Earlier text: General ArticlesREASONS FOR THREE IMMERSIONS.
By James White
A most important point remains to be noticed. It is that of the reasons offered for three immersions. It will generally be found that in regard to religious rites and institutions, scriptural reasons and scriptural methods stand or fall together. When any people give an unscriptural reason for their practice, the presumption is that their practice is itself unscriptural, or a perversion of Scripture. Very early in the Christian church, reasons were assigned for three immersions which are either contrary to the Scriptures, or others than those given in the Scriptures. While on the other hand, wherever we find "one baptism" literally and strictly followed, there we find the scriptural reason assigned for the action. 1. Paul says we are baptized into the Saviour's death, and raised in the likeness of his resurrection. But this reason was not only ignored, but condemned, by those who advocated three immersions. This speaks more against the theory and practice than whole volumes of history can speak in its favor. It brands it as an innovation, setting aside both gospel faith and gospel practice. Speaking of trine immersion, Bingham says:— "Two reasons are commonly assigned for this practice: 1. That it might represent Christ's three days' burial. . . . 2. Another reason was that it might represent their faith in the holy Trinity." Pope Gregory the Great wrote to one who inquired of this:— "Concerning the three immersions in baptism, you have judged very truly already, that different rites and customs do not prejudice the whole church, whilst the unity of faith remains. The reason why we use three immersions (at Rome) is to signify the mystery of Christ's three days' burial, that whilst an infant is thrice lifted up out of the water, the resurrection on the third day may be expressed thereby." This reason is unscriptural and inconsistent. We are baptized into Christ's death; he died but once. We are raised in the likeness of his resurrection; he was raised but once. "Thrice lifted up out of the water" cannot be made to represent his resurrection, even though a great pope says it; while the Scriptures say nothing at all of the three days being represented by baptism. The very first witness claimed by trine immersionists as speaking in favor of the practice, gives the same unscriptural reason. This is Clement of Alexandria. We believe that the testimony is apocryphal; but if it is not, it only serves to show how very early this erroneous view was grafted into the Christian faith. These are the words ascribed to Clement:— "Ye were conducted to a bath, just as Christ was carried to the grave, and were thrice immersed to signify the three days of his burial." Thus this testimony, whatever its origin, stands self-condemned, as being directly outside of the scriptural ideas of baptism. It is based on a false view of the ordinance. And the famous fiftieth "Apostolical Canon," which does such good service in the cause of trine immersion, says:— "If any bishop or presbyter do not perform three immersions of one initiation, but one immersion which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deposed." The word of the Lord is yea and amen, not yea and nay. If we had no other evidence that the three-immersion theory is based on a false construction of our Lord's commission, this is sufficient, that it could only be maintained by setting aside the words of Paul in Rom. 6. There is no discrepancy in baptizing into the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and baptizing into the death of Christ, if we preserve, in the action, the likeness of his burial and resurrection. But it was clearly seen by the originators and early advocates of three immersions, that that practice could never be harmonized with the words of Rom. 6. Therefore an order of deposition was issued against any one who baptized into the death of Christ, notwithstanding that such was the baptism of the gospel according to the writings of the apostle Paul, not according to "apostolical tradition." And not only the early advocates of three baptisms denied the words of the apostle on this subject, but their followers of the present day maintain the same unscriptural position. Thus Mr. Moore, speaking of the words imputed to Clement, says:— "Christ was placed in the grave, they in the water; Christ three days, they three times." It is only by a wondrous strain of the language that any analogy can be found between three immersions and lying three days in the grave. If Christ had been buried once each day, or had three times died and been buried, then they would have a case. But as he died once, and was buried once, and was raised up once, we can be baptized into the likeness of his death and raised in the likeness of his resurrection only by a single burial or immersion, and a single rising out of the water. And all the flourish about "the fathers" well understanding the Greek language, amounts to nothing on this question. The Greek can never be forced to favor "three baptisms," three burials, or three resurrections. Good common sense and reverence for the exact words of Scripture are quite as essential as a knowledge of the Greek. We know that these same fathers were advocates of innovations and absurdities in both faith and practice. And we are assured that if they speak not according to the law and the testimony their words are not light, but darkness. Again: Mr. Moore makes the Scriptures conflict with themselves in the following language:— "The law of holy baptism demands that all persons should be baptized 'into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,' while the contrary law requires baptism 'into the death of Christ.'" We know not in what words to express our surprise that a man should quote the exact words of Scripture which refer to baptism, and denounce them as a "contrary law" and a perversion of the doctrine of baptism! The words of Rom. 6:3-5 are as follows:— "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." These words, according to Eld. Moore, contain the "contrary law" which he and his associates refuse to follow! We fully agree with him that it contains a rule clearly and explicitly contrary to "trine immersion." But we never shall admit that these words of Paul are contrary to the commission of the Saviour while we retain any reverence and respect for the Bible. One thing is now most clearly proved, which is this: ROM. 6:3-5 IS CONTRARY TO THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS PUT UPON THE COMMISSION BY THE TRINE IMMERSIONISTS. This is proved by their arguments and their own admissions. The conflict is evident and the issue is a plain one. And one question alone remains: Which is correct, Rom. 6:3-5, or their construction of the commission? We are at no loss for the answer. We do not see how any one can have confidence in their view of the commission while it involves such a plain contradiction of the Scriptures. The trine-immersion theory stands self-condemned. A SEVENTH PART OF TIME.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
SECONDLY, it is not in harmony with the reason of the law. We apprehend that one of the chief difficulties in the way of arriving at the truth in the matter arises from a misconception of what the Lord really requires at our hands. Many seem to read the statute as though the keeping of a Sabbath is all that it requires. Acting upon this impression, it not unfrequently occurs that Sunday-keepers, when reminded that Saturday is the Sabbath, reply somewhat as follows: "We know that Saturday is your Sabbath, but Sunday is ours." The error here consists in the use, in such a connection, of the words your and our. For, mark, Jehovah does not say, "Remember a Sabbath, to keep it holy," neither does he direct you to abstain from labor upon your Sabbath. But the injunction is, to do no work on "the seventh day," which "is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Hence, all that is necessary to determine, so that we may know whether we are obeying God or not, is to decide the simple question whether the Sabbath we are celebrating is that of the Lord. If the mere fact of resting upon a day makes it such, then all which is necessary, in order to impart this distinction to every day of the week (and, as a consequence, to each one in the whole year), is that seven individuals, through accident, caprice, or interest, should devote to this purpose seven days following each other in consecutive order, a condition of things of a nature to render the absurdity of such an opinion palpable to all. How, then, shall we ascertain when we have found the Sabbath of the Lord? We answer, Its identification is easy. It is not necessary to leave the sacred tablets themselves, in order to locate it with absolute certainty. Underlying every wise law is found a good and sufficient reason. The one which is assigned by its Author for the institution of the Sabbath, is found in the following words: "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." Here we are informed that the seventh day became the Sabbath of the Lord on account of three distinct acts. 1. He rested; 2. He blessed it; 3. He hallowed it. Now, therefore, as the seventh day and the Sabbath are herein declared to be one and the same, before any other day can be said to be entitled to this distinction, its friends must be able to show that these three things have, at some time, or in some sense, been true of it. Let us, therefore, examine the claims of the first six from this stand-point, taking them in the order in which they occur. We will first investigate those of Sunday. Did God ever rest upon it? There is not a scintilla of evidence in his holy word to that effect. Did he ever bless it? If so, he has failed to mention the fact. Has he ever hallowed it? The most patient student of sacred history has failed to find a single trace of this fact. Thus we find that it comes short in every particular necessary to constitute it the Sabbath of the Lord. The same line of argument which has proved the claims of Sunday to be unsound, invalidates equally those of the other five days, as neither of the three conditions required is met by them. They are all of them working days, and, consequently, it could never, with propriety, be said of them that God blessed and hallowed them after he had rested upon them. How different the case, when we come to the seventh and last. Standing in the field without a rival, its competitors having been dismissed on the ground that sacred history has shown that the facts peculiar to the Sabbath are not true of them, we are furnished with a strong presumptive argument at the outset, that it is entitled to the distinction which the others have failed to obtain. Nor shall we be disappointed upon further investigation. The same man who penned the sixteenth chapter of the book of Exodus, in which the seventh day is distinguished in so marked a manner from all others, and the same one to whom was committed the awful responsibility of receiving from the hand of Jehovah, and conveying to the people, the tablets of the law, has spoken emphatically upon this point. In the brief but lucid account of creation, which he has left us in the book of Genesis, we are furnished with a narration of what transpired during the first week of time. Making mention of the events which characterized each day in order, and referring to each by its proper numeral, he speaks of the last as follows: Gen. 2:2, 3: "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." In these short verses is found the historic counterpart of the statement made in the commandment, that in the beginning God rested upon, blessed, and hallowed (or, that which is the same, sanctified), one of the days of the week. The scripture in question once more announces that it was the seventh, and the context shows that it was the last, thereby establishing, beyond dispute, that the seventh, or last, day of the week is the "Sabbath of the Lord." Loving Friends Despite Their Faults
WHOEVER looks for a friend without imperfections will never find what he seeks. We love ourselves with all our faults, and we ought to love our friends in like manner. The Bible Without the Spirit
By Coleridge
The Bible without the Spirit is a sun-dial by moonlight.—Coleridge. THE AUTHENTICITY OF GENESIS.
By John W. Burgon
You are invited to observe that, although Moses wrote the first chapter of Genesis, it is certain that in the authorship of the ten commandments he had no share whatever. They were exclusively the work (as were the two tables on which they were originally written) of God. The record is altogether express and unmistakable: “The tables were written on both sides. On the one side and on the other were they written. And the tables were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, graven upon the tables.” In the fourth commandment God has seen fit to pledge himself to the historical truth of the first chapter of the book of Genesis. This is a fact with which every child is familiar. The seventh day is to be kept holy, “for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.” Here, then, God solemnly sets his seal to the Mosaic narrative of creation. He recapitulates the essential feature of it, viz., that the work was a six days’ work, and, moreover, a work of precisely such a nature as in Genesis is described. The reference, in fact, to this first chapter of Genesis is unmistakable and undeniable. Here, then, we are presented with the extraordinary spectacle of Almighty God providing for the authority of the first page of his own book by solemnly adding his seal to it; not by the hand or agency of another, but with his own hand, or, at least, his own “finger.” Jehovah operating alone, so as to silence cavil and shut up unbelief effectually,—the divine element, I say, without the slightest admixture of the human element, hath deliberately singled out the Mosaic history of the world’s creation as the one passage supremely worthy of his own eternal and effectual sanction. No other part of the historical Scriptures is adverted to in the course of the ten commandments but this. But for this God comes down from heaven. He singles it out. He makes comments upon it. He rehearses it. He draws practical inference from it. He interweaves it with his imperishable law. And the result is solemnly deposited by God’s own express command within the ark, beneath the mercy-seat, under the shadow of the wings of the cherubim; reserved in the holy of holies, alike of the tabernacle and of the temple. For “the priests at the dedication of the temple brought the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto his place, into the oracle of the house, to the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim; for the cherubim spread forth their two wings over the place of the ark. . . . There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb.”—John W. Burgon. We made note, recently, of the fact that $3,000 had been lavished upon the wardrobe of an infant in New York. Now, an outlay like that, nineteen-twentieths of which the child no more needs than “Peter’s fish needed the tribute money found in its mouth”—an outlay that compels the babe to monopolize the means of relieving the wants of two hundred other babes that came with it into the world—is defended by the average reader on the ground that the parents could afford it! Which is practical atheism. For it assumes that a man is responsible to no God whatever—that his money is his own, and he his own master. In the Scriptural view this is embezzlement of another’s goods. Wm. M. Tweed, after subtracting some $11,000,000 from the city treasury of New York, proceeded to build a magnificent villa. And why not? He “could afford it.” But the obstinate public insisted that his plea was an insult, and himself a knave. There was a prompt and keen perception of the quality of that operation. For it was men who were defrauded. But the Almighty, in the plain-spoken old Book (Mal. 3 : 3), describes the like treatment of himself as robbery. And so it might seem, if he had any rights that we are bound to respect. “But if Christian men of wealth are not free to indulge their tastes, how are the arts to be encouraged?” Which is equivalent to asking, “If Christians do not dress in the height of the mode, what will become of the fashionable tailors?” This world is not the place in which to raise such questions. It will be time for them when men at large deny themselves so sternly in their taste for splendid architecture and furniture, and jewelry and the arts of design, that we shall need to cultivate the neglected duty of self-indulgence. The pretense of any such danger to-day is too absurd for a respectable jest. All the world knows that the decorative arts appeal to self-indulgent elements in human nature. These elements are permanent. They are always reliable. Wherever there is wealth, in a civilized community, they are sure of support. Heathen Athens and Corinth, with hardly a trace of an asylum or hospital for the poor, magnificently maintained them. But Christian institutions of every sort appeal to a principle of self-renunciation, which is rare and meager and fickle in this fallen nature of ours. Notoriously, therefore, they are feebly upheld, and always in want. Signal examples that look toward the maintenance of these interests are imperatively needed. And when a Christian woman, like one already mentioned in these columns, who lives contentedly upon $1,500 a year, and regrets the purchase of a Brussels carpet, as a cheaper one would have left the difference in cost for beneficent uses, consecrates about $1,750,000 to go, first or last, to the service of God and the welfare of men, it is an example that ought to rouse every luxurious liver like the blast of a trumpet. A man who gives of his superfluity only, after spending all he cares to lavish on himself—a man who drops his donations as a tree in October drops over-mellow fruit of which it has more than it can hold, and for which it has no earthly use—let him not hope to pass before God as a liberal giver. For aught we know, Dives gave Lazarus the crumbs from his table, and they proved to be nothing but crumbs in the way of his coming doom. It is not for the poor to be liberal with other men’s wealth, or to repent of other men’s sins. But our divine Master has said some things regarding this matter, that will, first or last, make themselves heard. It is an unpopular doctrine, we know, among the rich, that a man may not live in luxurious splendor, and win, with gifts from his superfluity, the reward of a Christian philanthropist. But many a doctrine, as unpopular as Joseph among his brethren, now, will reign, like Joseph, by and by. This passage is one of the strongholds of "immortal-soulism," and yet we think it is in harmony with the declaration of Holy Writ, "The dead know not anything." Is the apostle, in the passage under consideration, speaking of an entity, or immortal soul, or spirit, that is "in this tabernacle," that can be "clothed" and "unclothed," "absent from the body," "present with the Lord," is "burdened and groans?" Our immortal soul friends say, "Yes." Or, does he refer to different states or conditions in which man may exist? We believe the latter, just as he speaks of "putting off the old man" and "putting on the new man" in Eph. 4: 22, 24, and Col. 3: 9, 10. The cases are exactly parallel in this respect,—both refer to the whole individual in different conditions. Says my friend, "present with the Lord" refers to the soul when the body is dead." So also "Mortality swallowed up of life." Let us examine, 1. What does the apostle mean by "present with the Lord," and when did he expect it would be fulfilled in his case? In 1 Thess. 4: 15–17 the same apostle tells us it is at "the coming of the Lord," at the sounding of the "trump of God," the descending of the "Lord from heaven with a shout," when "the dead in Christ shall rise." " Then, " says Paul, " we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them [the dead in Christ] to meet the Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with the Lord." This is conclusive testimony. It is at the resurrection which takes place at the second coming of Christ that Paul expected to be "with the Lord." 2. "Mortality swallowed up of life." This certainly could not refer to Paul's immortal soul, for that never was mortal, according to orthodox view. It must refer to that which is mortal, viz. the man. When does this event take place? What does he "groan" so "earnestly" for? Let the apostle answer. Rom. 8: 23: "We ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Col. 3: 4: "When Christ who is our life shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Also 1 Cor. 15: 51–54. 3. The apostle brings three conditions to view in the passage under consideration. 1. "In this tabernacle," or "clothed." 2. "Unclothed," or "naked." 3. "Clothed upon," or "mortality swallowed up of life." The first condition is the present life; the second, death; and the third, the glorified immortal body, at the resurrection of the dead, the second coming of Christ. With this view all is consistent and harmonious. With the other all is confusion and contradiction. The position we have taken is further strengthened by the apostle's conclusion, "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ." May we so live, dear reader, that we may have "boldness in the day of judgment" because we have kept his commandments.
Ox Bow, N. Y. WATCH THE READING FOR CHILDREN
PARENTS should give their children the advantages of a good, healthy library, and furnish them with papers that respect the morals. Select the matter for your children. Take time, since the whole future of your son or daughter may lie directly in the literature which you may place before them. The writer knows of cases that came under his own observation which resulted in great harm, and all the result of reading filth. You are interested in the future of your child; take care of the reading matter. There is nothing more injurious to the development of the mind and the formation of character in young people than for them to form the habit of reading corrupt literature. It is in such books that the false side of life is given to the young, and they will get the idea that life is not the great earnest battle which each must fight for himself. It is from what we read that we derive many of our thoughts and ideas, which influence many of our deeds and actions in after life. If our reading is pure, the thoughts obtained will likewise be pure; but if it is degrading in its nature, it will pull us down to a level with itself.—Exchange. The Wisdom of Sojourner Truth
By Charles Hall Everest
SOJOURNER TRUTH, the celebrated old colored woman, being asked how it was that she had lived so long, answered, that it was because she hadn't "frittered away her mind thinking on little subjects," and there was a real nugget of wisdom in this quaint reply. It is the truth that the common-place, the trivial, and the monotonous experiences of life shrivel and enervate both soul and body. We are accustomed to look upon great crises and emergencies that demand the utmost exercise of decision and executive power and heroic purpose, as being destructive forces. But men were made for grand efforts and destinies, and a man only comes to his normal condition when he is but "a little lower" than an angel in his design and execution. A harp is not injured or enfeebled by the sweep of a master hand and the sounding of soul-stirring chords, but only when it is thrummed by the unskilled; so life is worn, not by the bold, heroic touch, but by the incessant fingering of petty cares.—Charles Hall Everest. The Mathematical Curiosity of 1881
The year 1881, says an exchange, will be a mathematical curiosity. From left to right and from right to left it reads the same; 18 divided by 2 gives 9 a quotient; 81 divided by 9 gives 9; if divided by 9 the quotient contains an 8; if multiplied by 9 the product contains two 9s; 1 and 8 are 9, 8 and 1 are 9. If the 18 be placed under the 81 and added the sum is 99. If the figures be added thus, 1, 8, 8, 1, it will give 18. Reading from left to right it is 18, and reading from right to left it is 18, and 18 is two-ninths of 81. By adding, dividing and multiplying 19 9s are produced, being one 9 for each year required to complete the century. A Kaffir girl in South Africa went to a missionary and dropped four sixpences into his hand, saying, "That is your money." "You don't owe me anything," replied the teacher. "I do," she answered, "and I will tell you how. At the public examination you promised a sixpence to any one in the class I was in, who would write the best specimen on a slate. I gave in my slate and got the sixpence; but you did not know then that another person wrote that specimen for me. Yesterday you were reading in the church about Zaccheus, who said, 'If I have taken anything from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.' I took from you one sixpence, and I bring you back four." THE SIGNS OF OUR TIME.
By James White
THESE are fast times. More history is now made in one year than was made in the days of our grandfathers in ten. The world is moving rapidly. And there is a general expectation that some great event is at hand. Some still persist that we are soon to enter upon the golden age, and that the dawnings of the temporal millennium are even discernible; and they console themselves with the delusive hope that this is the next great event. But the plainest facts, both of prophecy, and in the history of the church, especially for the last thirty years, are against the supposition that the world will soon be converted. Apostacy, infidelity, and crime mark the course of the nominal churches for the last thirty years, as they have rapidly glided down to, and onward with, the world in the broad way to ruin. That which constitutes a sign of the times, in a Scriptural sense, must be a matter of prophecy. The prophetic pencil gives a sketch of what shall take place in the political and religious world near the end. Time shows the fulfillment. The student of prophecy compares the prophetic sketch with the facts of the history of our time, and, finding a perfect agreement, he knows that the end is nigh. The slumbering churches who are dreaming of peace and safety and future glory for the church in this mortal state are saying in the language of the prophet “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob. And he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths.” “And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Micah 4:2, 3. This is a prophecy of the popular sentiment of the church in the last days. Please turn and read Micah 4:1-5, and note the fact that this is just what the popular churches are saying, and that, too, at the very time when the nations are making the grandest preparations for war the world ever knew, in fulfillment of the word of the Lord by the prophet Joel: “Proclaim ye this among the Gentiles. Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up. Beat your ploughshares into swords, and your pruning-hooks into spears; let the weak say, I am strong, Assemble yourselves, and come, all ye heathen, and gather yourselves together round about; thither cause thy mighty ones to come down, O Lord. Let the heathen be wakened, and come up to the valley of Jehoshaphat; for there will I sit to judge all the heathen round about.” Joel 3:9-12. These two prophecies, by two of the prophets of God, Micah and Joel, both point to the same time, and yet they are directly opposite. One speaks of peace, and the other of war. But the word of God is not yea and nay, by any means. The attentive reader will see that one is a prophecy of what men would say in the last days, while the other is what God says would be just before the last great day of battle. Modern Spiritualism, which had its birth only thirty-two years since in the little village of Hydesville, N. Y., already embraces its millions, and boasts of its giant strength. Its bold apostles laugh at the sober wisdom of the great of past time, and the credulity of the good who have suffered for Christ; and very knowingly talk of progress. Progress, indeed! But which way? It will amount to quite a sum in the end whether, with the blessed Bible in our hands, and the Spirit of God upon our hearts, we progress toward Heaven, or whether we, under the influence of the spirits of darkness, put the Bible away from us, and banish God, Christ, the Judgment, and the reward of the pure and the good from our thoughts, and make rapid progress toward perdition. This ism, deceptive in its character, flattering in its promises and hopes, terrible in its tendencies, and powerful upon the minds of those who fully yield to it, is fearfully described upon the Sacred Page as constituting a sign of the near approach of the day of God. The spirits of Spiritualism are described in Rev. 16:14, 15, as the “spirits of devils working miracles which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.” The coming of the Son of God and the Judgment of the great day, constitute the great event of the soon future. And the world-wide manifestations of demons whose visitations are in the names of the dead, are among the most prominent signs of our time. That the second coming of Christ is to immediately follow the deceptive power of spirit manifestations is plainly affirmed by the inspired Paul. When speaking of Christ and of his coming he says: “Even Him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.” 2 Thess. 2:9-12. The mass of spiritists have cast aside the Bible, and, feeling free from the restraint of the word of God, they have fast fallen into moral corruptions. But there are a few who may be called Christian spiritists, who are restrained for the present by the Christianity of the Sacred Scriptures. These are exceptions, while the majority are the rule. The word of God speaks in unrestricted terms of the rule. After Paul in his epistle to Timothy gives a photograph of our times, in his description of those who have a form of godliness in the last days, in which he speaks in general terms of eighteen distinct sins, he speaks more definitely of those who fall under the power of this most terrible ism, in these words: “For of this sort are they which creep into houses and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts. Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth; men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further; for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.” 2 Tim. 3:6-9. Their day is coming. Their manifestations were to be just before, and a sign of, the end. Their career is short. The end will come when they shall proceed no further. In this age of antinomian blindness we often hear men talking about "the bondage of the law." They think it is not only a denial of Christ but a forfeiting of our Christian privileges to keep the law of God. When the Scriptures plainly say that the essence of the law is found in "the golden rule;" that the law is founded on love, and is fulfilled only in love, it is passing strange that any reader of the Bible should advance the idea that obedience to the law is a sacrifice of Christian liberty! The obedience of love to God inconsistent with gospel freedom in Christ! Outside of "theology" such an inconsistency is rarely found. The psalmist said, "I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts." Ps.119:4, 5. And the apostle calls the law of God "the law of liberty." Jas. 2:12. Why should this seem mysterious to any? Is there any necessary conflict between law and liberty? We think there is a necessary disagreement between law-breaking and liberty. Sin brings bondage; obedience ensures liberty. Dr. Guard, late of California, now of Baltimore, recently lectured in the course of the "Boston Monday Lectures," on which occasion he said:— "Christianity appreciates fully, and sympathizes with, and has ever been the generator and defender of, free thought; but let me understand what the meaning of this word 'freedom' is. There is no pardon where there is no law. Let that be accepted. License requires no law; but freedom does." This is plain, simple truth; but weighty and powerful truth. There can be no liberty without conservation of rights; but anarchy, or lawlessness, recognizes no rights, and therefore will not regard liberty. It is a proposition which cannot be controverted, that only lawless spirits oppose law. The spirit of obedience will always "delight in the law of God after the inward man." "They that forsake the law praise the wicked; but such as keep the law contend with them." Prov. 28:4. NOUNS AND ADJECTIVES.
By R. F. Cottrell
NOUNS in composition are always the subjects of discourse, or the objects of actions or relations. Adjectives are never the subjects of which something is affirmed; but they are used simply to describe nouns by some distinct specification. Nouns may be used as adjectives, that is, they may be used simply to describe other nouns; but in that case they lose their office in the sentence as nouns, so that what is affirmed affirms nothing concerning them. For example: If one affirms something concerning a horse-whip, that it is good or bad, long or short, heavy or light, he affirms nothing whatever concerning any horse in the universe. A horse is not the subject of discourse. Nothing is said of horses. The word horse has nothing to do in the sentence, but merely to describe the whip as being of the kind that are used about horses.31 What does all this mean? I will tell you. Many contend that the fourth commandment teaches that God blessed and sanctified the Sabbath or rest, and not the particular day on which the Lord's rest occurred. The reading is, "The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it." In this affirmation Sabbath is merely an adjective describing or specifying the day. It is the day which was blessed and hallowed. To say it is the Sabbath and not the day is absurd. To illustrate, take the assertion, "John made an ox cart and sold it." To claim from this assertion that John made an ox and sold it, is no more absurd than to say that the expression, The Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it, means that he blessed and hallowed the Sabbath as an institution and not the particular day. Ox, in the illustration, though primarily a noun, is used in the sentence only as an adjective to describe the cart. So the term Sabbath is here used only to specify the day. It is the Lord's Sabbath which we are commanded to remember and keep; and the commandment tells us that his Sabbath is the seventh day. But where shall we begin the count? Go back to the creation. There, and nowhere else, can we be set upon the right track. "For," says the commandment, "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." Go back to the account of the creation, to the point to which the commandment refers you, and there you find it stated that God wrought on six days and rested on the seventh; and that he "blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work." This is the only point from which to commence the count. "But how do you know that mankind have not lost the count?" How do you know that God has not kept it correctly? He intended that the day should be honored, or he would not have commanded it; and while he requires any one to keep the day, he will see that it is possible for it to be kept according to the commandment. The greatest difficulty is, that men desire more to find an excuse for not keeping it, than they do to find the day. When they really desire to find the truth, they will find that it is not far from them. "For this commandment which I command thee this day, IS NOT HIDDEN from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in Heaven, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go up for us to Heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it, neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou MAYEST do it." Deut. 30:11-14. This soaring and sailing, is only to find excuses. The truth is not hidden, it is here, and we can do it if we will.