view to be taken, and one that is strictly logical, reasonable, and just. These words were, in each case, an appeal to the gratitude of a rebellious people. God had conferred on them signal mercies; he asked them to show, by their obedience toward himself, and their pity toward their fellow-men, that they remembered this.
(c) But the third reason for asserting that the Sabbath is a memorial of the flight from Egypt, or at least for claiming that it originated after that event, is found in what is said in Ex. 31, and Eze. 20, relative to the Sabbath as a sign between God and Israel. Yet the conclusion does not follow from the premises. Why was the Sabbath a sign between God and Israel?
(1) The first important fact is, that Israel was the only people that God had upon the earth. The duty to be the people of God was not something peculiar to Israel; but obedience to that duty distinguished them from the rest of the world.
(2) While the Hebrews worshiped the God that made the heavens and the earth, the nations around them worshiped false gods of every kind.
(3) It was perfectly appropriate and suitable to the case that God should designate his Sabbath as a sign between himself and the only people that acknowledged the Creator of the heavens and earth. The sign expressed their faith in the God that made the heavens and the earth, as distinguished from all false gods. It also expressed their faith that God made the heavens and earth in six days, and rested on the seventh, and that he hallowed that day in memory of that fact. Indeed, the very words in which God appointed the Sabbath to be a sign between Israel and himself cited their minds to the creation for the origin of the institution: “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” Ex. 31:17. And thus the grand feature of the Sabbath, that fitted it to be a sign between God and the only people that acknowledged him, is the fact that the Sabbath points to God as the Creator, and traces itself back to the close of the creation week for its own origin. The reasons therefore assigned for the assertion that the Sabbath was a memorial of the flight from Egypt, are found to be utterly destitute of any evidence for their support. That the Sabbath does not commemorate the flight of the children of Israel from Egypt can be clearly shown.
(a) It has been proved to originate at the creation of the heavens and the earth, and to be a memorial of that event. Ex. 20:8–11.
(b) There is nothing in resting on the seventh day of each week to commemorate a flight at midnight on the fifteenth day of the first month. Ex. 12:29–42; Num. 33:3.
(c) God did give to the children of Israel a two-fold memorial of the events of their deliverance out of Egypt: the passover and the feast of unleavened bread—the passover, on the fourteenth day of the first month, to commemorate the fact that the angel of God did pass over the Israelites on that day when he slew the first-born of the Egyptians; and the feast of unleavened bread, on the fifteenth day of the same, to commemorate the fact that when they fled out of Egypt on that day it was in great haste, and with their bread unleavened. Ex. 12:13. This memorial pointed the children of Israel back to the deliverance out of Egypt, just as the memorial of the Sabbath points its observers back to the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the Creator’s rest from the same.
(d) Those who assert that the Sabbath was designed to be a weekly commemoration of the flight of Israel out of Egypt, assert that it originated at the fall of the manna, a little more than a month after they left Egypt. But if it is a weekly commemoration of that event, why was it deferred for five weeks before being appointed? That is very unlike the work of God. We say that the Sabbath is a memorial of the work of creation, and we show that no sooner was that work finished, and the rest of the Creator an accomplished fact, than the Sabbath was set apart to a holy use. It would be much more proper to say that the Sabbath is a memorial of the fall of the manna than of the flight out of Egypt, as, on the view held by our opponents, there was no Sabbath till that point; yet there should have been, at least five weeks earlier, if it was a fit thing in the mind of God that there should be a weekly memorial of that event. God never delays to do his work when the reasons for that work once exist.
The sixteenth of Exodus does not give us the origin of the Sabbath. It treats the sacred rest-day of the Lord as an existing institution, and not as something which came into existence at the fall of the manna. But it does do two things that are of great importance: 1. It shows that God has a definite day for his Sabbath; and, 2. That he took care that it should be definitely known by his people. The fall of the manna for six days, and its cessation on the seventh, left no chance for doubt as to what day was his Sabbath. God proposed, by the giving of the manna, to prove his people, whether they would walk in his law, or no. He gave them bread from heaven. They had only to gather each day what God sent them. And, whereas they had been in cruel servitude, and in circumstances of deep distress, now their yoke was broken from off their necks, and they were God’s free men. The fall of the manna gave them every facility for the observance of the Lord’s rest-day. And, whereas God proposed to prove them in this new and changed situation, whether they would now observe his Sabbath, he gave them no precept respecting it till they had by their own action on the sixth day shown a purpose to prepare for the Sabbath. Yet some on the seventh day persisted in the violation of the Sabbath. The fall of the manna began God’s work of proving his people respecting the Sabbath. That work continued during the whole period of forty years. And during all that time the Hebrew people did, to a very alarming extent, continue to violate the Sabbath of the Lord. See Eze. 20.
The sixteenth of Exodus shows that the day of preparation for the Sabbath was not a mere Jewish tradition, but something which God himself first enjoined upon that people. Verses 5, 23, 29.
This chapter connects the record in Gen. 2:1–3, and the statement of facts given in the fourth commandment, in a most wonderful manner. Gen. 2:1–3, gives the sanctification of the seventh day for time to come, in memory of the Creator’s rest on that day. It therefore reaches forward into the distant future. The fourth commandment, given twenty-five hundred years after that event, traces its sacredness back to the creation of the world. The sixteenth of Exodus, standing between these two, presents us the definite seventh day, pointing it out by the fall of the manna. It contains no act of making it holy on the part of the Lord. It recognizes its sacredness; it treats its observance as a matter of existing obligation. Surely, those who contend that the Sabbath originated with the events of this chapter do greatly err.

THE PRICE OF TRUTH.

Great truths are dearly bought. The common truth, Such as men give and take from day to day, Comes in the common walks of daily life, Blown by the careless winds across our way.
Bought in the market at the current price, Bred of the smile, the jest, perchance the bowl, It tells no tales of daring or of worth, Nor pierces e'en the surface of the soul.
Great truths are greatly won—not formed by chance Nor wafted on the breath of summer dreams; But grasped in the great struggle of the soul, Hard buffeting with adverse wind and streams.
Not in the general mart mid corn and wine: Not in the merchandise of gold and gems; Nor in the world's gay hall of midnight mirth, Nor mid the blaze of regal diadems;
But in the day of conflict, fear and grief, When the strong hand of God, put forth in might, Plows up the subsoil of the stagnant heart And brings the imprisoned truth-seeds to the light;
Wrung from the troubled spirit in hard hours Of weakness, solitude, perchance of pain; Truth springs like harvest from the well-plowed field, And the soul feels it has not wept in vain. —Sel.

Signs of the Nearing Advent of Christ.

(Continued.)
3. Home and Foreign Missionary Exertions.—No age since that of the apostles has witnessed such wide-spread exertions in behalf of the Jewish and Gentile nations as our own. This certainly is a sign peculiar to the present century. I do not speak of Missionary and Bible Societies as if they were to convert the world; but still I would point to the fact of hundreds of missionaries going forth to every region of our globe, millions of Bibles circulated—almost every nation having the Scriptures in their own language—and, pointing to these simple but magnificent facts, I ask, Is there not in these a most palpable fulfilment of the words of the Lord, “This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached to all nations for a witness, and then shall the end come”? Matt. 24:14. In our day, we have the preaching of the gospel, and its witness-bearing most manifest. The result is not the conversion of the world, but the gathering out of the election. (Acts 15:14.) And then the end comes! It is not said, And the millennium comes; but the end—the end of this present age, and the coming of the Son of man. This sign seems also referred to in Rev. 14:6: “I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his Judgment is come.” This sign will, I doubt not, become more and more visible—but still there it is already before us—a sign which foretells a coming Lord, and most distinctly intimates the impossibility of a millennium before his advent.
5. Disbelief of the approaching advent of Christ, even in the church.—It is no marvel that the world should either deride or deny that event. And it is of the world’s mocking that Peter speaks when he says, “There shall come in the last days scoffers, saying, Where is the promise of his coming?” But the church also loses sight of that day; nay, refuses to credit the news of its approach. She says, “My Lord delayeth his coming.” She slumbers and sleeps. And it is just when she is speaking thus, and thus slumbering; it is in an hour when she thinks not, that he arrives. It is often said, Surely, if the time were just at hand, more of God’s people would believe it. But it is when many of them are not believing it, and are counting on delay, that the Bridegroom comes. While, then, we mourn that so many of the saints should disbelieve the nearness of that day, let us also lift up our heads; for by this sign we know that our redemption draweth nigh. 2 Pet. 3:3, 4; Matt. 24:48.
6. Human efforts at self-regeneration.—I do not say this of the church, though there are some tokens of it even in her. But I speak of the world. Man seems now to be putting forth every effort to regenerate himself without God. Amid all the modern achievements of science and of art, he has lost sight of his own helplessness and dependence on Him who created him. He thinks to be a God to himself. It is as if before God’s glorious purpose of restitution is brought to pass, man is allowed to do his utmost for the renewal of himself and of the world. He is to be put to the proof. He is to be permitted to boast himself for a little, and congratulate himself upon the triumph before him. Hence, the vain-glorious speeches we so often hear of man’s powers and man’s prospects. Political reforms are spoken of as the regeneration of the world. One party most loudly maintains that the separation of church and State is to usher in the millennium; another as boldly affirms that it is the union of church and State that is to accomplish this. Education, science, literature, philosophy, are called the world’s regenerators, and no limits are assigned to the blessings which these are to confer upon the world. It is curious, also, to observe, for some years past, how eagerly science has been putting forth all its energies in pursuit of discoveries that shall restore fruitfulness to the soil. Agricultural chemistry has shot up into a separate study. As if unconsciously prescient of the earth’s deliverance from the curse of barrenness, men are laboring to do all that science can to hasten on that day of restitution. These efforts at self-regeneration must prove abortive; for man cannot undo either his sin or its consequences. They may succeed to a certain extent, but only to prove how little they can effect. These are, however, signs of a coming deliverance; for when man’s endeavors shall prove fruitless, both in reference to himself and society, and the soil which he tills, God shall at length interpose and accomplish the work of renovation by the word of his power.
7. The spread of knowledge.—Many are running to and fro, and knowledge is increasing. Dan. 12:4. Nor is it knowledge of one kind, but of every kind, secular and sacred. It is, however, for the former that this age is specially distinguished. And Satan is putting forth his utmost resources of power and craft thus to lead men captive at his will. “He is the prince of all knowledge, where God is not known; of all power where God is not acknowledged; the bright archangel of the natural man, revealing himself in his angelic glories of natural knowledge, natural beauty, natural wisdom, and natural humanity.” Thus does he play his part in this last age! Under these radiant disguises, he is bewildering the eyes of men, and persuading them that this diffusion of knowledge is the appearing of the millennial dawn. So specious are his counterfeits that it is hard to separate the real from the false, the precious from the vile; for when he thus comes forth as an angel of light, clothed in every perfection that the natural heart loves and the carnal eye admires, who shall penetrate the deception and escape the snare, save those who “know all things,” by reason of “the unction of the Holy One”? 1 John 2:20. Most truly has the present state of the world been described by one of the world’s own poets, when picturing the gay flitter of an evening assembly, over which was thrown
“A dazzling mass of artificial light, Which showed all things, but nothing as they were.”
So it is now upon the earth, among the heedless multitudes of the children of men. It is the world’s midnight. They are eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage. Literature, science, art, philosophy, are all their own! Yet there is an artificial coloring, an unreal brightness over all. There is music; but it is of the siren kind. There is eloquence, too, but it is “the words of man’s wisdom,” not that which speaks for God and “winneth souls.” There is fervor, too; but it is the warmth of wild excitement, born in novelty and nursed by perpetual change. There is high thought, too; but it is often of the unhealthful cast, wrought off at the midnight lamp; not the deep musings begot in fellowship with God, and ceaseless converse with that inspired word which maketh wise the simple. And, in connection with all this, there is a proud air of independence, like that which said, “Our lips are our own; who is Lord over us?” There is a reckless determination to hold what opinions men please, unchecked and unreproved.—Signs of the Times.
(Concluded Next Week.)

A Wife's Power.

The power of a wife for good or evil is irresistible. Home must be the seat of happiness, or it must be forever unknown. A good wife is to a man, wisdom, courage, and strength; a bad one is confusion, weakness, and despair. No condition is hopeless to a man where the wife possesses firmness, decision, and economy. There is no outward prosperity which can counteract indolence, extravagance, and folly, at home. No spirit can long endure bad domestic influence. Man is strong, but his heart is not adamant. He delights in the enterprise and action, but to sustain him he needs a tranquil mind; and especially if he is an intellectual man, with a whole heart, he needs his moral forces in the conflict of life.
To recover his composure, home must be a place of peace, of cheerfulness, and of comfort. There his soul renews its strength and goes forth with fresh vigor to encounter the labor and troubles of life. But if at home he finds no rest, and is there met with bad temper, sullenness, jealousy, or gloom, or is assailed by complaints and censure, hope vanishes and he sinks into despair. Such is the case with many who, it might seem, have no conflicts or trials of life; for such is the wife's power.

What I Have Noticed.

A MINISTER of the gospel who had closely watched the operation of giving among our churches, begs leave to note the following as the result:—
1. Churches in which a system of giving to the cause of Christ has been carried out, contribute most liberally to benevolent objects.
2. Such churches make the most sure and rapid progress in supporting themselves.
3. Churches which do little or nothing for others do the least for themselves; and those which do little or nothing for their own pastor’s support, do little or nothing for others, and are not likely to become self-sustaining.
4. Churches which do most for Domestic Missions generally do most for Foreign Missions.
5. Those churches which plead that “the applications are too many” would be pleased not to have any.
6. Churches which plead that “charity begins at home” are the last to begin it anywhere.
7. Churches which are always pleading that “the present is an unfavorable time to make an application” never find a favorable time.
8. Those people who do not give often and cheerfully do not know the blessedness of giving.
9. Those who do not give as the Scriptures teach, cannot expect to receive the blessedness of Scripture promises.
10. One reason why so many give so little, and with fault-finding when they do give, is because they give so seldom.
11. No system of giving has, in its simplicity and efficiency, equaled that of the apostle Paul—“On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him.”
12. The adoption of that plan would immediately give the church all the money it needs, and enable it to go forward in the work of the Lord.
13. Ministers who do not instruct their people in the duty of giving, and urge it upon them, for fear their own salaries will not be paid, are the most poorly supported, and thus reap what they sow.—Central Presbyterian.

TRIP LIGHTLY.

By Sel.

Trip lightly over trouble, trip lightly over wrong, We only make grief double, by dwelling on it long. Why clasp woe's hand so tightly? why sigh o'er blossoms dead? Why cling to forms unsightly? why not seek joy instead?
Trip lightly over sorrow, though all the day be dark. The sun may shine to-morrow, and gaily sing the lark, Fair hopes have not departed, though roses may have fled, Don't ever be down-hearted, but look for joy instead.
Trip lightly over sadness, stand not to rail at doom, We've pearls to string of gladness on this side of the tomb. When stars are nightly shining, and the Heaven is overhead, Encourage not repining, but look for joy instead.
—Sel.

Good Manners a Duty.

By Henry Ward Beecher

Men often speak of good manners as an accomplishment. I speak of them as a duty. What, then, are good manners? Such manners as the usages of society have recognized as being agreeable to men; such manners as take away rudeness. There are a great many who feel that good manners are effeminate. They have a feeling that rude bluntness is a great deal more manly than good manners. It is a great deal more beastly. But when men are crowded in communities, the art of living together is no small art. How to diminish friction; how to promote ease of intercourse; how to make every part of a man's life contribute to the welfare and satisfaction of those around him; how to keep down offensive pride; how to banish the raspings of selfishness from the intercourse of men; how to move among men inspired by various and conflicting motives, and yet not have collisions—this is the unction of good manners.
It is not effeminate to be refined. And in this land no man should plead inability. There may be a peasantry in other countries, there may be a class in foreign lands who have no opportunities; there may be those whose toil is so continuous, whose opportunities for knowing what constitutes good manners are so few, and whose ignorance is so gross that they are excusable; but this is not the case in America.
That a man is a mechanic is no reason why he should not be a perfect gentleman. I affirm for every American citizen the right to be not simply a man, but a good-mannered man. I have seen men at the anvil who were as perfect gentlemen as men of books or men of society. I know no reason why a man who tans hides should not be a gentleman. I know no reason why a man who digs in the soil, a man who works in metals and woods, a man who builds, should not be a perfect gentleman. There is nothing in mechanical occupations which is incompatible with the highest courtesy.
Not only is the violation of good manners inexcusable on ordinary grounds, but it is sinful. When, therefore, parents and guardians and teachers would inspire the young with a desire for the manners of a good society, it is not to be thought that they are accomplishments which may be accepted or rejected. Every man is bound to observe the laws of politeness. It is the expression of good-will and kindness. It promotes both beauty in the man who possesses it, and happiness in those who are about him.—Henry Ward Beecher.

The Yoke of Bondage.

By S. B. Whitney

One of the most common, and, in some instances, effectual perversions of Scripture used as argument against the present truth is the notion that the ten commandments, especially the fourth commandment, is the yoke of bondage referred to in the 5th chapter of Galatians. That this is a perversion of Scripture we will now attempt to show.
1. Neither the ten commandments nor any part of them constitutes the yoke of bondage. The first Psalm, describing the character of the man that is blessed, says, verse 2, “His delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night.” Again, Ps. 19:7, 10, 11, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” “More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned; and in keeping of them there is great reward.” And yet again, Ps. 119:45, “And I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts.” Please read this entire psalm. Such language as the above certainly cannot apply to a yoke of bondage.
But has the change of dispensation converted the perfect law of God into such a yoke? Let us see. “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” James 1:25. What law is this? Let Chap. 2:10, 12, answer. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he [margin, that law], that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” This testimony clearly points out the law, and includes every point in it; and it is conclusive; for assuredly, the perfect law of liberty cannot be the yoke of bondage.
2. But what is this yoke? The origin of the expression is found in Acts 15, and the circumstances there related evidently gave rise to the language under consideration; and an examination of this chapter will make the matter clear. Verse 5 says, “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.” In the conference held over this matter, Peter inquires, verse 10, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” And in the letter sent to the churches occurs the following, verse 28, “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things.” Thus it appears that the yoke, or burden, is the law of Moses, which regulated the office and the ministrations of the Jewish priesthood. And with this agree other scriptures, in which the same law is called “statutes that were not good;” Eze. 20:25; “the ministration of death;” 2 Cor. 3:7; “the enmity;” Eph. 2:15; and is said to be “against us,” and “contrary to us.” Col. 2:14.
That law was given simply to meet an existing necessity, as a “shadow of good things to come.” As the “body,” or substance, is “of Christ,” it follows that when his sacrifice and priesthood, or the good things to come, were reached, that law ceased, and the yoke was lifted off. This being the case, to still continue those observances was to wear the yoke unnecessarily, or by voluntary imposition; while to seek justification by those observances was virtually to reject Christ; for, as those offerings pointed forward to Christ, to still offer them was, in effect, saying that he had not come. Consequently Christ became of no effect unto such, and they were fallen from grace. And so the Jews were said to be in “bondage,” and to have a “veil upon their heart.” Gal. 4:25. 2 Cor. 3:15.
3. From the foregoing considerations we may clearly perceive the relation that the law of Moses and the law of Christ sustain to the law of God and to each other. Standing at the cross, we are impressed with the perfection and perpetuity of God’s law, inasmuch as its transgression requires so infinite a sacrifice to save the transgressor. Extending in opposite directions, we behold two remedial schemes, one typical of the other, in which is offered salvation through the merits of the great sacrifice. Looking backward, we view the Mosaic dispensation, with its typical observances, regulated by the law of Moses, the mediator, pointing toward the bleeding Lamb of God. Looking forward, we view the Christian dispensation, with its commemorative observances, regulated by the law of Christ, the mediator, pointing back to the risen Saviour. The law of God, or ten commandments, as the constitution, or organic law of God’s government, is incorporated into both systems, and salvation is suspended, in the one case, upon obedience to the law of God and the law of Moses, and in the other, upon obedience to the law of God and the law of Christ; the principle, however, being the same in either case, both requiring faith in the all-sufficient sacrifice of the Son of God.
Therefore instead of antagonism, there is harmony, between the two systems; instead of one being all law, and the other all gospel, each is composed of the law and gospel combined; the only difference between them being that which arises from the different relation they sustain to the time of Christ’s death; the latter possessing in reality what the former possessed only in shadow, and accomplishing in fact what the other accomplished only in figure. And so Paul says, speaking of Christ, Heb. 9:15, “And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” How beautiful and harmonious is truth. S. B. WHITNEY.
Continue reading: Is Nature All the God there Is?