Earlier text: The All-Important LessonJustification and Obedience.
By Editor
JUSTIFICATION by faith is not a final procedure; it does not take the place of the Judgment, nor render the Judgment unnecessary. It looks to something beyond itself to be accomplished in the future. Of course this remark would not apply where probation was cut off immediately or very soon after justification took place. But it certainly does apply where life is prolonged and probation is continued. Justification by faith, in the plan of the gospel, may be defined in full as that change in man's relations and condition by virtue of which, 1. He is counted just as regards his past life, though in his life he has not been just. 2. The Government and its subjects are guarded against future depredations. And, 3. God may consistently accept his service as that of a loyal subject. In regard to the first point, there can be no question on the part of anybody. To the second, all must concede that both the Government and its subjects ought to be secured against injury, and, to effect this, it is necessary not only to do a work for man, but, also, in him. While the act of laying the penalty upon a substitute vindicates the majesty of the law, and is all that can be done in respect to the past, a change of heart, a thorough amendment of life, can only give that guarantee which is reasonably and justly demanded for the future. And this we call conversion. Justification by faith embraces this. With anything less than this we cannot imagine that any one would stand justified before God. But the third point will not be so apparent to every one, for some may think it is consistent for God to accept the service of any one, at any time it may be offered, without stopping to consider conditions. But to this we cannot assent. Suppose a person who was born in a foreign land comes to the United States and proposes to take part in the execution of our laws. Of course his proposal is promptly rejected. But he urges his case in the following manner:— "In my native land I carefully examined the principles of your Government, and admired them; therefore I am come to this country. I have read your laws; I think they are just. I am anxious to bear a part in executing them. I have an education superior to that of many who hold office in this country. I claim to have as good ability as they, and to love your Government as well as they. Why, then, am I rejected from holding an office?" The answer is readily given, thus:— "By birth you are a citizen of another Government which is entirely different from this; and as such you are held under obligation to seek its welfare and to further its interests. We cannot know but you are even now acting under instructions from your sovereign. You must publicly renounce allegiance to him, and declare your allegiance to this Government. You must be naturalized. Then you will no longer be regarded as an alien, but as an American citizen, and be entitled to all the privileges of one born in this country." This all can understand; its reasonableness all can see. Without such a safeguard as this, enemies might come in and undermine our Government by abusing and perverting its laws under pretence of executing them. And it is truly strange that any who love justice and good government, and who know that evil is in the world, and in the hearts of men, should stand in doubt as to the necessity of the gospel, to bring us into acceptance with God, and to fit us by a transformation of heart and life for a place in his service and at last in his kingdom. In the above illustration, so striking in every feature, we have only used the ideas given to us by the apostle Paul, in his letter to the Ephesians. He had before said to the Romans that of all the world, Jew and Gentile, there is none righteous, no, not one. Destruction and misery are in their ways. All stand guilty before God. In harmony with this he speaks of himself and of his brethren as being "by nature the children of wrath, even as others." Eph. 2. And of the brethren, Gentiles in the flesh, he says: "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." They who were the children of wrath, aliens and strangers, have their condition entirely changed through faith in Christ and by his blood. "Now, therefore," continues the apostle, "ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." The gospel of Christ is the law of naturalization, by means of which aliens or foreigners are inducted into the household of God, and are made citizens of the commonwealth of Israel,—the Israel of God. In illustrations it is permitted us to represent spiritual things by those which are natural; we have no other means of making comparisons which our minds can appreciate. But we must always remember that there is a depth to spiritual things which the natural cannot reach. A foreigner, dwelling in his native land, may have a high regard for the principles and the rulers of our Government without disparagement to his loyalty to his own; because the two Governments maintain friendly relations with each other. Each has its own territory, and each has paramount right and jurisdiction in its own dominion. But the very nature of the Government of God forbids that there shall, in it, be any parallel to this condition. 1. His dominion, his right of jurisdiction, is universal. No contrary Government has any right to exist. 2. His law, the rule of his Government, is a moral law. It takes cognizance, not of actions alone, but of motives and intentions. 3. As no contrary rule has any right to exist, there can of right be no neutrality in case of usurpation or rebellion. When war is waged against a Government, every good and loyal citizen is bound to support the Government. A refusal to do so is equivalent to giving aid to the enemy. Now inasmuch as all have gone astray—all have departed from God—the world is in the condition of a mighty rebellion against its rightful ruler. There is a general disregard of his authority and of the rights of his subjects. And no one is on neutral ground; says the Governor: "He that is not for me is against me." And so far has man fallen from his "first estate," that it is declared that "the carnal mind," the natural, unchanged heart, "is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom. 8:7. Hence, all are by nature the children of wrath, because all are aliens, or more properly, in a state of rebellion against the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Can any doubt the necessity of naturalization, or of the acceptance of the amnesty offered, that we may be brought into friendly and loyal relations to the one Lawgiver? Can any deny the reasonableness of the declaration, "Ye must be born again?" No one, we think, can now fail to see the correctness of our proposition that God cannot consistently accept or approve of the action of any one in his natural state, or in carnal mindedness. Such a state being one of enmity against God, every action springing from the carnal or natural heart is an act of rebellion, because it is done in utter disregard of the authority of our rightful Sovereign. Every act has its spring in self-will; it proceeds from a spirit, which, if it could have undisputed sway, would dethrone Jehovah and substitute its own will for his. The acceptance of man as the servant of God involves the duty in man to serve God. Instead of justification by faith releasing man from works, or from obedience to the divine law, it brings him to work; it obligates him to work; it fits him to work. Some seem to doubt whether the acknowledgment principles of right and justice, which are incorporated in human Governments, will be exacted in the divine Government; whether the gospel does not supersede them to some extent. To this the Scriptures give a sufficient answer: "Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?" God himself has planted this regard for justice in our hearts, and shall not he regard it? There is truly a vast difference between God and us in this respect, but it is all in favor of strict justice on his part. His justice is infinite. We have remarked that justification by faith does not supersede the Judgment. And the Judgment is not on the basis of faith alone. In this is shown the imperative necessity of obedience. The following declarations of Scripture are conclusive on this point, and very impressive:— "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment." Eccl. 12: 13, 14. "As many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." Rom. 2:12, 16. "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." 2 Cor. 5:10. "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Matt. 16:27. "And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rev. 22:12. Others to the same intent might be quoted. And by these it is seen that not faith, but works, are the sole basis of determination and of reward in the Judgment. Then the question may be asked, Of what benefit is faith, if it does not appear in the Judgment? We answer, It is an auxiliary to works; it enables us to work; it appropriates the strength of Christ by which alone we can work, for without him we can do nothing. John 15:5. But faith without works is dead, and of what benefit is dead faith? Is this inconsistent with grace? No; it is free grace that has opened the way for our escape from eternal ruin. Grace has made our salvation possible. Grace guides and assists us every step on the way. Grace opens the way and assists us, but grace does not insure our salvation without our availing ourselves of its provisions, any more than favor and good will would prevent a man starving if he refused to eat the food which was freely provided for him, and freely offered to him. Grace does not destroy the power of choice, nor release us from the duty and necessity of choosing. Grace will assist us in the work of overcoming, but grace will not release us from the necessity of overcoming. Grace will clothe us with an invincible armor, but grace will not fight our battles for us if we sit still and do nothing. It is now as of old: "The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon." Grace threw down the walls of Jericho; but they would not have fallen if the children of Israel had neglected to compass the city as they were commanded to do. Grace saved Noah from the flood, but it would not if he had not built an ark. God has done and will do all that is necessary to make the full provision for our salvation. He will fulfill all his promises, if we will fulfill their conditions. But he will never do for us that which he has commanded us to do. Grace encourages trust; it does not tolerate presumption. They who suppose that we teach justification by the law, because we enforce the obligation of the law, cannot have looked deeply into the word of God, nor have considered the principles of Government. If Jesus takes away the sinful disposition, renews us or gives us a new heart, and brings us in subjection to the law of God, all our obedience to that law is by virtue of that change of heart effected by him; therefore, while he grants to us all the virtue of his blood for the remission of past sins, he is entitled to all the glory of our obedience in the future. So it is all of grace, and we have nothing of which to boast in any respect, nor anything to claim on our own account, for all that we do is by strength imparted by him. Here we have a system which is all grace, and no license to sin; a gospel worthy of Heaven—imparting mercy freely, and maintaining law and justice strictly. Here we see that without him we can do nothing; though we shall work out our own salvation with fear and trembling, "it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure." We are justified by faith, yet so that we must add to our faith virtue; patiently continue in well-doing; keep the commandments of God; fulfill the righteousness of the law, &c. So far from teaching justification by the law, we emphatically assert that a moral duty, whatever men may call it, whether law or gospel, cannot justify a sinner. That law which points out sin, which is therefore the rule of right, must of necessity condemn the sinner, but it will not and cannot justify. This is the teaching of Rom. 3: 20, 21. And it is singular, but true, that they who teach that the law is abolished, and declare against it as being insufficient to justify, &c., and who say that the commandments of the original law which are now binding are incorporated into the gospel, really teach justification by law,—by the same precepts which convict of sin. And they are the only ones who do teach justification by law. We say that justification of a sinner by509law is impossible; it is contrary to reason, and to the words of the apostle in Rom. 3: 20. If the law were incorporated into another system, and called by another name, that would not change its nature, it would not cause it to justify the sins which it forbids, nor the sinner who had violated it. The difference between the law and the gospel is as distinct now as it was in the days when the gospel was preached to the sinners in the wilderness. Heb. 4: 1. The law is a moral rule; sin is immorality; and the gospel is the remedy. The gospel upholds the law, and enforces it upon the conscience, and incorporates it into the life of the believer. But it does not abrogate law, nor does it release the believer from obligation to obey the law; neither does it incorporate law into itself, for the two cannot be blended into one. The correctness of our position may be tested by the following plain statement: The blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant, is that whereby we have remission of sin. Heb. 9: 22; Rom. 3: 25. The gospel is a system of remission; it is good news of salvation from sin unto eternal life. The blood of Christ is a free gift; the gift of God's undeserved grace. Hence, baptism may be a gospel condition of justification, because it is not any part of original obligation, or of moral duty. If it were a moral duty it could not be a part of a system of remission of sin, because as such it would be required on its own account. The commandment which says, "Thou shalt not steal," cannot become a part of the gospel; it cannot be incorporated into a system of remission, or a remedial system, because it is of a moral nature. It is obligatory without any regard to a sinful condition. It is reasonable that a remedial plan should say, "Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sin," for baptism is not a moral duty; it is not of obligation on its own account. But it were highly absurd to say, Thou shalt not kill for the remission of sin; or, Honor thy father and thy mother for the remission of sin. And the absurdity is not removed if you change their position, and call them gospel; you cannot change their nature. And they who teach the abolition of the decalogue, and the incorporation of these precepts into the gospel, are responsible for this absurdity. It belongs to their theory. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Lesson for Pacific Coast.—November 24.
"Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world." In the previous chapter, Paul had said that "the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness;" and in the beginning of this chapter, he says that he came not to the Corinthians "with excellency of speech or of wisdom," or with "enticing words of man's wisdom." He is not willing to admit, however, that he really uttered any foolishness, although it seemed so to the scoffers. He had not spoken the "wisdom of this world" but the wisdom of God, which is infinitely superior. He says that he spoke this wisdom "among them that are perfect." By this he means, not those who are sinless, for there would be no object in preaching to such at all; but to those who were somewhat advanced in Christian knowledge—who had received enough of the Spirit of God to enable them to appreciate the beauties of the gospel plan. This wisdom, he says, "none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." This text proves that skepticism depends more upon the condition of the heart than of the head. Those who put Christ to death were ignorant of his true nature. Had they known that he was the Son of God, not one of them would have lifted his hand against him. Why did they not know? They had listened to his teachings, and had witnessed many of his miracles. But instead of becoming convinced, as hundreds of others did, on the same evidence, they closed their eyes and ears, and steeled their hearts, lest they should be converted. The reason for this course lay in the fact that their own selfish interests were involved. Christ uttered plain truths which condemned their most cherished habits of life; to follow him would be at the cost of great personal inconvenience in themselves, and they therefore deliberately resolved to reject him. No person, however, can long remain in a state of self-condemnation, and when one has willfully rejected clearly revealed truth, it does not take him long to become firmly convinced that the error which he accepts is truth. And so the Jews, although their minds had once been enlightened, were ignorant of Christ when they crucified him. In like manner, we have known the most bitter opponents of the true Sabbath of the Lord to be those who had once acknowledged its claims, and even kept it. They rejected light, and darkness came upon them, so that they did not have their former clear conception of truth. "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" In the ninth, tenth, and eleventh verses Paul proceeds with the argument to show why the gospel seems like foolishness to the wicked. "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." Human reason cannot grasp the wonderful truths of the gospel. The blessings which God stands ready to bestow upon those who obey the gospel, have no meaning to those who serve self. When Christians tell of the great love of God, how it lifts them above earthly trials and sorrows, they seem to the worldling to be simply fanatical. This is because the things of the Spirit of God are spiritually discerned (verse 14). In the eleventh verse the apostle clinches his argument by saying, "For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God." That is, that as no one can know the thoughts and designs of a man, except the man himself, so none but the Spirit of God can comprehend the things of God, and he alone, therefore, is capable of revealing them to others. It would be far less absurd for a man to profess to understand all the hidden thoughts of his neighbor's mind, than for one entirely destitute of the Spirit of God to imagine that he is capable of passing judgment upon the truths of the gospel. This eleventh verse has been used as proof of the inherent immortality of man; but one must have that doctrine firmly fixed in his own mind before he can derive any comfort from this text, for it declares no such thing. That there is a spirit in man, is plainly stated many times in the Bible; but that that spirit is an entity of itself distinct from the man; that it of itself alone is capable of thought; or that it can maintain an existence separate from the body, is not stated, either by this text or any other. These things are always assumed, and then various texts of Scripture are interpreted in accordance with that assumption. In the third chapter, the apostle says that he was unable to give the Corinthians all the instruction that he wished to, on account of their lack of spirituality. They had suffered the Spirit to come into their hearts only to a limited extent, and consequently could appreciate but little of the truth. They were as babes, requiring milk, and unable to digest strong food. The proof of their carnal condition is found in the fact that there were among them "envying, and strife, and divisions." These things may exist with worldly wisdom, but are incompatible with "the wisdom that is from above," which is "first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be encreased, full of mercy and good fruits, without variance [R. V.] and without hypocrisy." James 3:17. —without this wisdom, all other attainments will profit nothing. The apostle next guards them against forming factions among themselves, calling themselves after some favorite minister. He would not have any favoritism in the church, as to the ministers, for that would tend to create dissension. The minister is nothing of himself, whatever his talents may be, for the increase comes from God, for whom all are fellow-laborers. He first compares the ministers to husbandmen, and the church to a vineyard, and then he likens them to architects, and the church to the building which they rear for God. If the building is truly God's, it can have but one foundation, that is Christ. 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:19, 20. If a man lays any other foundation, it comes to nothing; but "the foundation of God standeth sure." 2 Tim. 2:19. It makes a great deal of difference, however, how a man builds even on the sure foundation. "Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be manifest; for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." 1 Cor. 3:12-15. It is evident from Paul's statement, "ye are God's building," that the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and stubble, that may be built upon the true foundation, indicate different classes of people in the church of God. The gold, silver, and precious stones are the good,—those whom the fire cannot harm; while the wood, hay, and stubble represent those who will finally be cast into the fire and consumed. The day of Judgment will reveal the characters of all, so that "every man's work shall be made manifest." "The fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." This does not mean that every man will have to pass through purgatory, nor does it have the slightest reference to such a place; the meaning is brought out in verses 14 and 15, where it is declared that some will abide, and some will be burned. And so the class of work that has been done by the minister will be revealed by the fire. The next two verses are clear. If it is seen that the laborer has built enduring substance on the foundation he shall receive a reward; for "they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever." Dan. 12:3. But if any man's work be burned; if his converts prove to be only worthless stubble, he will suffer loss; the joy of seeing many in the kingdom of God as the result of his labors, will not be his; yet he himself shall be saved. Surely every minister has need to "take heed how he buildeth." And the individual members have no less need of care. The church is the temple of God, in which his Spirit dwells. "If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy." How can one defile the temple of God? By cherishing some sin; by harboring vain and evil thoughts, envy, malice, hatred, an unforgiving or fault-finding disposition. All these bring reproach upon the church. It is a fearful thing for a man to come into, or continue in, a church, and still cling to evil thoughts and practices. His punishment will be greater than though he had committed the same sins without the pale of the church; for now he has defiled the temple of God. Then "let no man deceive himself;" but "let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." Thoughts on Study and Labor
THE true student is one who not only reads, but studies, meditates, thinks, arranges, investigates. GOD has provided the teacher for the school, not the school for the teacher. THE worker who divides his labors wisely, may often rest while he labors. THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE. This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information. As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study. The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR. All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge. TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE. Price per Copy, Post-paid.
5 to 10 copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 cents a year.
10 copies and upward . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 cents a year. Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months. Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly. Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich. NO WEAKER deception was ever foisted upon the religious world than that which would make it appear that there was a change of the Sabbath made when the children of Israel left Egypt. The assertion of Mr. Woodworth that Seventh-day Sabbath teachers pass by Ex. 16 in silence unless compelled to notice it, is absurd, as most of his statements about us are. Let the Methodists attempt to review our criticism of Armstrong on this chapter, and we have invited them to do so time and again. We are forced to the conclusion that they dare not do it. Every Methodist who knows the Hebrew alphabet knows that Mr. Armstrong practiced a gross deception in his comment on this chapter; and we exposed the deception. But the "Methodist Book Concern" published it, and the California Christian Advocate recommended it; yet not one of them makes an attempt to justify his statements. Why not? Every attempt to make out a change of the day of rest at that time is based on assumptions, and contradicts the sacred record. Let us note some of Mr. Woodward's statements. The reader will readily see that he manufactures his own evidence. 1. The children of Israel left Egypt on the seventh day of the week. 2. The next day, being the first day of the week, they did not journey, but rested and worshiped, observing it as the "patriarchal Sabbath"! 3. The Egyptians were so strict in their observance of the patriarchal Sabbath, that they would not pursue the Israelites on that day, but waited until the second day of the week! The reader will perceive that this puts off the pursuit till the third day after the flight, and makes Pharaoh and his people conscientious observers of the original Sabbath of Jehovah, though he defied the Lord and insolently said he did not know him. 4. He says that when the manna was given the Lord set back the week one day, and thus changed the Sabbath to the actual sixth day, now called the seventh day of a new week. Of course when that change was made there was a singular week of only six days! Or it might have been a week having two Sabbaths; the first day being the original Sabbath and the seventh day the new Sabbath. It is singular to what devices people will resort to get rid of a plain Bible truth. 5. He says the manna commenced falling on the 16th day of the month, and fell six days before the next Sabbath which they observed, both of which statements are assumptions to make a case. 6. He offers as proof of the change that the first Sabbath which they kept was the 22d day of the month (which he does not know), and that they traveled the 15th, which would have also been a Sabbath if there had no change been made between the two days. And thus both God and his people, under his immediate direction, disregard the patriarchal Sabbath, the original Sabbath blessed in Eden, and regard another day of the institution of which there is no record, and which never received the divine blessing! 7. As further proof of the correctness of his inferences, he says if the 15th had been the Sabbath they could not have traveled, because "the cloud that led them would have settled over the tabernacle," and they must have remained in camp. This statement was made in sheer ignorance, for they did not receive the order to make the tabernacle until nearly three months after that time, and it was not finished until the following year. But it is as valuable as any of his assertions. 8. He says that (on his own supposition that the 15th would have been the Sabbath without a change, but on it they traveled) "the Adventists do not, cannot, admit that it was broken; and we agree to that." He does not agree to that, for, according to his system the original Sabbath, for which alone we plead, was dropped out of the commandment and another day substituted for it. If he has the truth in his theory, the "patriarchal Sabbath" could be and was broken every week after that time. Into such confusion his theory involves him. 9. He also says: "They cannot admit that it was a new institution, and we agree to this." He can only "agree to this" by denying his theory. On the third page after this statement he says: "This offering [Lev. 23:10, 11], made on the first day of the week, kept in constant memory the patriarchal Sabbath." And again he says on the same page, of the first day of the week, that it was marked "even under the Jewish economy, as the great day, the Sabbath of creation." Now if, under the Jewish economy, the first day of the week was marked, pointed out, and honored by certain observances, as the Sabbath of creation, and the seventh day observed as a Sabbath at the same time but for another reason, then the seventh was never substituted for the first, and therefore there was no change, as Mr. Woodward affirms, but the seventh was a new institution, which he denies. Or, otherwise, there were two different Sabbaths on two different days of the week, kept for entirely different reasons, and both of them the same identical institution! If Mr. Woodward can see his way out of this dilemma of his theory, we wish to know how. If Dr. Stratton discovers something "cogent," powerful, irresistible, in such crudities, he has a wonderful power of discernment. 10. He says of the seventh-day Sabbath: "Moses calls this Sabbath 'a Sabbath,'" Ex. 16:25, thereby implying that he knew it was not the Sabbath, but was a Sabbath, appointed by the Lord to the Jews for a specific purpose. The evidence is quite clear that not only Moses, but the Jews, knew that the patriarchal Sabbath was not identical with their own." To this we say (1) Moses did not call it a Sabbath, though there would be no argument in it if he had. It is true that our version has the indefinite article in this text, but in the Hebrew it is definite by grammatical construction. After using the article with the word Sabbath many times, it is omitted in Deut. 5:14, forty years afterward. This surely does not indicate that it was something new at that time. But it is definite there also, by the same rule that it is in Ex. 16:25, and the translators properly inserted the definite article, as they might properly have done in the last-named text. We hope soon to reproduce our review of Armstrong's deceptive argument, when we shall more fully expose the fallacy, and we may say the wickedness, of trying to make the English reader believe that the Hebrew teaches that a new Sabbath was brought to view in Ex. 16. (2) The Jews never knew that their Sabbath was not the Sabbath of creation. There is not a word of truth in this assertion. To the contrary, they well knew that the Sabbath enjoined upon them was the Sabbath of creation. Presently we shall give the proof, not flimsy inferences, of this fact. 11. Again he says: "The Jews, in order that they should not forget the original Sabbath, which fell, according to the order of their week, on the first day, had instituted for them upon this day holy convocations, offerings, feasts, and in it there was no work to be done." To prove this he quotes Ex. 12:16: "And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them." Now whether this statement was made by him honestly and innocently, depends altogether upon the amount of ignorance he can plead in its justification. Every Bible-reader of ordinary intelligence knows that this did not refer to the first and seventh days of the week, but to the first and seventh days of the feast of unleavened bread. As the first day of the feast, or the first day of holy convocation, always fell on the fifteenth day of the month, it could not always fall on the first day of the week, and therefore the order could have no reference to the days of the week. Therefore, we say that Mr. Woodward could not honestly refer this to the first day of the week unless he can plead extraordinary ignorance of the subject of the feast of the passover. He also quotes Lev. 23:10, 11, under the same head, where an offering was made on the morrow after the Sabbath. But this is open to the same remark. Dr. Smith, in his Bible Dictionary, says it was "on the morrow after the passover Sabbath, i. e., on the 16th of Nisan." And so say Clarke, Kitto, McClintock & Strong, and others. Of course it was not confined to any day of the week. And each of these came only once a year. We are willing to leave it to the judgment of the reader as to how much honesty a man can have who offers those texts as proof that they observed Sunday or the first day of the week. We have other, egregious errors to notice on this point, but have not room in this number. We will notice briefly the proofs against his position. - The Bible says nothing about changing the Sabbath, or changing the week, at the time of the exode. This is an unaccountable omission if such a change took place.
- No profane history speaks of such a remarkable event; for if it occurred it was truly remarkable.
- Josephus makes no mention of it.
- The Jews know nothing of it; not the sign of a tradition of such a thing.
- The record of Ex. 16 forbids it. On the sixth day Moses said to the elders or rulers: "This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." Gen. 2:3 tells us when and how the seventh day became "the rest of the holy Sabbath of the Lord." There is no hint of the Lord resting on any other day, or sanctifying any other day.
- But the decisive and overwhelming evidence on this point is found in the fourth commandment. This is the word of Jehovah himself, in unmistakably plain terms, and it gives definite information concerning the Sabbath which the Jews kept. The Lord said to Israel: '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 [rest] of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.' What is the reason underlying this precept? How came this seventh day to be the Sabbath or rest of the Lord God? Jehovah himself answers this. No doubtful inference is brought in favor of this fact. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day [Heb., day of the rest], and hallowed it."
This is the seventh day which God commanded the Jews to keep. It is the only seventh day God ever commanded or sanctified. And here is the only reason ever given for the sanctification of the seventh day, which is the Sabbath. Against this truth and these facts, proclaimed by Jehovah himself, Mr. Woodward is fighting. His inferences against the truth of this commandment the Christian Advocate pronounces "good reading." Dr. Stratton says they are "timely" and "cogent," and calls our advocacy of the precept of Jehovah a "whimsy." "Lord, how long?" For forty years, day by day, the Lord performed miracles to impress upon the minds of his people the sacredness of his own rest day, and to preserve it from desecration. And now, the people professing to be specially his own, brush it aside with an unsupported inference contrary to the Bible and all history, trample it under their feet, heap upon it all manner of reproach, and despise and scoff at those who uphold it in their teachings and their lives! We can imagine but one reason why religious teachers do not tremble when they thus evade the plain words of God himself given in this commandment, and that is, that they have so given themselves to religious prejudice and popular tradition that they have lost their reverence for the word of the Lord, and their consciences are seared. For the present we leave this subject, citing them to two solemn truths,—one from the Bible, and the other beyond all dispute. 1. "Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into Judgment." 2. Men may so sear their consciences that they will not here tremble before the commandments of God, but they will need no consciences to tremble in the day of Judgment.