Review and Herald, Vol. 43, No. 22. (5/12/1874)

Review and Herald

May 12, 1874

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 12, 1874

THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK NOT THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

Text: “Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” Eccl. 7:29.

When man came from the hand of his Creator, he was an innocent and virtuous being. He had nothing evil or perverse in his nature. The carnal mind had no place in him. He had the law of God in his heart. The earth was not tainted with sin. Death had no existence in any nook or corner of the earth. Paradise was upon earth, and man’s home was in that paradise. The tree of life was his; and so also was every tree of the garden except one. Man was appointed ruler over all the earth. Everything was in subjection to him.

The curse of God did not rest upon a single spot under the whole heaven. God was well pleased with the work of his hands. To commemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth, God gave to man the Sabbath by resting on the seventh day from all his work, and blessing the day of his rest, and setting it apart to a holy use. Man was surrounded with every blessing that could make life desirable. Not one evil of any kind existed to be a grief to him. All was in subjection to him, for he was in subjection to God. He was upright in the sight of God, and such he might have remained. But man, being in honor, did not thus continue. He was induced by Satan to attempt the improvement of his situation by rebelling against God. This is what Solomon designates as seeking out many inventions. Let us take a view of some of them.

1. When man had the tree of life, and might have had free access to it, and thus have lived forever had he obeyed God, he was made to believe that he could find good, superior to this, in disobeying him, and in eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, though he had been warned that this would be to him certain death. The result showed that he committed a fatal mistake.

2. When he had knowledge of good only, he was made to believe that his well-being would be immensely promoted by the knowledge of evil also. He found to his cost that there was no good in evil.

3. When he was “a little lower than the angels,” he aspired to elevate himself by sin to the rank of gods. He found that, though sin had no power to elevate, it had fearful power to debase, and that he was rendered earthly, sensual, and devilish.

4. He aspired to greater freedom than he could find in the service of God, but found that though sin promised liberty it could give only servitude, bondage, and death.

5. He was not satisfied with innocence, and reached after good in guilt, finding when it was too late that he made a ruinous exchange.

6. The joys of paradise, access to the tree of life, the favor of God, free converse with the angels of God and even with the Creator, and life without pain, or toil, or care, and that was not designed to come to an end, these were not good enough for poor man. He must ascertain for himself how much of good there was in the service of Satan. The result of this experiment shows him banished from paradise, and from its immortal fruit, under the displeasure of God, subjected to labor, to sorrow, and at last to death.

7. But though the first man did thus make such palpable mistakes in seeking something better from Satan than that which God had in his infinite benevolence conferred on him, the lesson has been wholly lost upon the vast majority of his posterity. The one God of perfect holiness and excellence, having revealed himself to fallen man, his character has not been admired nor loved. They have not liked to retain God in their knowledge. So they have “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” Rom. 1:21–23, 28.

8. God gave to man the institution of marriage. Gen. 1:2; Mal. 2:14, 15; Matt. 19:3–8. The perverse invention of man has marred God’s work with polygamy, and even, from the hardness of the heart, with divorce. Yet men have not found themselves happier for these changes in God’s institution. Witness in this the families of Abraham, of Jacob, and of David.

9. The first of all the duties of the second table of the law, is that which we owe to our parents. The perversity of man’s evil heart found out a way to apparently obey God and yet break this commandment. Matt. 15:1–9.

10. The blood of Christ can cleanse the penitent sinner from every sinful stain. Yet a majority of those who profess to make Christ their Saviour, prefer for this very purpose the flames of purgatory.

11. The Lord’s supper commemorates the death of Christ. Yet in the place of the broken bread and the wine in the cup, so expressive of our Lord’s sacrifice for us, vast multitudes prefer the celebration of the mass with its wafer for the people and its wine for the priest.

12. The ordinance of baptism commemorates the burial and resurrection of Christ. Yet even of Protestants there are only a minority who do not exchange the burial with Christ in baptism, so expressive as a memorial of the Saviour’s burial and resurrection, for a few drops of water sprinkled upon the face. Rom. 6:3–5; Col. 2:12.

“God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” And every one of these inventions has been a dishonor to God, and a source of evil and of sin to mankind. Let us now consider that invention whereby man has found a substitute for the Sabbath of the Lord. When man was upright and had not yet lost his innocence, and while he dwelt in Eden itself and held converse with God, the Sabbath of the Lord was given to him as a most expressive memorial of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Thus we read:—

“And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. 1:31; 2:1–3.

Here is a divine institution set up from the foundation of the world, and designed expressly to commemorate the creation of the heavens and the earth. This institution was made out of the seventh day in consequence of three acts which pertain to that day, and never can pertain to any other. One tenth part of the moral law pertains to this rest-day of the Lord.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any 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: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Ex. 20:8–11.

But at the present time a rival institution has possession of the field, and this ancient memorial has, even among God’s professed people, hardly any to regard it. It is a most palpable fact that this later institution is only an ordinance of man, that makes void God’s commandment. It is one of the many inventions wherein man has found out how to depart from his uprightness. Yet it is with the first-day Sabbath as with the ceremony of sprinkling; its advocates profess to sustain it by the Bible. After reading the institution of the Sabbath of the Lord in Gen. 2:1–3, and the law enforcing its observance, as uttered by the voice of the great Lawgiver, let us now read the texts which it is alleged prove that the rest-day of the Lord is superseded by the first day of the week:—

Ps. 118:22–24: “The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes. This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.”

Eze. 43:26, 27: “Seven days shall they purge the altar and purify it; and they shall consecrate themselves. And when these days are expired, it shall be, that upon the eighth day, and so forward, the priests shall make your burnt-offerings upon the altar and your peace-offerings; and I will accept you, saith the Lord God.”

Matt. 28:1, 2: “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher. And, behold, there was a great earthquake; for the angel of the Lord descended from Heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”

Mark 16:1, 2: “And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.”

Verse 9: “Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.”

Luke 23:56; 24:1–3: “And they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.”

John 20:1, 2: “The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him.”

Verse 19: “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”

Verse 26: “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.”

Acts 2:1, 2: “And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.”

Acts 20:7, 8: “And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together.”

1 Cor. 16:1, 2: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.”

Rev. 1:10: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet.”

These are the texts which are cited to prove that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. Yet not one of them makes any such declaration, or even implies any such thing. Three of them; viz., Ps. 118:22–24; Eze. 43:26, 27; Rev. 1:10; do not even name the day, and what is more, cannot have even the slightest reference to it. Two other of these texts, viz., John 20:26; Acts 2:1, 2, do not mention the day of the week, and record nothing which might not, with the strictest propriety, have transpired on any day of the week so far as that is concerned. There is the strongest reason to believe that John 20:26 cannot even allude to the first day of the week, to say nothing of its utter silence respecting the sacredness of the day as one of abstinence from labor, to be celebrated as the Christian Sabbath. And as to Acts 2:1, 2, it has not the slightest bearing upon the subject. It mentions the events of the day of Pentecost, which have not, however, any relation, in any way, to the change of the Sabbath, and it is, at least, a disputed point among first-day writers of distinction, whether this day of Pentecost actually fell on Sunday, or not. Hackett’s Commentary on the Acts, p. 50.

The remaining eight texts do, however, have this merit as evidence for first-day sacredness, that they each actually mention the day. But when we inquire further what they say respecting the first day as the Christian Sabbath, the answer is simply this: that they have nothing to say on the point. They do mention in three instances

the Sabbath, but in each case it is the preceding day which bears this honorable title, and never the first day of the week. Indeed, one of these texts mentions the fact that the day preceding the first day of the week was the Sabbath ordained in the commandment. The first day of the week has been sacred time, as we are told, ever since the resurrection of Christ; for the Sabbath was changed at that point to commemorate the event. Yet here are four inspired men who each describe the resurrection of Christ as historians, and each mentions the first day of the week in connection therewith, and yet no one of them alludes to this sanctification of the resurrection day. This is the very point where Sunday became sacred, if at all. Yet here is no intimation of any such occurrence. Were the sacred writers neglectful of their duty? or, is the sanctification of Sunday, in commemoration of the resurrection, nothing but a fable? We know the first supposition cannot be true, and if the first is not true, the second one must be. As to Acts 20:7, 8, it contains palpable proof that the first day of the week was not regarded by Paul as a day of abstinence from labor; and 1 Cor. 16:2 designates the duty of the people of God at their own homes, and not at the house of God.

On Ps. 118:22–24, it is sufficient to remark that there is no proof that Christ became the head of the corner on the day of his resurrection, rather than when he ascended into Heaven. Eph. 1:20–23; 2:19–22. Nor is there any authority for saying that Sunday was ever appointed for the commemoration of Christ’s resurrection. The day of this text is the same as in John 8:56.

The use of Eze. 43:26, 27, is simply preposterous. The text makes not the slightest allusion to the Sabbath, nor to the first day of the week. The period of seven days was to be employed in cleansing the altar; and on the eighth day, and thence forward, i.e., every day after that, the altar was ready for offerings.

The four evangelists record the resurrection of the Son of God; and as they mention it in connection with the first day of the week, their total silence respecting the sacredness of the day at the very point when it became sacred, if at all, makes these five texts mighty witnesses against Sunday sacredness instead of witnesses in its favor. Thus we set down Matt. 28:1, 2; Mark 16:1, 2, 9; Luke 23:56; 24:1–3; John 20:1, 2.

If John 20:19 be cited to prove that the disciples did begin, even on the day of Christ’s resurrection, to celebrate the first day of the week in honor of that event, it is sufficient to reply, 1. That no such thing is stated in the text; 2. That we do know, from Mark 16:14, that the disciples were assembled on this occasion, simply, to eat their evening meal; and that Jesus, on entering their presence, rebuked them for not believing his resurrection.

After eight days, Christ met with his disciples again. John 20:26. This can never be proved to have occurred on Sunday. But if it could, it would not make a Sabbath of the day when nothing of the kind is said, unless we can thus treat his next meeting, which was a fishing occasion (John 21); and also his final interview with them when he ascended from the Mount of Olives on Thursday. Acts 1. But there is very strong reason for believing that this meeting occurred later in the week than on first-day. It was after eight days from Sunday night. The period of one week is designated in the Bible as “after seven days.” 1 Chron. 9:25.

There is no propriety in citing Acts 2:1, 2, to prove the change of the Sabbath, as it makes not the slightest allusion to any such thing. But so far as that is concerned, it can be said also of every text that is quoted for the purpose. However, this text does not even mention the day. It is simply the record of the antitype of the feast of Pentecost.

The text which is most depended on to prove first-day sacredness, is Acts 20:7. And this amounts to nothing for that purpose, unless it can be made to show that this was the customary day for religious services with Paul. It is remarkable that Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, had a peculiar turn to note just this thing. Thus he says of Jesus, that it was his “custom” to attend the synagogue on the Sabbath. Luke 4:16. Thus, also, he speaks of the observance of the Sabbath at Philippi: “Where prayer was wont to be made.” Acts 16:13. And he states this fact also, respecting Paul at Thessalonica, that this Sabbath preaching in the synagogue was “as his manner was.” Acts 17:1, 2. And thus, also, at Corinth, it is said, “He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath.” Acts 18:4.

Now if Luke could write thus concerning an ancient institution like the Sabbath, that it was the custom or manner to act thus in regard to it, how much more important that he should note such a fact respecting a new institution, which was absolutely to depend for its sacredness upon the fact that Paul did thus regularly observe the day. Yet it is worthy of the most serious attention of the observers of Sunday, that he says not one word of this, though it was his habit to note these very things, but throws in, as the reason of this special meeting, the immediate departure of Paul. We may, therefore, safely deny the assertion that meetings on first-day were Paul’s regular custom. 1. Because neither this text nor any other one asserts it. 2. Because it was a marked peculiarity of Luke’s to note such things, which he would certainly have done in this case had it been true. It is also certain that this was a night meeting on the first day of the week; for the days of the week began at evening, whence it follows that the morrow morning was first-day morning, on which he resumed his long journey toward Jerusalem.

On 1 Cor. 16:1, 2, it is proper to remark that this text not only says nothing of the change of the Sabbath, but it does not even allude to public worship on the first day of the week. Each one was to lay by himself in store on that day. Dr. Justin Edwards, in his “Sabbath Manual,” p. 116, says this was to be fulfilled by public collections. But in the Family Testament, the notes of which were written by him, he confesses the truth frankly. Thus he says on 1 Cor. 16:2: “Lay by him in store; AT HOME. That there be no gatherings; that their gifts might be ready when the apostle should come.”

It is a remarkable instance of handling the word of God deceitfully when Rev. 1:10 is quoted as though it read, “The Lord’s day, which is the first day of the week.” Never in the Bible has God or Christ claimed the first day as his peculiar day. But from the beginning of the world, he has thus claimed the seventh day. See Gen. 2:1–3; Ex. 20:8–11; Isa. 58:13; Mark 2:28. This holy day he has never put away, to take another in its stead. So this text is a direct proof that there is one day in the gospel dispensation still claimed by the Lord as his; and that that day is his ancient Sabbath—one further fact for the benefit of those who think that John did here give a sacred title to the first day of the week. If he designed to give a sacred title to a day never before designated as sacred in the Bible, it is remarkable that he did not tell what day of the week this new day was. And it is still more remarkable that when he wrote his gospel some years later, and had occasion therein to designate the first day of the week, he should call it by that plain title, and nothing else. It is very manifest that he did not consider it a day ordained of God to be sacred to his church.

Such is the testimony adduced to prove the change of the Sabbath. How wicked it is to use these texts to nullify the fourth commandment! How evident that these passages have no reference to the change of the Sabbath! And what a Sabbath must that be which never was ordained in the Bible! How insulting to the Majesty of Heaven to tell the Lord on each first-day morning, “This is thy holy Sabbath!” How strange that men will cherish a day which God never commanded, and trample down that day which from the beginning of the world he has commanded them to remember, and to keep holy! When man was upright, God gave to him his holy day. He has never authorized him to change this for another of his own selection. Yet man has done this very thing. We are compelled, therefore, to assign the first-day Sabbath a place among the “many inventions” sought out by man’s perverse ingenuity. The lesson from all this is obvious. If we would honor our Creator, we must turn from the inventions of men to the commandments of God. He will never accept, as his pure worship, the doctrines of men; and such, most assuredly, is that institution which men call the Christian Sabbath.

SOWING AND REAPING.

Sow with a generous hand; Pause not for toil or pain; Weary not, through the heat of summer, Weary not, through the cold spring rain; But wait till the autumn comes For the sheaves of golden grain.

Scatter the seed and fear not— A table will be spread; What matter if you are too weary To eat your hard-earned bread; Sow while the earth is broken, For the hungry must be fed.

Sow while the seeds are lying In the warm earth’s bosom deep, And your warm tears fall upon it. They will stir in their quiet sleep, And the green blades rise the quicker Perchance for the tears you weep.

Then sow, for the hours are fleeting, And the seeds must fall to-day, And care not whose hands shall reap it, Or if you shall have passed away Before the waving cornfields Shall gladden the sunny day.

Sow, and look onward, upward, Where the stray light appears; Where, in spite of the coward’s doubting, Or your own heart’s trembling fears, You shall reap in joy the harvest You have sown to-day in tears.—Sel.

Christ's Reign on the Father's Throne

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

But it remains to notice more fully the error which has Christ reign on the earth, over the nations, till his enemies are subdued unto him.

5. Christ rules on the throne and in the kingdom of the Father until his enemies are put under his feet. Mr. Marsh has laid great stress on his construction of this text, considering it sufficient to prove his whole theory. But his construction is wrong, and his theory baseless. Others besides him have used this text as a stronghold; but with the establishment of this truth in regard to the reign, all claims of the Age to Come on this text are forever put at rest; and a mass of parallel scriptures, urged by the writers on that theory, are taken out of their hands and arrayed in favor of the truth that the enemies of Christ will be “dashed in pieces” at his coming.

Now, that Christ will reign as king in two localities, that is, occupy two thrones, is proved by Rev. 3:21: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and am set down with my Father in his throne.” Thus, while Christ is on the throne of the Father, he is only in expectation of his own throne. That this is the past and present position of our exalted Head, is further proved by Heb. 8:1: “We have such an High Priest who is set down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.” And that that is where he will reign till all enemies are put under his feet, is clearly proved by the Scriptures. Ps. 110:1: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” This is quoted by Jesus, as recorded by the gospels. Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42, 43; and also by Peter, Acts 2:34, 35, in his argument on the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus: “For David is not ascended into the Heavens; but he saith himself, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I make thy foes thy footstool.” This is a sure application of David’s prophecy, and proves the location of the reign (until his foes are made his footstool) to be “in the Heavens,” where Jesus is ascended.

Paul makes mention of the same in Heb. 1:13, in remarking on the superiority of Christ to angels. And again, in his argument concerning the work of Christ as priest on his Father’s throne, he says, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.” Heb. 10:12, 13. This point is established beyond the possibility of doubt; and the true sense of this scripture clearly appears, Christ the first-fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the mediatorial kingdom to God, even the Father; when the Father shall have put down all rule, and all authority, and power. For Christ must reign on the Father’s throne, till his enemies are put under his feet, or made his footstool. Then the Son delivers up or leaves the throne of the universe, and takes his own throne in subjection to that of his Father. It thus appears that,

6. Christ delivers up that kingdom, or leaves the Father’s throne, and receives the throne of David, before his coming. The first part of this proposition is proved by the text. And that he takes the throne of David, or his own throne, before his return to the earth, has also been proved in our argument on the kingdom. Luke 19:12, 15, says, “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.” “And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom.” The receiving of the kingdom is first; his return follows it; and his receiving the kingdom in this text is the same as that of Dan. 7:13, 14, and both are identical with all things being put under Christ. And it has been shown that he sits at his Father’s right hand till this is accomplished.

Another important text is Dan. 7:13, 14, and it has been perverted in a worse manner, if possible, than the former one. Thus we quote an Age-to-Come author:—

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him.

“The order laid down is— “a. Coming of the Son of man. “b. Giving of the Son of man dominion, glory, and a kingdom. “c. All people, nations, and languages, and all dominions [rulers], serve and obey the Son of man, the Lord and King of the whole earth.”

It is not very surprising that a superficial reading of 1 Cor. 15 should produce such a view as that we have been reviewing; but no one, however superficial, can possibly read the advent of Christ out of Dan. 7:13, 14, unless it be first assumed that the Ancient of days is on the earth prior to the second advent. For he came to the Ancient of days, and was brought near before him. But that view would make it read that he came from the Ancient of days, and was taken far away from him to receive the kingdom. And, were it even assumed that the Ancient of days shall be on the earth, that view would not then harmonize with Luke 19, and other scriptures, which teach that he has received the kingdom at the time of his second advent. His receiving the kingdom is identical with “the marriage of the Lamb,” which takes place before he comes; as the “little flock” “wait for their Lord when he will return from the wedding.” Luke 12:36. And then will they be taken to the mansions prepared in the “Father’s house,” where they will sit down at the marriage supper.

There can be no difference between his receiving the kingdom and having his enemies put under his feet; they must be identical. But there is a great difference between having his enemies put under him and his destroying them. In 1 Cor. 15:28, the same Greek word is used to express the subduing of all things to the Son, and the subjection of the Son to the Father. “And when all things shall be subdued [hupotasso] unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject [hupotasso] unto him that put all things under him.” The order of the events is given in Ps. 2:8, 9: The Father gives them to the Son. The Son breaks them with a rod of iron, and dashes them in pieces; which dashing takes place at his coming.

7. Death, the last enemy of them that are Christ’s, will be destroyed, or swallowed up in victory, at his coming. After having arrived at the true sense of the text in other respects, there is left but little chance for controversy on this point. No one will deny that the resurrection of the righteous to immortality is the same as death being swallowed up in victory. See verses 53, 54. And it is only as the enemy of the saints that death is destroyed; the wicked will never be released from death—the second death. If they are, they must have a second resurrection.

Whiting renders verse 24, death will be conquered. The expressions conquered or destroyed, and swallowed up in victory, appropriately refer to the last enemy of the saints, but not to that of the wicked. Dr. Clarke says, “Death shall be destroyed: katargeitai: shall be counter-worked, subverted, and finally overturned. But death cannot be destroyed by there being simply no further death; death can only be destroyed and annihilated by a general resurrection.” This is truth, but the wicked are never released from the power of death. Their resurrection is unto damnation and the second death.

Against the view here presented, that the kingdom is set up, and Christ receives his kingly power before the second advent, it is objected that as Christ is David’s son, it would be inconsistent to have him commence his reign in Heaven, where David never reigned.

All our ideas of the necessity or consistency of any action on the part of God must give way to his own revelation of what he has done or will do. But the objection has no weight, as there are certain facts revealed concerning the reigns of David and of Christ which make the view we advocate a consistent one.

1. The New Jerusalem is the capital of the kingdom of Christ; but that is in Heaven, and will there remain till after the second advent. And there is surely no inconsistency in commencing his reign at his capital.

2. David reigned only part of his time in Jerusalem, and never in the New Jerusalem.

3. Christ was born heir to David’s throne; but, partaking of our nature, he died, as had David and all his sons. And, of course, what he gained by birth he lost by death, and his being David’s son would have

availed him nothing had he remained dead. Thus, though born heir, he receives the throne by the gift of God, through the resurrection. “The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David.” Luke 1:32. See especially on this point Peter’s remarks: “Therefore [David] being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; he seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.” Acts 2:30, 31.

4. David had many sons, but Christ was superior to David; for he called him Lord. And David will also be raised from the dead, but Christ will supersede him in the throne. His special right arises from his being Son of God as well as son of David, and being raised from the dead without seeing corruption.

5. As he is the Son of God, so his throne will be in the house and city of God. Notice 1 Chron. 17:14: “I will settle him in mine house, and in my kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forevermore.” Also verse 12, “He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne forever.”

6. From all this it is evident that no plea can be raised of informality; it was God’s kingdom, and he first ruled over it. When the Israelites desired a king, he said, “They have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” 1 Sam. 8:7. David’s was a secondary right, held by sufferance. Many talk as if David had the first right, and as if everything was illegal that differed from his reign.

Now, no one will deny that, before the selection of David or Saul, the ruler of Israel reigned in Heaven. And there is no reason that can be given why he “whose right it is,” should not commence his reign in the same locality. On the contrary, there is abundant proof that he does take the kingdom while yet he is there. How long he will continue to reign there can only be determined by ascertaining when the New Jerusalem will come down to earth. As that is the capital of his kingdom, the seat of power is of course determined by its location.

J. H. Waggoner.

Testamentary Charities Are No Better Than Dead Sacrifices

TESTAMENTARY charities are no better than dead sacrifices.

Sacrifices of Early Anti-slavery Reformers.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

I HAVE just been reading a series of articles on the sacrifices made and persecution endured by the first leaders in the anti-slavery movement. Now that the battle is over and the victory won and the leaders in it have become the heroes of their age, it is hard to realize that they were opposed, hated, and persecuted, by all classes, especially by ministers and churches, as they were. Mr. Garrison was cast into prison for speaking against slavery. In Boston he tried in vain to obtain a church in which to lecture against slavery. Ministers and churches opposed him. An infidel club finally consented to let him occupy their hall.

Of his sacrifices and struggles in starting a paper, the writer says:—

“It was no idle or empty boast on the part of the two young printers of The Liberator that they would print it as long as they could ‘subsist on bread and water, or their hands obtain employment.’ After the first three weeks, they were able to obtain, on credit, of the well-known type-founders, Greeley and Willis, a small font of second-hand type and a hand press. They rented a dingy office in the upper story of the old Merchants’ Hall, in Congress Street, where for a long time they did all the type-setting, press-work, mailing, etc., of the paper; Mr. Garrison doing most of his editorial work in the night, after laboring all day at case or press, and often putting his editorials in type without committing them to paper. The office, for at least a year and a half, was their home as well as their work-shop. Too poor to pay for better lodgings, they made their bed on the floor and lived upon bread and milk, cakes and fruit, obtained from a baker’s shop on the opposite side of the street, and a cake shop in the basement. I visited them frequently in these humble quarters, which they shared with a friendly cat that protected them from the depredations of mice.”

This shows the spirit of a true reformer and a moral hero. It reminds us of the way in which our own dear paper was started. May it encourage us to push on the good cause, hoping on till victory shall turn on our side, as it surely will in the end, not by the bringing over of the masses to our views, but by the appearing of Him who is soon coming for the deliverance of his people, and the vindication of his downtrodden truth.

D. M. CANRIGHT.

Continue reading: Prophecy: History Written in Advance