Review and Herald, Vol. 48, No. 11. (9/7/1876)

Review and Herald

Sep 7, 1876

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 7, 1876

THE SABBATH OF THE GENTILES.

By A. C. Spicer

BY ELD. A. C. SPICER.

Text: “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Eph. 4:4–6.

Very many persons seem to labor under the mistaken impression that the gospel to the Gentiles was different from the gospel to the Jews, and hence that the religion of the Gentiles was different from the religion of the Jews, and, per consequence, that there was a Gentile church distinguished from the Jewish church, and hence a moral law for the government of the Gentile Christian different from the moral law delivered to the Jews, and a Sabbath for the Gentiles different from the Sabbath observed by the Jews, or no Sabbath at all for such Gentiles. Of these errors the mind should be divested and disabused, and it seems to be fortunate to this undertaking that such persons regard Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, as a favorite. To Paul then be the appeal.

Paul’s doctrine is one God and Father of all; one Lord (Jesus Christ), one faith, one baptism; one body, (the church of God), one Spirit (Holy Spirit), one hope, Eph. 4:4–6, reversing the order of the terms. Now, it will not do to infer that this means “one faith” (which must include doctrine, gospel, and law) for all the Jews and another for all the Gentiles. These specified particulars are so connected that the oneness pertains alike to all of the personals mentioned; and hence if we affirm thus of faith, doctrine and law, or church, then the inevitable inference must be that there is “One God and Father,” “one Lord and Saviour,” “one Spirit,” and “one hope” (hope of eternal life) for the Jews, and another God and Father, another Lord and Saviour, another Holy Spirit, and another hope for the Gentiles. But this would be too much to believe.

Paul declared in Eph. 1:9, 10 that it was the “purpose” of God “in his good pleasure” “that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ,” &c. (i. e., in one church all persons). Again, Paul affirms that Christ, in pursuance of that purpose of God, “Hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between Jews and Gentiles],” and hath made both (Jews and Gentiles) one, “having abolished in his flesh the enmity [enmity between Jews and Gentiles], even the law of commandments contained in ordinances [not the moral law—the ten commandments—for that included and contained no ordinances, nor applied to them]; for to make in himself of twain one new man [people]; so making peace; and that he might reconcile both [Jews and Gentiles] unto God in one body [one church] by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace unto you [Gentiles] who were afar off, and to those [the Jews] who were nigh.” “Now therefore ye [Gentiles] are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God [fellows in the same church with the Jews]; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone; in whom all the building [the church] fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye [Gentiles] are also builded together [with the Jews] for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” Eph. 2:14–22.

All Christians being thus incorporated into one body, Paul declares emphatically the annulment of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, affirming that henceforth “there is neither Jew nor Greek [Gentile], neither bond nor free; . . . for all are one in Christ” (Gal. 3:28); that the “Gentiles should be fellow-heirs [with the Jews] and of the same body [the same church] and partakers [with the Jews] of his promise in Christ by the gospel.” Eph. 3:6. “For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles, . . . and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.” 1 Cor. 12:13. This oneness of the people of God, and of the church of Christ, as his representative “body,” is taught by Christ himself, by others of the New Testament writers, and especially by the apostle Paul.

Nowhere in the Bible is there any such distinction as “Jewish church,” and “Gentile church;” the Jewish church and the Christian church; or the Jewish religion and the Christian religion. These are inventions only of the adversary of the “church of God.” Christ’s church, composed of his true people of whatever nationalities, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,” was but a reorganized church, reconstructed from the church of God, chosen in Abraham and established of Israel, re-disciplined, re-instructed, and especially favored and blessed by his direct personal teachings and life example, and by the special gift of the Holy Spirit.

Not only are the above-indicated distinctions not authorized by the Bible, but neither God nor Christ ever made a covenant of grace, or promise of salvation, to the Gentiles or to any Gentile, as such, as he did to Abraham and to Israel. The only hope of salvation and eternal life through Jesus Christ ever proffered to the Gentiles is by way of the “fellow-heirship” referred to in Eph. 3:6; is by their being “engrafted into the parent vine,” and incorporated into the family of Israel. “To Abraham and his seed were the promises made.” Gal. 3:8, 16. This refers to the promises of the old covenant. But what of the new covenant? That, too, was a covenant with Israel. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” Heb. 8:8–10; Jer. 31:31. God has made no covenant of salvation with any other people than Israel.

The Gentiles become the recognized “children of God, by faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 3:26), and thus becoming Christ’s, become “Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (verse 29), “even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.” Verses 6–9. So by faith and “circumcision of the heart,” the Gentiles are made acceptable to God, and are “grafted” into the “good olive tree” among the branches where “some were broken off because of unbelief” (Rom. 11); and thus becoming “Israelites by adoption” “become heirs of salvation.”

There is then but one church of God or of the Lord Jesus Christ, nor ever has been another. And as there is but one church to which pertain the covenants and promises, there is but one faith. The Christian faith is the same as the faith of Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and all the ancient people of God under the old covenant—faith in God and “his Christ.”

The religion of the ancients, as given by God, was a religion of faith—faith in an atonement to be made by Jesus Christ—just as under the new covenant true religion is one of faith in an atonement having been made by Jesus Christ. The patriarchs and Israelites looked forward by faith to a Saviour to come and shed his blood for the remission of sins, to a future resurrection, Judgment, and reward of eternal life at his second coming. Since Christ came the children of faith look backward by faith to a Saviour having come and shed his blood for the remission of sins, but look forward, as did they, in hope of a future resurrection and reward of eternal life at his “second coming.” They looked forward by faith in the “promise” to be fulfilled, to an atonement to be offered; we look back by faith of having realized the promise so far as this that the atonement has been offered; but in common with them, by faith we all still look forward in confident hope of the resurrection, and final reward of immortality.

“Pure religion,” then, has ever been the same—ever one of faith, and faith, too, in the same things—“the promises.” There has been a difference in the secondary incidentals to the teaching of faith, and that difference is a cause of stumbling. Under the former dispensation there was need of providential disciplining means of grace to keep alive faith in the promises, and discipline to obedience and virtue. To this end, sacrificial offerings which provided for the shedding of blood typical of the shedding of Christ’s blood for the remission of sins; the exclusive ordinance of circumcision constituting a distinction between Israel and other peoples, and barring out all others; three annual festival ordinances; and finally “diverse washings, meats and drinks, and carnal ordinances,” together with a system of enforcing ceremonial laws pertaining thereto, were ordained and “imposed on them until the time of the reformation;” i. e., till Christ should come. Heb. 9:9–10.

Those were the appointed disciplinary church ordinances then. They were mostly typical, and pointed the faith forward to Christ to come and die. When Christ came and was offered an all-sufficient sacrifice for sin, “once for all,” and there was therefore no further need of the shedding of sin-atoning blood, those sacrificial ordinances and types all ceased by limitation; and consequently all the laws prescribing, regulating and enforcing them, also ceased by limitation. They were their “schoolmaster to bring the people to Christ,” teaching and disciplining them in faith, “that they might be justified by faith.” Gal. 3:24. But after Christ came, of course they no longer needed that kind of teaching, and hence the teacher was dismissed—“nailed to the cross.”

But under the new covenant there was seen to be also need of disciplining means of grace; so Christ appointed church ordinances adapted to the circumstances, and to the need of the children of faith—the Lord’s Supper—the broken bread to represent his broken body and the wine to represent his shed blood—these referring the mind of the believer back to what has taken place to develop and keep alive our faith “till he come again.” The sacrifices pointed the worshiper forward to the great sacrifice to be offered at Christ’s first coming. The sacrament of bread and wine points the worshiper back to the great sacrifice which has been offered, and is limited to the time of his second coming. These distinguishing characteristics constitute the difference between the respective ordinances of the church of God under differing circumstances in the two different periods of time.

But the broken bread and running wine only carry the faith backward to the broken body and shed blood of Christ and hence to his death. In that faith alone there is no joyous hope, because there is no light casting its rays forward beyond the tomb, but it stands at the grave in melancholy darkness. For “if Christ be not raised,” then “the dead rise not,” and they who have “fallen asleep in Jesus are perished.” And “if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable” and “our faith is vain.” 1 Cor. 15. Hence Christ gave the additional ordinance of Christian baptism to represent to faith, the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, teaching us that as Christ died and rose again, so may we hope for a resurrection to immortality when he comes again. This ordinance, also, differs from either of those under the former dispensation. Yet the primary object of their appointment is the same. In these respects they are entirely similar; they are designed alike to teach faith in God and Christ and a hope of redemption and eternal life. They are each alike adapted to the differing respective circumstances and times of their application. They were each limited—the first class to Christ’s first coming, when they were needed and applicable no longer and ceased to be,—the second class to Christ’s second coming, when they, with their more simple laws, will cease to be.

It is hoped that the reader now sees the teaching of Paul, that there is but one faith and one church taught in the Bible, not only, but that he is prepared to understand definitely what law Paul had reference to in Eph. 2:15, as having been abolished by Christ, and what law remains. Clearly it was not the moral law of ten commandments that was abolished; for that contained no “ordinances.” What was “abolished in the flesh,” i. e., by the sacrifice of Christ, “for to make in himself” of two peoples one people, so making peace between them, was that “middle wall of partition” which had its basis in the exclusive ordinance of circumcision, and was built up subsequently to other exclusive ordinances, which consisted “only in meats and drinks, and diverse washings, and carnal ordinances [commemorative and thanksgiving festivals] imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Eph. 2:14, 15; Heb. 9:10); and latterly of a multitude of festivals such as “new moons, holy days” (national holidays, of which there came to be many), “and

months and times and years,” “which were a shadow of things to come.” Gal. 4:10; Col. 2:16.

These were ordained exclusively for that national people; and they excluded from participation in them all other peoples, thus constituting a wall of partition between the Israelites and other people. But these were designed to be only temporary, and of course the shadow disappeared when Christ came who was the body which cast the shadow, as Paul says, Col. 2:17. And of course, when this shadow disappeared in the background, they having followed it up till they came to the body—Christ—when all those peculiar and exclusive (the word exclusive has been used above and now because from participation in these ordinances all others than Israelites were excluded by the law establishing them; Ex. 12:43) ordinances, sacrifices, and ceremonies ceased thus by limitation at Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, then also the law of ceremonies—the entire sacrificial and ceremonial code having exclusive reference to them—necessarily ceased by limitation, which effect is very appropriately termed by Paul (Col. 2:14) “blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us [against us—the Gentiles—because it excluded us from its provisions], . . . nailing it to his cross,” which is very properly termed the “abolishing in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Eph. 2:15. But the enmity spoken of here cannot mean that even those ceremonial laws were in themselves wrong or at enmity to the Gentiles; but that the Israelites, having been especially favored by God as the residuary (all others having so far gone astray) legatees of his law and promises—as his wards—through whom he was eventually, after due discipline, to present the light of life to the world, they in their perverseness made this favor the occasion of enmity to other peoples, as did also the Gentiles toward them.

The fault was not with the ordinances nor with the law commanding them, but with the people. God acted in that case as the wise father of wayward and revolting sons might do if he saw that by temporary special favors to one whom he saw to be less perverse and incorrigible he might eventually reclaim all. But such an act would not indicate that the father hated the other sons, or that such special favor was “against” them, though they might make it the occasion of jealousy and envy and hence of rivalry between them.

It was that limited special ceremonial law which Paul declared thus abolished by Christ which had been “added [added to the moral law] because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made” (i. e., till Christ should come), and which was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator (Gal. 3:19) which was “our school-master to bring us to Christ,” by teaching faith (verse 24) temporarily ordained for that dispensation, as it was the law of the first tabernacle, which Paul declares to have been a “figure for the time then present” (Heb. 9:9), and which was abolished by Christ, because in constituting Israel a peculiar people it excluded all other people from the privileges, promises, and blessings of the church of God.

But the expiration by limitation, or the abolition, of this special, temporarily added law, could not, in the least, affect the universal, unlimited, moral law. The expiration by limitation, or the repeal of a special temporary statute or session law of a State, does not in the least affect the general laws thereof, to which such special statutes had been added. The moral law of ten commandments was the universal and grand constitution of God’s moral government. It had evidently existed from the day man was created; and it is seen that every specific precept and principle of it had been enjoined and enforced long before either the national statute law of Israel (Ex. 21, 22, 23) or the law of sacrifices and ceremonies (Ex. 24 to 40), were given from Mt. Sinai. As such constitution, the moral law was the basis upon which was reared all those temporary expedients; and it stands though all the superstructure falls.

There is a marked difference and a broad, plain distinction between these laws. The moral law is as old as time, and is unlimited as to time, and in application, adapted to all peoples at all times and requiring of all obedience thereto. The ceremonial law was added after the “great transgression” to provide especially for the education of the people in faith in a Messiah to come and was limited in the enactment to the time of the coming of that Messiah, and exclusive in favor of the Israelites. Even as announced from Mt. Sinai there appear characteristic differences. The moral law was from Mt. Sinai announced first, and at a separate and distinct time from the giving of the other; was spoken in a loud, articulate voice by God himself in the hearing of all the people; was afterward engraven by God’s own finger upon tables of stone (God not entrusting the uttering of that law or its engrossment to the mediation of either men or angels); and was thereafter specially cared for and preserved in an ark prepared as its sacred receptacle by divine directions at great cost. Ex. 25:10–22; Deut. 10:1–5.

The ceremonial code was given at another and subsequent time; was not spoken audibly to the people by God, but as Paul declares, was “ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator [Moses],” and simply written in a book by Moses, and preserved, not in the ark, but in a pocket on the outside of it. Deut. 31:26; 1 Kings 8:9. Hence the one is called the “law of God,” and the other the “law of Moses,” even by Paul. Rom. 7:22, 25; Heb. 10:28; Acts 13:39; 15:5. The first is termed the “royal law,” and is enjoined upon us, and Paul declares it was “ordained unto life.” Rom. 7:10. The second Paul calls the “law of carnal ordinances,” “that was against us.” Col. 2:14. Paul speaks of the one as the “law of righteousness” (Rom. 9:31); of the other as the “law having a shadow of good things to come.” Paul declares of the moral law that it is “not made void” but “established through faith,” even the faith of the Gentile Romans (Rom. 3:31); and affirms to them that it is “holy, just, and good;” that it is “spiritual;” that he “delighted in it after the inward man;” i. e., in his regenerated state; and thus he commends it to all, including the Gentiles.

The Mosaic ritual law he declares “abolished,” “nailed to the cross.” All of the New Testament writers similarly bear testimony to the sacredness and perpetuity of the moral law. The language of Christ ought to be accepted as authority and conclusive that the moral law is perpetual throughout all time, when he declares that he came not “to destroy the law or the prophets but to fulfill,” and that “not one jot or one tittle of the law shall pass away till all be fulfilled;” i. e., till it accomplishes its mission, and all that the prophets have foretold comes to pass. This cannot be till Christ comes again and his saints are rewarded with eternal life; for the law was “ordained unto life.”

“Fulfill.” The great multitude, blinded by false teaching and prejudice, seem intent on being “led by the blind” till they all “fall into the ditch” over this word “fulfill;” and persist in interpreting that to mean abolish, or destroy, or to cause “to pass away.” Let us see how the passage would read with this understanding: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy but to destroy (?), or abolish or cause to pass away.” What folly! To fulfill the law and pleasure of a parent is to obey his requirements and do all his pleasure. To fulfill the law of a State is to keep it, obey it, and do all it requires faithfully. But when we have thus done, have therefore the law and the authority of the State been abolished and ceased to be? By no means.

But the Bible itself definitely indicates and defines what is meant by fulfilling a law. “Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.” Gal. 6:2. “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well.” Jas. 2:8. “He that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” Rom. 13:8. Now, because Jesus Christ came to earth to teach us by word and example how to keep the commandments of God, and how by keeping all the law of love to God and our neighbor to develop characters of holiness and fit us for immortality, which was the original design of the moral law, did that, therefore, abolish that law of holiness and of life? Oh! no, no! The inevitable conclusion from the above teaching is that the moral law remains intact, and binding upon God’s people universally—every precept of it. For if it is thus “good and holy,” to be “delighted in,” and is “established,” and “not one jot or one tittle is to pass from the law, though heaven and earth pass away,” then, of course, the fourth commandment still remains, for that is even more than a dot or the least mark. The Sabbath, of course, remains unaffected by the change of ordinances, or by the abolition or expiration of the law of sacrifices and carnal ordinances which did not in the least pertain to or affect the Sabbath. Moreover, the Sabbath must remain unaffected by sin or by the work of atonement for sin, as it is older than the sin of the race. Man’s conduct in relation to the Sabbath was affected by his transgression, but that could not affect the institution itself. Nay, more, the Sabbath would remain as an institution, although the fourth commandment, guarding and protecting it, should be repealed; for the Sabbath was not originated by the law, nor does it derive its holiness from the law. It existed before the law, and the fourth commandment was ordained to regulate man’s conduct in respect to it.

These thoughts might be illustrated by reference to the concurrent institution of marriage. No sane person pretends to think that this, or its regulating and protecting law, was involved in the nailing of the law of carnal ordinances to the cross. No sane person could think that that institution was affected by sin, or by the consequent sacrifice upon the cross. It is older than the sin of Adam, and older than even the law of marriage, and hence was not originated by the law, but the law for it. Neither of these institutions, nor their protecting laws, are primarily included in those providential, temporary, and limited ritual laws of Moses; and hence cannot be involved in their ruin.

Then the Sabbath, as appointed in Eden, and re-enjoined in the law given by God from Mt. Sinai, must remain unimpaired in its authority by the corroding of sin, the attrition of the waves of time, or the abrasions of temporary expedients. Men and customs and sentiments in respect to it may change, but the Sabbath never, while earth is the abode of man. It must ever stand as the grand memorial monument of creative power.

When Paul commends the moral law as established by the faith of the Gentiles, as good and holy, in which he delights, which law enjoins the keeping of the Sabbath as in the fourth commandment, is he, indeed, as has been remarked, “as silent as the tomb on the subject of the Sabbath?” When Christ declares that no part of the law shall fail, and pronounces a curse upon any one who shall break one of even the least of the commandments and shall teach men so, is he silent on the subject of the Sabbath? Nay, verily, when they thus spoke, they each approved of, and enjoined, the Sabbath.

Clearly and positively God does, by the prophet Isaiah (chap. 56:1–8; 58:12–14), looking down through the centuries to the time when the Gentiles should become heirs of immortality, by faith, approve of the Sabbath to them, enjoin it upon them, and promise great and precious blessings to them for keeping it. Christ “magnified” the Sabbath and “made it honorable” by keeping it and teaching others how to keep it properly, while he lived, and by enjoining regard to it, to be paid at least thirty-nine years after his resurrection. Matt. 24:20. Luke calls it the Sabbath, and the apostles and disciples held meetings upon it at least twenty-two years after the resurrection. Acts 16:13; 17:2. Paul read the Scriptures on three successive Sabbath days at Thessalonica to Greek Gentiles, which is declared to have been his custom, at least twenty-three years after the “Gentiles were brought in.” Acts 16:1–3. Paul also preached upon the Sabbath day at least on eighty-four different Sabbaths at times, extending probably from fifteen to twenty-seven years after the gospel was given to the Gentiles, and that mostly to the Gentiles, at Antioch, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, and Corinth.

Thus honoring the Sabbath, was he, indeed, “on that subject as silent as the tomb”? Does not his constant and long-continued example of sabbatizing on the sanctified seventh day speak louder than his words could speak, recommending to “remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”? Appointed by God’s example and specific announcement in Eden “for man,” and “sanctified”—prescribed—and commanded to him there; solemnly commanded again from amid the awful demonstrations upon Mt. Sinai; honored and approved as above indicated; and mentioned sixty times as it is in the New Testament, and always with approval, can it possibly be affirmed that there is nothing said about it, enjoining it upon us?

It was not within the province of Paul or of all of the apostles either to originate or to destroy institutions or laws. That work belonged to the prerogatives of God and of Christ. Hence it could not be expected that Paul would be heard commanding the observance of any law or of any institution unless he discovered some violation thereof to be rebuked. All needed instructions in respect to the Sabbath had been given in former ages, and now, latterly, by Christ’s teaching, and his and the apostles’ life-examples. And the fact that by the disbelieving Jews, who sought every possible pretext for accusing Paul to secure his conviction and destruction, there was never one word of complaint that he ever violated or taught the violation of the Sabbath, which the Jews held to be so sacred (even very superstitiously so), is the strongest possible presumptive evidence that Paul not only kept the Sabbath carefully, but that he never taught the violation of it or disrespect to it.

It seems to me perfectly clear that in the Bible there is taught but one gospel, but one faith, but one law of holiness, but one hope, and but one church of God—but one religion for all people—and that the true people of God are all one, and are all subject to the same moral law of ten commandments as the Christian’s law of life and rule of holiness, and that those commandments still remain upon the statute of the Almighty just as engraved by him and as exists in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev. 11:19), as the “universal law of life,” not only unabolished, but unchanged and unmodified by God in the least possible respect; and, moreover, that God demands of us all obedience thereto as allegiance to him. 1 Cor. 7:19; Matt. 19:17; 1 John 2:3–5; 3:22, 24; Rev. 22:14; Isa. 56:1–8; 58:12–14.

AFTERWARD

Not while the surging billows roll And overwhelm the struggling soul, While darkness black as Egypt’s night Shuts out all gleams of heavenly light; Not then the blessing comes to show The fruits that from afflictions grow— But afterward.

Not while with quivering lip and eye We watch our dearest treasures die, And gaze into the open grave Feeling our impotence to save; Then only grievous seems the care; The peaceful fruits of righteousness Come afterward.

When the first tempest’s gust is o’er, Calmed by a voice unheard before; When God’s own hand the cloud uplifts, And stars beam brightly through the rifts; ’Tis then the heart begins to know What fruits from secret grief below Come afterward.

When some sweet flower, till then unknown, Springs, with a power and grace its own, Beside the path so dark before, And lives a blessing evermore; Then the lone heart may learn to smile, Counting its treasures less the while— Thus afterward.

But ah! not yet may we discern One half the blessedness, nor learn The hidden good that lurks within Each painful stroke of discipline. Till Jesus comes we ne’er shall know All the rich fruits which earthly woe Brings afterward.

—Sel.

THE MARK OF THE BEAST.

By J. M. Gallemore

In Rev. 14:9-11, a warning is given against worshiping the beast or his image, and against receiving his mark. The penalty of such worship and of receiving such mark is a terrible one—the unmingled wrath of God. The last plagues of a sin-avenging God are visited upon those who have the mark of the beast and those who worship his image. Rev. 15:2. The end of this beast and of the false prophet that deceives those having his mark is seen from Rev. 19:20.

Now in all candor we would ask those who believe and reverence the word of God, Does it not become us, as rational beings, to ascertain what this beast is, and what its mark is? Certainly, no one will deny that this is a matter that demands our most serious consideration. Let us, then, inquire into it, those of us who have not done so to our entire satisfaction.

Now, as to the beast spoken of, Protestants generally are agreed that it symbolizes the papal power, the Roman Catholic Church. And the mark of this power, which we are warned against receiving, according to its own showing and claims, is Sunday, the day which this power has elevated above the Sabbath of the Lord; which act the church claims as the mark of its power. A short examination into the facts will convince any candid and intelligent mind that this anti-Christian power is the author of Sunday sacredness; that Sunday is the mark of this power; that this very work which he confesses to have done was foretold in prophecy; and that the real Sabbath, or rest-day of the Lord, is the mark, sign, and seal of the true people of God in the last days, prior to their deliverance, when Christ, the Saviour of his people, shall come. These facts are so plain that no candid person can fail to see them. And no earnest seeker for truth, who is willing to obey the Lord, and from his heart desires to do so, we believe, will fail to see the truth after investigating the subject.

Is there a single individual who reads the REVIEW, and yet does not keep the true Sabbath of the Lord? If so, will that individual consult his eternal interest and make haste to keep all the commandments of God? No longer make void the commandments of God by following the traditions of men. Choose at once whether it is best to fear God or man. The servants of God are being sealed, the work is short, and those who have not the seal of God when the Saviour of Israel shall come must be cut off from all interest in the promised inheritance. The true ministers of God are crying aloud, endeavoring to show the people their sins, that they may turn from them, and be ready to stand in the great day of the Lord. Oh! who will be wise and turn from his sins and live? Can there be a more grievous offense than that of obeying the man of sin (who presumes to change the law of God) in preference to that God who made all things? Stop and think, will you not?

J. M. GALLEMORE.

Continue reading: OBEDIENCE TO GOD