Publishing Committee · Saratoga Springs, N. Y. · Oct 7, 1851
BROTHER HALE'S ARTICLE.
By A. Hale
[CONCLUDED.]
THE BRIDE.
That "the bride the Lamb's wife," denotes "that great city, the holy Jerusalem," is settled by the word of God. Rev. xxi, 9, 10. And if God designed that we should understand something else to be denoted, he certainly could have informed us, as easily as he has explained the seven stars—the seven candlesticks—the two witnesses—the waters—the woman, or the beast that carrieth her.
It is equally clear that "the marriage of the Lamb" is an event that is always placed in the future, among the events which close up the scenes of this world. It is also equally clear that the actual reception of the throne and kingdom by Christ, is placed among these events.
Again.—I think I may say that every Adventist, at least, will admit that it is the New Jerusalem which is to be called "the throne of the Lord," (Jer. iii, 17,) "the city of the great King," who shall "sit as a priest upon his throne," "a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec," a "High priest over the house, or family of God." As old Jerusalem is doomed to perpetual desolations all these things can be true only of the New Jerusalem. Now, is there any authority for supposing the figure of a marriage to denote the reception of the throne and kingdom? Let us see. By turning to one of the oldest of the prophets, we read: "And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ish: i. e., my husband. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving kindness, and in mercies: I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know the Lord." (Hosea ii, 16—20.)
But who is this that is to call "the Lord," "my husband," in that day? In the appointed symbolic action of the prophet, who represents "the Lord," he is commanded to "take a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms; for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord." i, 2. The wife is "Gomer;" the children are 1. "Jezreel, i. e. the seed of God," whose "blood" the Lord says "I will avenge." 2. "Lo-ruhamah, i. e. not having obtained mercy:" and 3. "Loammi, i. e. not my people." The Lord disowns Gomer as his wife, (ii, 2,) and her children are rejected. (4.) She is punished for her conjugal infidelity, and at length returns to her "first husband." (7.) The wife, throughout this allegorical scene, is "the land," as we shall see to be fully settled in other portions, and the marriage, in this case, brings the land back to the Lord. The children are the different classes which constituted the people of the land. The relation of "the children of Israel" to "the Lord," their character and history, are exhibited by a similar allegorical scene, in the third chapter, but there is no marriage in the case.
Shall we turn to Isaiah? "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord.—liv, 1.
Who is denoted by the "barren" and "the desolate," whom the prophet commands to "sing?" Paul has settled its application, Gal. iv, 26, 27. "But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice thou barren: break forth and cry thou that travailest not," &c. Is this city, which figures in the "allegory," as "the mother of us all," provided with a husband? O Yes. And do not be frightened, brethren, if he should be the same personage, who is called in other forms of speech, our brother; it certainly cannot be any more alarming than that our "elder brother" should be called our husband, as he certainly is, if the church is the bride. But if any complain, their complaints must be directed against the word of God, and not against us.
But who is the husband of "the mother of us all?" Answer. "For thy Maker is thy husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called." (Isa. liv, 5.) Surely this must be the Lord Jesus. The prophet adds, "this [Jerusalem above] is the heritage of the servants of the Lord." V. 17. Compare Isaiah liv, 11—15, and Rev. xxi, 11—21; xxii, 1—5.
Again.—The prophet speaks of Jerusalem which is to be made "a praise in the earth;" as follows: "Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate; but thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married. For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shall thy sons marry thee: and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." Isaiah lxii, 4, 5. But are her sons to marry the same bride? Not if the bride is "the church." But as they are to receive the kingdom as joint heirs with Christ, the marriage may denote the same act in each case.
Omitting a great many mere allusions to this established "allegory," in the case, among the prophets generally, shall we hear Ezekiel? By him all the natural, and most affecting, as well as the most loathsome incidents, are thrown into the picture, by which he "causes Jerusalem to know her abominations."—xvi, 2. There is the love at first sight—the promise and the covenant (v, 8), the gifts and tokens of affection, and the admiration of her beauty (10—14.) Then follows the wanton violation of all the holy ties of "wedlock,"—the withdrawal of gifts—the contempt and wretchedness of the outcast, and the final desolation. (15—43.) But the marriage under "an everlasting covenant," restores the wife—"Jerusalem"—to "the Lord" (60—62.) And as this takes place in connection with the restoration of her sisters, Samaria and Sodom, it must denote the act of receiving that Jerusalem, which is to be "his throne," when "the kingdom is the Lord's."
By "tracing the figurative word through the Bible," so far, with this "meaning," all is perfectly clear—"it makes good sense." The figure, the "allegory," is this:—The Lord is the husband, "the land," or "Jerusalem" is the wife—the people are the children. (Ezek. xvi, 21, 36.) So it was understood in reference to the old "covenant." And the old prophets themselves teach us, with a clearness that can hardly be misunderstood, that a Jerusalem to be "called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name," is to be under the "new covenant," what its type was under the old. Isa. lxii, 2; lxv, 18, 19; Ezek. xvi, 61.
Without stopping to consider the "city which hath foundations," to which Abraham "looked"—whose wife, "the free woman," represented "Jerusalem above," in the "allegory;" as his "bond-woman" did old Jerusalem, of which Melchisedec was the founder, (according to Josephus,) and king. Shall we pass to consider "the marriage of the Lamb?" Rev. xix, 7—9. This text has given rise to three questions. 1. Who is the Lamb's wife? 2. What is denoted by the marriage? 3. When,
in the order of events, does it take place? 1. Who is the Lamb's wife? The church?—the church and the city?—or the city itself? Let us see. Who are these that sing of the marriage? The command to which they respond is as follows: "And a voice came out of the throne saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great." It is the same company that is brought to view, Rev. xi, 18. This must be the church. Hear their response. "And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God Omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." If the church is the "wife," why do they sing of another party as the wife? Will the church sing her own praise in this manner? It may be proper enough for "one of the elders" to say, "These are they which came out of great tribulation, &c. But when the church speaks for herself she says, "Salvation unto our God." "Thou hast redeemed us." If the church is the bride, who are the guests at the marriage supper? The church cannot figure here as the wife. It must be, as God says, "the holy city." But can a city make herself ready? is often asked. "Is Christ to be married to stone walls?" &c. &c.
It is necessary, here, to allude to the most obvious and familiar laws of language, and of interpretation, that our brethren may not be betrayed into a spirit of levity, which would better become the Ballou and Whittemore school, or our common enemies, than Adventists. It must be known to every one for whom it is proper to speak in the case, that in these figurative exhibitions of truth, allegories in particular, life, and thought, and feeling, and speech and action are given to the inanimate things personified, and that is said of them which could be literally true only of rational beings. Thistles and cedars talk and make contracts. (2 Kings xiv, 9.) Eagles have fields to plant. (Ezek. xvii, 5.) Cities come and go, weep and rejoice, rise up and sit down, eat, drink, are clothed or naked, sin, and are punished, &c. &c. In all these cases, the inanimate or irrational agent is personified and made, or supposed to perform what is ascribed to it. And every figure, simile, metaphor, parable, allegory, &c. must be interpreted by laws peculiar to themselves. This rule should not be forgotten here: "We must not explain one part literally and another part figuratively."—(Horne.)
Now I think any brother must see, that when he asks, "Is Christ married to stone walls?" "Can a city of stone and mortar make herself ready?" &c. &c., it does much more credit to his mirthfulness than to his veneration, conscientiousness or perceptive faculties.
We do not suppose that Christ is "married to stone walls," or anything else; but that the marriage of the Lamb denotes the inauguration of Christ, as King into his throne, which is just such a city as God has described in Rev. xxi: We do not suppose there is any bride to "make herself ready;" but that this figurative expression denotes some important preparatory work, in the case of the city, in connection with its becoming "the throne of the Lord." And what that work is it is not difficult to determine. The "holy city" is called also "the tabernacle of God."—Rev. xxi. Christ is "the minister of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man."—Heb. viii. 2. The typical tabernacle had to be "purified;" and Paul tells us the true tabernacle must also be purified:—"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified34with these; (the blood of calves and of goats;) but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these."—Heb. ix, 23. The typical work of "atonement for the holy sanctuary, and for the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar;" as well as for "the priests, and for all the people of the congregation," was on the tenth day of the seventh month.—Lev. xvi, 29, 33. And when that work of atonement for "the heavenly things themselves" shall have been accomplished by Christ, then we suppose that preparation denoted in the figure, will have been effected:—what had been hitherto the tabernacle of our Great High Priest is "ready" to become his throne.
"And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." They "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb." "By his own blood he entered in once, into the holy place." The holy city—the heavenly Jerusalem—is indebted to the same atoning blood for her purity, that the saints are indebted to for theirs.
When does the marriage take place? It is asserted that it must be after the destruction of the wicked, after the judgment, at least, of the "great whore." But why so? The fact that the account of it falls after the account of the judgment of that personage, is, of itself, no proof of it. The parts of this book in particular, must be arranged, not by the order in which they occur, but by the order of the events of which they speak. Is it not evident that verse 4th of chapter xix, closes the portion which begins with chapter xvii? and that the 5th verse begins a new portion? Compare Rev. iv, 5. And if the marriage be supposed to denote the union of Christ with his church, does not that take place till after the judgment? They certainly meet him, and appear with him in glory before that time. The union of Christ with his church must take place before the execution of judgment upon the wicked. But if it be contended that the marriage, here, denotes some event which takes place so long after they have found their way to the Lord, it is very doubtful whether that can be the event denoted by the marriage in the parable.
The song of the church, here, itself, appears to prove both the event which the marriage denotes, and the time in which it takes place. What is their theme? The same, evidently, of the four and twenty elders on the sounding of the seventh trumpet: "We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned!"—Say the elders. "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth!" say the church. They both celebrate the introduction of the reign of Christ. And as Christ, together with his saints in their glorified state, are to execute judgment upon the wicked, the marriage, which denotes the placing Christ in his throne, must take place before, and not after the execution of judgment upon any of his enemies. We suppose the song celebrates an event that is already accomplished at the time it is sung.
By going "through the Bible," then, with the figure, guided by the established rules of interpretation, there is but one interpretation, one "meaning,"—which can be sustained throughout—of "the marriage," as an event to take place in connection with the end. And I can give that act of Christ denoted by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, no other special reference, but to the act of resigning his mediatorial work, in behalf the world, in order to his becoming king.
It is asked—"What is meant by the virgins going in with him to the marriage?" The difficulty exists only with those who interpret "one part of the figure literally, and the other figuratively."
But understanding this part of the figure as we do the other part, to denote something beyond itself, it must be understood in a sense which accords with the nature of the event which the marriage denotes. The coming of the bridegroom would point out some change of work or office, on the part of our Lord, in the invisible world; and the going in with him a corresponding change on the part of his true people. With him it is within the veil—where he has gone to prepare a place for us; with them it is outside the veil, where they are to wait and keep themselves ready till he appears for their salvation.
Finally. What are the reasons for believing that the event, now supposed to be denoted by the coming of the bridegroom to the marriage, has taken place? Some of these reasons have been anticipated. 1. That event must precede the appearing of Christ.
2. All the power of "the typical argument," though it may have misconceived the precise bearing of the type upon events, bears upon the last seventh month, as the date of that change. Those who have not fully abandoned the position then taken, will admit, that it is too early, at present, to attach no special importance to that argument, or to the events of that time.
3. This view of the question given us as well-defined a position as we have ever had; while it explains what must otherwise be a perplexity in our history, and shows that we have taken a step, which we know must be taken, in the closing up of our mortal state.
4. The condition of things around us goes to confirm the supposition that this step has been taken; while the Adventists, as a body, are placed in circumstances evidently in accordance with those described in the word of God, as the lot of his people at the end. Those will be noticed more at length, in considering the duties and trials of our position.
5. This interpretation harmonizes all those figurative portions of the word of God, which speak on the coming of Christ, in their special application, and that too, by referring them to facts plainly stated in other forms of speech, through the prophecies.
The entire picture is also remarkably in accordance with the history of the Adventists, while they have been as insensible that they were living in, as the disciples of old were, that the oft repeated prophecies of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ were being fulfilled, though these events were passing before their eyes, till after they had passed.
I know it is doubted whether we have had any demonstrations which should lead us to such a conclusion. But where shall we look for demonstrations? "We know that whatsoever the law saith it saith to them that are under the law;" what God has spoken of the state of things in connection with the coming of Christ, is applicable only to those who are responsible for the truth on that subject. The demonstrations of the old world's doom, before it came, were given only to the family of Noah. The demonstrations of Egypt's doom, to which the Egyptians would not take heed, were given only to the people of God. The demonstrations of the doom of Babylon, were unheeded, but by her captives, till God himself informed her proud and idolatrous monarch, that "God had numbered his kingdom and finished it!" The inhabitants of Jerusalem, excepting the little flock of her outcast children, "knew not" the demonstrations, "that the things which belonged to her peace" were hid from her eyes, till the wrath came upon them to the uttermost. And when I must admit, that the Adventists have had no demonstrations that the world's day is over, I must doubt that they have the truth of God, and that they are His people.
A. HALE.
Divine appointment of the Seventh Day.
By J. W. Morton
CHAPTER I.
PROPOSITION.
That the seventh day of the week is the only weekly sabbath of God's appointment.
First Reason.—My first reason for believing this proposition is, That the original Sabbath law, referred to in Genesis ii, 2, 3, and embodied in Exodus xx, 8—11, requires the sanctification of no other day.
Genesis ii, 2, 3—"And on the seventh day (on day the seventh) God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day (on day the seventh) from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day (the day the seventh), and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."
Exodus xx, 8, 11, "Remember the Sabbath-DAY, (the day of the rest, or Sabbath) to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day (day the seventh) is the Sabbath (rest) of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day (on day the seventh); wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day (the day of the rest, or Sabbath) and hallowed it."
The only object direct or indirect, of this commandment, is "the day." What are we commanded to remember? "The day." What are we required to keep holy? "The day." What did the Lord bless and hallow? "The day." In what are we forbidden to work? In "the day." Now let us inquire—35
1. What day? Not the day of Adam's fall; nor the day Noah went into the ark; nor the day of the overthrow of Sodom; nor the day of the Exodus; nor the day of the Provocation; nor the day of the removal of the ark; nor the day of Christ's birth; nor the day of his crucifixion; nor the day of his resurrection; nor the day of his ascension; nor the day of judgment. It may be, and certainly is, proper, that we should remember all these; but we are not told to do so in this commandment.—Neither is it some one day of the week, but no one in particular; for how could we remember "the day," that is no day in particular?—how could we keep holy "the day" that has not been specified? and how could we say that God had blessed and hallowed "the day," that was no one day more than another? What day, then? God says, Remember the Sabbath-day, or the day of the Sabbath; Keep holy the day of the Sabbath; The Lord blessed and hallowed the day of the Sabbath. He also says, The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work. This day, therefore, is "the seventh day," or "the day of the Sabbath."
2. What Sabbath? Not "a Sabbath," or any Sabbath that man may invent, or that God may hereafter keep; for that would be "some Sabbath," but no one in particular. Not some institution yet undetermined, that God may require man to observe weekly; for the command is not, "Remember the Sabbath institution," but "Remember the day of the Sabbath;" not, "Keep holy the Sabbath institution," but, "Keep holy the day of the Sabbath." The Lord did not bless and hallow "the Sabbath institution," but "the day of the Sabbath." We are not forbidden to do work in "the Sabbath institution," but in "the seventh day." In fact, the phrase "the Sabbath," in this commandment, means neither more nor less than "the rest." It is not here the name of any institution at all, though it is often thus used in other parts of the Bible. Hence, this Sabbath is "the Sabbath or rest of the Lord thy God."
3. Which day of the week is "the day of the Sabbath?" No other than that day on which the Lord rested; for the command refers to God's Sabbath. On which day of the week did he rest? "And he rested on the seventh day." Gen. ii, 2. Therefore, "the day of the Sabbath" is the same day of the week on which God rested from the work of creation; and as he rested on the seventh day of the first week, and on no other, the seventh and no other day of every other week must be the only "day of the Sabbath."
Let it be particularly observed, that God does not say, Remember the Sabbath, or, Remember the Sabbath institution, though this is necessarily implied in the command; but, Remember "the day of the Sabbath"—the day on which I have ordained that the Sabbath institution be observed. As if he had said, There is little danger, comparatively, that you will forget the fact of my having kept Sabbath; nor is it likely that you will altogether neglect to observe some day of rest from your arduous toils, for you will be driven to this by the ever returning demands of your exhausted bodies; but you are, and always will be, in especial danger of forgetting the proper day of the week for honoring me in my own institution. Satan, who takes infinite delight in all kinds of "will-worship," while he hates with a perfect hatred every act of strict obedience to my law, will do all he can to persuade you that some other day will do just as well, or even better. Remember, therefore, the day of my Sabbath, and keep the same day holy in every week; for—mark the reason—I have myself rested on the seventh day, and on that account I have blessed and sanctified that and no other day of the week, that you may observe it, and keep it holy, not because it is in itself better than any other day, but because I have blessed and sanctified it.
But you say that the phrase, “the Sabbath-day,” or “the day of the Sabbath,” does not mean any particular day, but “one day in seven,” or some one of the days of the week. You allege that “the day of the Sabbath,” like “the Pope of Rome,” “the Emperor of Russia,” or “the King of Denmark,” is a generic term, alike applicable to all the member of the same class. The phrase, “the Emperor of Russia,” you say, refers alike to Peter, to Alexander, and to Nicholas, though only one of them could be Emperor at any given time; so “the day of the Sabbath” refers alike to the seventh and to the first day of the week, though there never was but one Sabbath at any one time. This is a very ingenious and plausible method of evading the force of the Divine testimony; but, as the reasoning by which it is sustained appears to be entirely sophistical, I cannot but look upon the whole thing as a fabrication. I believe that any man, possessing the requisite qualifications, may become “Emperor of Russia,” but deny that any day but one can be the day of God’s Sabbath, inasmuch as God had never kept, at that time, but one Sabbath, and that occupied only one day. There is only one day of American Independence; only one day of the Resurrection of Christ; only one day of the birth of any one man; and only one day of Judgment. And why? Because American Independence was declared on but one day; Christ rose on but one day; the same man cannot be born on two different days; and God hath appointed only one day in which he will judge the world. Now, on the same principle, there can be but one “day of the Sabbath” of the Lord our God. If I should say that the day of Christ’s Resurrection is not any particular day of the week, but only “one day in seven,” you would not hesitate to call me a fool, while my ignorance would excite your deepest sympathy; but when you say that “the day of the Sabbath” does not mean that particular day on which the Lord’s Sabbath occurred, but only “one day in seven,” you expect me to receive your assertion as the infallible teaching of superior wisdom. I cannot, however, so receive it, for the following reasons:—
1. If God had meant “one day in seven,” he would have said so. His first and great design, in writing his law on tables of stone, was to be understood by his creatures; but, for more than two thousand years after he gave the law, no human being ever suspected that “the day of the Sabbath” meant anything else than the seventh day of the week, because it was commonly known that that day alone was in reality “the day of the Sabbath.” Indeed, this “one-day-in-seven” doctrine is known to have been invented within a few hundred years, with the pious design of accounting for a change of Sabbath, without the necessity of repealing a portion of the moral law. It is matter of great surprise, that those pious theologians, who first substituted “one day in seven” for “the day of the Sabbath,” did not elude at the thought of presuming to mend the language of the Holy Ghost. “The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Ps. xii, 6. Brethren are you prepared to enter into judgment, and answer for the liberties you have taken with God’s word? In substituting the vague and indefinite expression, “one day in seven,” for the definite and unequivocal terms, “the Sabbath-day,” and “the seventh day,” you have as truly taken “away from the words of the prophecy of this book,” as if you had blotted the fourth commandment from the Decalogue; while your leading object has been, to make way for the introduction of a new command that, for aught the Scriptures teach, it never entered into the heart of the Almighty to put into his law. “A faithful witness will not lie,” and when the world asks, Which day of the seven hath God appointed to be the weekly Sabbath? God expects that you, as faithful witnesses, will not only “not lie,” but that you will not equivocate, or give with the gospel trumpet “an uncertain sound.” He does not expect that you will quote a text from the Acts of the Apostles, that says not one word about Sabbath-keeping, to prove that the fourth commandment enjoins the keeping holy of “one day in seven,” but of “no day in particular.”
2. God never blessed “one day in seven,” without blessing a particular day. He either blessed some definite object, or nothing. You may say, indeed, without falsehood, that God blessed “one day in seven;” but if you mean that this act of blessing did not terminate on any particular day, you ought to know, that you are asserting what is naturally impossible. As well might you say of a band of robbers, that they had killed “one man in seven,” while in reality they had killed no man in particular. No, brethren, yourselves know very well, that God had not blessed and sanctified any day but the seventh of the seven, prior to the giving of the written law. You know, that if God blessed any day of the week at all, it was a definite day, distinct from all the other days of the week. But this commandment says, that “the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day.” Therefore the Sabbath-day must be a particular day of the week. Therefore “the Sabbath-day” is not “one day in seven,” or an indefinite seventh part of time. Therefore it is not “one day in seven” that we are required to remember, and keep holy, and in which we are forbidden to do any work; but “the seventh day” of the week, which was then, is now, and will be till the end of time, “the day of the Sabbath” of the Lord our God.
3. No day of the week but the seventh was ever called “the day of the Sabbath,” either by God or man, till long since the death of the last inspired writer. Search both Testaments through and through, and you will find no other day called “the Sabbath,” or even “a Sabbath,” except the ceremonial Sabbaths, with which, of course, we have nothing to do in this controversy. And long after the close of the canon of inspiration, the seventh day, and no other, was still called “the Sabbath.” If you can prove that any one man, among the millions of Adam’s children, from the beginning of the world till the rise of Anti-Christ, ever called the first day of the week “the Sabbath,” you will shed a light upon this controversy, for which a host of able writers have searched in vain.
But, farther, the first day of the week was not observed by any of the children of men, as a Sabbath, for three hundred years after the birth of Christ. Do you ask proof? I refer you to Theodore de Beza, who plainly say so. If you are not satisfied with the witness, will you have the goodness to prove the affirmative of the proposition?
I infer, therefore, that “the day of the Sabbath,” or “the Sabbath-day,” is the proper name of the seventh day of the week, as much so as “the day of Saturn;” and that to attach this proper name now to some other day of the week, and to affirm that God meant that other day, as much as he did the seventh, when he wrote the law on tables of stone, is as unreasonable as it is impious. If you say, that when God speaks of “the Sabbath-day,” he means “one day in seven, but no day in particular,” you are as far from the truth as if you said that, when he speaks of Moses, he does not mean any particular man, but “some one of the Israelites.” Moses was one of the Israelites, just as the Sabbath-day is one day in seven. But when God says Moses, he means Moses the son of Amram; and when he says “the Sabbath-day,” he means the seventh day of the week. You may give different names to the same object, without interfering with its identity; but to apply the same name to two different objects, and then to affirm that these two objects are identically the same, so that what is predicated of the one must be true of the other, is as though a navigator should discover an island in the Southern Ocean, and call it “England,” and then affirm that the late work of Mr. Macaulay, entitled “The History of England,” is a veritable and authentic history of his newly-discovered empire. Which would you wonder at most, the stupidity or effrontery of that navigator?
I cannot close this chapter without reminding you that, in attempting to refute the above reasoning, the main thing you will have to show is, that “the Sabbath-day,” or “the day of the Sabbath,” is an indefinite or general expression, applicable alike to at least two different days of the week, and that it is used indefinitely in this commandment. If it has been proved, that “the day of the Sabbath” refers, and can refer, only to the seventh day of the week, then it is true, and will remain forever true, that the original Sabbath law requires the sanctification of no other day. This is the truth which I undertook to exhibit in this chapter, and is my first reason for believing the proposition under consideration.
Letter from Brother Bates.
By Joseph Bates
Dear Bro. White : I returned home yesterday from a tour through some of our principal cities and large towns, where I went to seek out those who have an ear to hear relative to the "present truth."
By appointment I lectured in the Temperance Hall in Fall River, Mass., August 12th. As this was the first time that a portion of the present truth had been presented there, some of my hearers were somewhat excited with respect to their present and future relation, with the two-horned beast of Rev. xiii, 11—18. There were a few, however, who became interested to know the whole truth, and gladly received the books I handed them; and wished the paper directed to them. From thence I went to Springfield, Mass., where I lectured in Bro. Samuel Currier’s hall on the 14th. Here are some who I believe will embrace the whole truth, and stand in the battle in the day of the Lord. I here got Bro. Daniel’s name, but not before it was too late to visit him. I was glad to learn, through the paper, shortly afterwards, that he had embraced the whole truth. I left here the 15th, to meet with the brethren in Connecticut. Our meeting with them on the Sabbath and first-day, at Bro. North’s, in Berlin, proved a strengthening and reviving season. Their interest is still increasing, (just as it should with all true Sabbath-keepers,) as they see the great and dreadful day of God is now at hand. I baptized three who were much strengthened and blessed of the Lord. I spent a great part of the 18th, in company with Bro. Chamberlain, in Middletown,36visiting, and explaining our position, in private dwellings, to those that were willing to hear. New-York city was my next stopping place. I found the brethren in trial here. I remained with them until August 25, visiting and holding meetings. Our last meeting was a social, heavenly, melting season. Truth triumphed, freedom prevailed, and God was honored. Satan's purposes for that time defeated. May the Lord help them to flee from all his destructive snares. *
August 28th, I arrived in Baltimore, Md. There I spent five days visiting from house to house; where I could find Advent believers. I was invited to hold one public meeting on first-day, and some others in dwelling houses. The scriptural view of the Sanctuary, connected with the end of the days in the fall of 1844, and the third angel's message, was new, and seemed to affect some of them deeply. Some confessed the Sabbath, others were examining, and reading the books and papers I furnished them with. Some of them were from Massachusetts, Maine and New Hampshire. Five of them send for the paper. May the Lord bless and prosper these dear brethren in the clear light of the third angel's message.
JOSEPH BATES.
Fairhaven, Sept. 9th, 1851.
Counterfeit Coin.
Being the substance of a recent Conversation between an eminent Counselor at Law and a Sabbatarian.
The Lawyer contended that although the first day of the week had no divine authority for its sanctity or observance as a Sabbath, yet if it be kept as scrupulously and conscientiously as the seventh day demanded, it could not but be as acceptable to God.
In answer to such sophistry, the Sabbatarian submitted the following legal case to him:—
“I am told that I can purchase, in the State of Connecticut, one hundred copper cents, bearing the impress and superscription of the United States Mint, and equal in every respect in value to the mint coin, for sixty-five cents, payable in gold or silver. But I admit them to be counterfeit. I admit, also, that I circulate this spurious coin. Now, will you undertake, for a fee of $10,000, to defend my cause against a prosecution for passing such false coin, and exonerate me from conviction in the United States’ Courts.”
The honest lawyer’s answer unhesitatingly was, “I cannot argue your cause in the very teeth of so unquestionable a law as appears to exist on the Statute Books.”
The Sabbatarian replied:—“Then, as you admit your first day Sabbath a counterfeit, allow me to answer you as the celebrated Mr. Whiston did Chancellor King of England upon a similar question: ‘If God Almighty should be as consistent, as just, and as jealous of his laws in the Court of Heaven, as my Lord Chancellor is in his, where are we then?’”
THE INFERENCE.—If, then, I cannot obtain an advocate on earth, (for no one of repute would undertake it,) to plead my cause with the offer of a fee of $10,000, for the violation of a law of man’s making, what ground have I to expect that the only advocate to be obtained in the Court of Heaven, i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ, will defend my cause against a breach of that law which his father ever made punishable with DEATH, temporal and eternal?—and who himself, when on earth, in his comment on that law, averred that not one jot or tittle could in any wise pass from it? (Matt. v, 18, 19.)—[Sab. Tract No. 7.