p. 1 | Review and Herald, Vol. 46, No. 2. (7/8/1875)

Review and Herald

Jul 8, 1875

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 8, 1875

SANCTIFIED BY THE WILL OF GOD

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 16.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Concluded.)

SANCTIFIED BY THE WILL OF GOD.

Paul to the Hebrews contrasts the work of the priests of the first covenant with that of Christ. In chap. 10, after saying that it was not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take away sin, he quotes from Ps. 40 the words addressed by the prophet to Messiah, who came to do the will of God. The Lord did not delight in those offerings because they could not take away sin. They were reminders of sin, but they could not cleanse the conscience or remove sin.

In Rom. 2, it will be remembered, Paul said if a man were circumcised and did not keep the law, his circumcision was not regarded; while if a man were not circumcised and yet kept the law, he was accepted as if he were circumcised. He also spoke of the law as the will of God. And so in Heb. 10. The sacrifices and offerings which belonged to the same system with circumcision were nothing in the sight of God; but doing his will is acceptable, and is required. The same is shown in Ps. 40:8, after affirming the insufficiency of the offerings, he says, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.”

Alexander Campbell, in his version of the New Testament, misconstrued this scripture and made an addition to verse 9, which is a great perversion. He rendered it thus: “He taketh away the first will that he may establish the second.” Thus he brings into the text and places in contrast two wills, or covenants, instead of leaving it with the apostle’s statement of a contrast in importance between the ceremonial and moral laws—between the offerings and the will. That the reader may perceive the full scope of the apostle’s argument, we quote verses 8, 9, as follows:—

“Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldst not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” He takes away those prof<ins>i</ins>tless offerings, but establishes the will of God.

It will be noticed that the apostle in this book to the Hebrews always uses the word law when referring to the ceremonial law, or to that law which regulated the priesthood and its offerings. In quoting from Jer. 31, in chap. 8, which relates to the moral law, he distinguishes it by using it in the plural, “my laws.” Evidently, to avoid all chance of misconstruing his language, he omitted a part of verse 8 when quoting from Ps. 40—that which speaks of the law, speaking of it only as the will of God, by which it is sufficiently identified.

The version of Campbell loses sight of the drift of the apostle’s argument, and turns the expression in verse 9 to the two wills or covenants; an idea not contained in the text or context. His version makes it read that Christ took away the first covenant that he might establish the second. We have no objection to this as a doctrine, but we object to its introduction into this passage, where the inspired writer did not introduce it. The idea of Mr. Campbell can only be brought into the text by adding the word will in verse 9, which he does. But it is not there in the original, nor does it belong there. So far from the context demanding the addition, it will not justify it; it will not allow it.

The difference made by that addition is this: With the addition, the text is made to say, He taketh away the first will that he may establish the second, by which second will we are sanctified. But Paul’s affirmation is, He taketh away the sacrifices that he may establish the will of God, by which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once. The doctrine of the text is, that we are sanctified by the law of God through the offering of Christ. And thus the law of God, instead of being thrown out, is given its proper place in the work of sanctification in the New Testament.

This statement is fully sustained by other scriptures, and is in harmony with Rom. 3:31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Christ came to do his Father’s will, to put away sin, and lead back rebellious man to obedience to his Father; to magnify the law and make it honorable, by taking away the reproach and dishonor which sinners cast upon it, by vindicating it in his own death, and writing it upon the hearts of the penitent and faithful, so that they delight in it instead of transgressing it. Thus is the law established by the Son of God, and magnified and honored in his followers.

The fault with those who oppose and make void the law of God is that they make religion an intangible or unintelligible thing—of the emotions merely; and sanctification is made to consist of a certain state of feeling. This is a wide-spread error of the present day. Tracing this subject in the Scriptures, we shall find that sanctification is, as Paul said in Heb. 10, by the will or law of God.

Jesus prayed to his Father for his disciples thus: “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.” The words sanctity, purity, and holiness, mean exactly the same thing when spoken of moral character. To sanctify is to purify, or make holy. How, then, are we sanctified through the truth? Not by hearing the truth; for Jesus testified that the speaking of the truth by him condemned those who heard. “This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world.” Nor is it by believing the truth. Many believe the truth who are never made better by it. It is true that we read of being justified and purified by faith, but mere belief is not that kind of faith. “Faith without works is dead, being alone.”

It appears, then, that works perfect faith, without which, faith is dead, useless. The apostle Peter gives the work in full when he says, “Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth.” Hearing and believing are both necessary, as no one will obey who does not believe, and no one can believe who does not hear. But neither, nor yet both together, will accomplish the object, as we are purified or sanctified through obedience.

Here it is necessary to notice that all truth is not equally sanctifying in its nature. In one sense, no truth can be more important than the existence of only one true God. But the most that we can do with this truth is to believe it. And the devils believe it, and tremble, says James; yet they are devils still. The reason is, it defines no duty; it points out no action. The character of devils is not changed by their believing this important truth; nor is the character of man changed by his believing it.

Now as we are sanctified or purified by obeying the truth, it follows that only that truth is sanctifying which requires obedience, or defines obligation. The declaration, “There is one God,” is not of that kind. It admits of belief only, which the devils can do, and be devils still. But if the devils, believing there is one God, should cease their rebellion and obey the one God, and keep his commandments, their characters would at once be changed. Thus it is plain to see that the truth which is directly sanctifying in its nature is the law—it is that which defines obligation or points out duty, and requires action. And it is equally plain to see that the popular view of sanctification or holiness, which makes it to consist of a state of feeling or a frame of mind independent of obedience to the law of God, is a fanatical one, not founded upon any just and reasonable view of Scripture.

We say it is the law which sanctifies, because all obligation centers in this. “By the law is the knowledge of sin;” it points out and forbids sin; and conversely, it points out and enjoins duty. There are many circumstantial duties in life which are not directly mentioned in the law which God spake to his people, and for this reason some deny that the whole duty of man is contained in that law. But all such duties are referable to that law, as it covers all our relations in life. It points out our duty to the true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. It takes us up in our childhood, marking our duty to our parents. It guards our rights in respect to life, chastity, property, and reputation. All injuries which it is possible to inflict on our fellow-men may be classed under these heads. It inculcates a proper frame of mind toward God and our neighbor. It is a marvel of brevity and completeness. It “is perfect.”

On this subject we will briefly glance at some Scripture testimony already examined. Bearing in mind that sanctity and holiness are identical in morals, we take the words of Jehovah when he told his chosen people, Israel, if they would obey his voice, which was to obey the law which he spoke with his voice, they would be holy—they would be sanctified. Ex. 19:5–8. Here sanctification was based on obedience; precisely as we find it in the New Testament. Even as Moses said: “It shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.” Deut. 6:25.

We have before noticed, and all must admit, that a perfect law will develop a perfect character in him who obeys it. But “the law of the Lord is perfect.” Ps. 19:7. Of course its design was to make man perfect; to sanctify him through obedience.

The same remark will apply to the words of Solomon in Eccl. 12:13: “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” Had man kept the commandments of God he would have done his whole duty; and if he had done his whole duty he would have been perfect, or holy, before God. He would have purified his soul in obeying the truth, as Peter said, or been sanctified through the truth, as Jesus prayed. David said, “Thy law is the truth.” Ps. 119:142. We have seen that it is the law of God which purifies, or sanctifies, because it calls for obedience. The prayer of the Saviour is really this, that the Father would bring his disciples into perfect obedience to his law. And what more reasonable than this?

In being brought into perfect obedience to the law they would be made free from sin, and restored to the happy position God desired man to occupy from the beginning.

The same truth of the perfection of the law, and of character by obedience to the law, is taught in the New Testament. Paul said, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” Why? Because their characters would be right and perfect in the sight of God. Some will always start at this passage, as if it were doing violence to grace to quote it. But to us it seems eminently just and reasonable. If a man should do or keep the perfect law of God—should do his whole duty in the sight of God—would God condemn him? Could God in justice condemn a man who had done his whole duty, and had never done any wrong? Of course not. But if he could not be condemned, he would of course be justified, as every one ought to be who does that which is right. But man, unfortunately, has not done his whole duty; he has broken the law; he has brought himself under condemnation. But through Jesus he may have his past sins forgiven, and have the law of God written in his heart so that he will love it, and “go, sin no more;” so that he stands related to the law as if he had not transgressed it. Thus “the righteousness of the law” is fulfilled in the true followers of Christ; they are restored to obedience; their souls are purified by obedience—the obedience of faith—and thus they are sanctified through the truth of God.

And this is precisely what is taught in Heb. 10. The law of God is frequently spoken of as the will of God. And where should we expect to find the will of a governor and lawgiver but in his law? The words of the Son of God, spoken in prophecy by the Spirit of God, are these: Ps. 40:8: “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Paul quotes this scripture, showing that Christ came to establish the will of God, and adds, “By the which will we are sanctified”—not now by our own unassisted obedience; not in our own strength, but—“through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ.” It is thus that Christ “puts away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Heb. 9:26. Thus the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, but is enmity against God, is removed, and we have “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

As we said before, it was not our purpose to exhaust the evidence on this subject; that is impossible. But we think in all honesty that if the reasons presented in these articles do not prove the perpetuity of the law of God, then it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove anything from the Bible. We do not mean that all must be convinced of its perpetuity. That were too much to expect. We have learned to our deep regret that it is one thing to prove a proposition, and quite another thing to convince opposers that it is true. Prejudice is often stronger than reason. Self-will and self-interest prevent the judgment. Very often “the god of this world blinds the minds of them that believe not.” Our duty is to prove and to persuade. If men will not be persuaded when proof is presented, we must then leave them in the hands of the God of truth, who will vindicate the authority of his word in that day when he shall bring every work into judgment.

It is not opposition to the law as a whole, but to the fourth commandment, which leads men to reject the evidence for the perpetuity of the law as a whole. The opposition to the fourth commandment is most unreasonable and unreasoning. To get rid of this, intelligent men will take positions which subvert all morality. To show how far this is true, we will notice one statement. We heard one of the ablest preachers among those known as “first-day Adventists” declare in public that the law in the New Testament was “in contradistinction to the ten commandments.” This was no inadvertent expression, for he afterwards published a pamphlet against the law in which he made the same statement. And we heard a Baptist minister once preach against the Sabbath who also said the same thing. Now our copy of Webster says that contradistinction means “distinguished by opposite qualities.” Therefore, if the opposers of the Sabbath are right, the law which Christians are to observe is the very opposite of the ten commandments. It is no excuse for such ministers that they have not well considered and do not realize what such a law would enjoin. On a subject of this importance, public teachers should consider well what they teach. If the blind lead the blind, they shall together fall into the ditch. We will here present a copy of the law taught by those who thus heedlessly oppose the holy law of ten commandments. It will read as follows:—

Thou shalt have other gods before me.
Thou shalt make to thee graven images; thou shalt bow down thyself to them and serve them.
Thou shalt take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Remember not the Sabbath day to keep it holy.
Honor not thy father and thy mother.
Thou shalt kill.
Thou shalt commit adultery.
Thou shalt steal.
Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbor.
Thou shalt covet.

Reader, how do you like that law? The carnal mind, yes; the devil himself, would be satisfied with such a law. What a scene would be presented if every one faithfully kept that law! If they who contrast the law of Christ with the ten commandments do not teach “doctrines of devils,” then we have yet to learn the disposition of devils. The fourth of the above precepts is agreeable to many minds. And to make that consistent with duty, the theory is devised which reverses every precept of the decalogue. Look at the above with care, and see what company Sabbath-breaking is made to keep! Paul says of the practices of the heathen that “it is a shame to speak of the things which are done of them in secret.” These preachers have outdone the heathen, for it is a shame to speak of the things taught of them in public. And such teachings pass with some for the genuine gospel of Christ; they are regarded as the only way to gospel liberty! And the teachers thereof even affect peculiar sanctity or holiness, attained unto through faith in such a gospel. “Lord, how long?”

SEVENTH DAY NOT THE JEWISH SABBATH.

In the present state of the investigation of the Sabbath question, it seems surprising that men will persist in calling the seventh day “the Jewish Sabbath.” Wrong education has led to this practice; the present generation has been trained up to the belief that there was a Jewish weekly Sabbath, and that there is now a Christian Sabbath. But “the times of this ignorance” are fast passing away. The light of truth is spreading so extensively that, in most places, when we hear a person call the seventh day the Jewish Sabbath, we at once decide that he has shut his eyes against the evidence, and refused to examine it, or else his prejudices are so strong that they will not permit him to yield to the proof when it is presented.

This practice of calling the Sabbath of the Lord the Jewish Sabbath has had a most pernicious influence on the world, and it yet stands in the way, in many cases, of a candid investigation of this important truth. It has brought an undeserved reproach on the name of the Sabbath and on those who keep it. The Lord foretold by Moses that the Jews would become “a hissing and a byword” among all nations if they proved unfaithful to him. They were unfaithful, and they have become a byword among men. The appellation “Jew” is an equivalent for everything that is sordid, selfish, and despicable. We cannot justify the feeling which prompts men to use them thus. We pity the blindness of that ancient people whom God once chose as his peculiar treasure, and on whom his name was called. “The God of Israel” is a title by which the true God is yet distinguished from false gods. And the apostle Paul earnestly warns us against the error of boasting against the natural branches who were broken off because of unbelief. “Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.”

By prefixing “Jewish” to the Sabbath of the Lord, that blessed institution is made to bear all the reproach that attaches to that unfortunate people. And this course has not only brought reproach on the Sabbath, but it has gradually undermined the sacredness and authority of all the law of God—the ten commandments. Whatever men may profess in regard to the validity of this law, it is a fact which all observation verifies, that, wherever any one of the ten commandments is lightly esteemed, the breadth, the sacredness, the spirituality of all are virtually denied. To more effectually get rid of the Sabbath, the theory of the abolition of the whole law has been devised, and antinomianism, with its licenses to evil, its spiritual pride, and its thousand perversions of the sacred word, is the result. The judgment day alone will reveal to what extent men have been ruined and God has been dishonored by this unscriptural theory.

To show that our remarks about the term “Jewish Sabbath” are just, we have only to examine the ground upon which Sabbath obligation rests. We find that not a single fact or reason supporting Sabbath obligation has any reference to the Jews or to the Levitical dispensation, nor to any day of the week but the seventh.

For four thousand years of this world’s history no weekly Sabbath was known to mankind but the seventh day. This is not disputed. But the “Sabbath of the Lord” was known; the law enjoining its observance was well known. And there is no Sabbath law now existing which did not then exist. Among the various denominations, and among all the conflicting opinions, we are never pointed to any Sabbath law but to the fourth commandment of the decalogue.

Granting that the statement is true that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” we are shut up to the law of the Sabbath for information in regard to the obligation of the Sabbath. To say that we can find obligation defined outside of the law, or that we may act contrary to the law, is virtually to contradict the above statement of Scripture. If all who acknowledge Sabbath obligation would look to the law of the Sabbath for a definition of that obligation, the controversy would soon be ended.

The law says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” The reason given is one which decisively settles two points presented in the above declaration. 1. The seventh day is the Sabbath. 2. It is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.

And, first, the seventh day is the Sabbath because God made the world in six days and rested the seventh day. For our starting point we have “the beginning.” Gen. 1:1. When God spake the world into existence, all was darkness and chaos. And in darkness it continued for a space, until “God said, Let there be light, and there was light.” The first periods of darkness and of light, the evening and the morning, constituted the first day. This was the first day of this world’s history; the first day of time. The seventh day from that point—the seventh day of the first week of time—God sanctified, because he made all things in six days and rested on that seventh day. Then the facts of resting, blessing, and sanctifying, will apply to no day but the seventh day of the week. And the commandment refers to no facts but these. It was, and is, and must remain, true, that “the seventh day is the Sabbath,” or rest-day.

And, secondly, it is the Sabbath, or rest-day of the Lord, because the Lord alone performed the work in which the rest relates. To make it appear true that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews, it must be shown that the Jews performed the work which the rest of the Sabbath commemorates. The rest belongs to him who performed the work. As the work is that of creation, the rest is necessarily that of the Creator. To say that the seventh day is the Jewish Sabbath is no nearer truth than it is to say the Jews created heaven and earth. This is a proposition plain enough for any one to see, and it cannot be controverted. Why learned men, men of ability to reason, and who manifest a willingness to reason on other subjects, will persist in calling the seventh day the Jewish Sabbath, we shall not take upon ourselves to determine. But the fact that they do so compels us to doubt their knowledge or their candor.

THERE IS NO CHRISTIAN SABBATH.

We do not mean that there is no Sabbath for Christians to observe, but we mean that the Sabbath is not a Christian institution. They who contend for a Christian Sabbath do not treat it as a Christian institution. A minister who preaches about the “Christian Sabbath” will not baptize the infidel and the blasphemer, nor will he let such an one come to the table of the Lord, because baptism and the Lord’s supper are Christian institutions; they are institutions of the gospel. But the same minister will ask for a law to compel the infidel and the blasphemer to keep his so-called “Christian Sabbath,” thereby virtually confessing that it is not an institution of the gospel.

The Sabbath, as marriage, “was made for man.” It was made at creation, for the human race. Christian ministers do not refuse to join unbelievers in marriage, because they know that marriage is not a Christian institution. It was instituted at the beginning—when man was first created—and it belongs to the race. An institution made before the fall of man cannot be peculiar to any nation, but belongs to the human family at large. Marriage and the Sabbath were instituted before the fall, in paradise. They have no special reference to Jew, Gentile, or Christian. They were made before such distinctions were known. Many who profess great faith in the Son of God, who earnestly contend that it is our sole duty to “hear him,” persistently close their ears to his words which declare an evident and everlasting truth—“The Sabbath was made for man.”

Those who contend for a “Christian Sabbath” show their inconsistency again in trying to enforce it by the fourth commandment of the decalogue. The fourth commandment enjoins a day which they affect to despise; a day which they persist in calling a “Jewish Sabbath,” and it is so worded as to shut out any other than that seventh day. It is not possible to read the first day in the fourth commandment without making it contradict the historical facts of creation. The fourth commandment requires us to keep the day on which God rested when he made heaven and earth, which day he blessed and hallowed. All this is true of the seventh day, but none of it is true of the first day. If there is a Christian Sabbath, why do they not give us the law which enjoins it? Because it does not exist. And this they well know. Dr. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, says, “It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day.” McGarvey, in his Commentary on Acts, says, “No formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance.” Dr. Scott said the change from the seventh to the first day was gradually and silently introduced. Of course, there was neither law nor obligation in the matter. Alexander Campbell said the first day was not set apart by any public authority in the apostolic age, but was first enforced by Constantine. Bishop Jeremy Taylor said the first day “was not introduced by virtue of the fourth commandment, because they for almost three hundred years together kept that day which was in that commandment,” thus confessing, not only to an important historical fact against the first day, but that the first day was not “in that commandment.”

Dr. Neander, the eminent historian, said the festival of Sunday, like other festivals, was a human ordinance. Constantine did not enjoin it on any scriptural or Christian basis, but as the “venerable day of the sun.” His decree was enacted before he professed Christianity. Dr. Schaff, the learned church historian, says, “He enjoined the civil observance of Sunday, though not as dies Domini, but as dies solis, in conformity to his worship of Apollo,” the sun-god. “Sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Therefore sin cannot be imputed for not keeping Sunday. We shall not be judged in the great day by the law of Constantine, nor by the decrees of popes and their councils. “Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man; for God shall bring every work into judgment.”

But the advocates of the so-called Christian Sabbath, while they are compelled to admit that there is no law for the observance of first-day, say there are satisfactory reasons why it should be observed. But none of these reasons are set forth in the New Testament as ground of observing the day. McGarvey makes direct confession of this. Therefore these reasons are of human devising, and are destitute of authority. The comparative weight of law and of reasons, to determine duty, may be illustrated in the following manner:—

We will suppose that the fourth of July has been set apart by our government, by an express law, as the day on which to commemorate the independence of the United States; and the reason given in the law for such appointment is the signing of the Declaration of Rights on that day. Now a party rises up and claims that the design of the law will be carried out by observing the eighth of January instead; that we are required to keep one day of the year, and not any particular day; that both the letter and spirit of the law will be kept by observing the eighth of January; that on that day a very memorable event occurred, worthy of being commemorated; that history has made much mention of the victory of General Jackson on that day; and as all days are alike in themselves, it is optional with us which day to keep. Now, we inquire, Would that law be kept by keeping the eighth day of January instead of the fourth of July?

In answer to the above list of propositions we reply: The law specifies the particular day—the fourth of July. It gives the reason—the signing of the Declaration of Independence on that day. There is no option with us in regard to the day—the law specifying the day carries with it the authority of the government. The eighth of January is not mentioned in the law. The victory of New Orleans is not the reason given for appointing a day. History is not law, so a historical fact cannot supersede a legal enactment. All days are not alike in the sight of that law, for it has set apart the fourth of July from all other days. We can have no option or personal preference, for the law commands obedience. The authority of the government is honored only by the observance of that day which is set apart by the law.

He would be considered almost insane who would undertake to contest the case in favor of the eighth of January, under such circumstances. But such is the relative position of the parties in the controversy on the subject of the Sabbath. They who contend for a Christian Sabbath acknowledge the validity of the decalogue. The law says we must keep the seventh day. They say it is more pleasing to God to keep the first day. The law says the reason for the institution is that God rested on the seventh day. They say the better reason is that Jesus rose on the first day. The law says Jehovah blessed and hallowed the seventh day, and that for a reason which will not apply to any other day. They say the first day is more blessed, more holy than the seventh day, though the Scriptures say not a word about its ever having been blessed or sanctified. The fact that it is a law, that it is given by high authority, binds us to the observance of that day contained in the law. They say a day not indicated by any authority, not enforced by any law, not expressly appointed, will answer far better than the day mentioned in the law! Will such reasoning as this stand the test of the Judgment? If it will, then indeed the government of Heaven rests on a slight foundation.

Jesus said, “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” Luke 16:31. They who will not bow to the authority of the word of God, plainly stated, would not be moved to obedience by the greatest miracle. That word we have presented, in as plain terms as language may be made to express them, in favor of the authority of Jehovah’s law and of his holy rest-day. On this high authority we rest the subject. Human reasonings and excuses are out of place when God speaks. He accepts no excuses. Men presume on the mercy of God because he is long-suffering. “Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.” Eccl. 8:11. God affords men a time of probation and of choice, and they abuse him for the privilege they receive at his hands. But evil doers shall not always triumph. When “God shall bring every work into judgment,” they will have no choice. The days of presumptuous daring will be ended, and the self-deceived will be overwhelmed in disappointment and despair.

These things fill our hearts with grief, and we would gladly bear the erring ones beyond the reach of coming destruction. But “without faith it is impossible to please” God. When we have done all we can do, our arguments, our entreaties, our prayers, and our tears, will not avail if men will not submit to the word of God.

WAITING

By John Fullerton

In the lone watches of the lonely night, Eyes wet with tears, I wait for Thee to quiet all my fears, E'en as the first faint gleam of morning light Chases the shadows from each mountain height.

I wait for Thee when sunshine glads the day, And far and near The hum of labor falls upon my ear, And, like a flowing river on its way, In crowds will pass the sorrowful and gay.

The night is dark, but far above I see Heaven's lamps hang out, As if to smile away the inward doubt That will not leave my heart, but clings to me, Like my own shadow, wheresoe'er I be.

I wait to hear Thy voice, so soft and sweet, To see thy smile, Comfort and soothe my doubting heart the while I grope my way through alley, lane, and street, Alone; no friend in all I pass or meet.

I wait for Thee. Oh! wert thou very near Grief then were joy, And doubts and fears would then no more annoy My soul. Arise! the still small voice I hear, Like music sweet it falls upon my ear. —John Fullerton.

Is it So?

By A. O. Bourdeau

EVIDENTLY when the apostle Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that the mystery of iniquity had already commenced to work (2 Thess. 2; see also Acts. 20:29, 30; and 2 Tim. 4:2–4), the apostasy was commencing to do its pernicious work of corrupting the word of God. Some of those who embraced the Christian religion through the preaching of the apostle to the Gentiles and of others, were very tenacious of some of their heathen traditions and idolatrous notions which they brought along with them, and mixed with the doctrines of Christianity. Many of the fathers of the early church had been heathen philosophers, and they also retained some of their heathen notions, blending them with Christianity. Hence many of the doctrines of the papacy can be proved by their teachings.

Romanism is evidently an amalgamation, or a confused mixture of heathenism and Christianity. The Romanist’s rule of faith is the word of God and the traditions of the church. Several of their religious dogmas are a subversion of Bible truths, being based wholly on the authority of the ancient fathers, the utter insufficiency of which is very apparent.

A writer of the seventeenth century has truly said, “To maintain their greatness, errors, and new articles of faith, 1. They have corrupted many of the ancient fathers, and, reprinting them

make them speak as they would have them. . . . 2. They have written many books in the names of these ancient writers, and forged many decrees, canons, and councils, to bear false witness to them.” See History of the Sabbath, published at the REVIEW AND HERALD OFFICE, Battle Creek, Mich.

But the true Christian cannot be in agreement with the church of Rome relative to their faith and practice. His rule of faith is the word of God alone. “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” 2 Tim. 3:16, 17. This testimony is explicit. Any doctrine or teaching respecting religious faith and practice which is contrary to the teachings of God’s word may be safely pronounced spurious.

In view of these and other plain facts that are adduced on this subject, how can any one who professes to take the Bible as the man of his counsel dare to resort to tradition, or to secular history, in proof of a doctrine that cannot be sustained by the word of God? Yet we frequently see some, even of those who are called ministers, who pursue this course while trying to oppose us on the Sabbath question.

A no-law Adventist preacher took such a course in this place a few months ago. He gave two discourses—one against the law and the Sabbath, and the other in favor of Sunday-keeping—which I afterward reviewed. At the close of his first discourse, after reading the eight texts which mention the first day, he stated that those texts did not prove that Sunday should be kept; but that he would bring up something that would in his next discourse. He said that, “while treating upon a religious subject, if we lack proof in the Bible, we can resort to church history. After the Revelation come the fathers.”

Between the meetings I told him that he appeared to be stepping off from the Protestant’s platform—“the Bible and the Bible alone”—to that of the Romanists—the Bible and the traditions of the church. Said he, “Is it so?” I replied, Sir, you ought to know for yourself. His second discourse really answered his question in the affirmative.

The elder necessarily adopted the rule of the Catholic Church, just as all do (though some perhaps are not aware of the fact) who advocate the sacredness of the first day of the week. We read, “Laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” Mark 7:8. A. O. BOURDEAU.

Burke, Vt.

Continue reading: The Resurrection