p. 100 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 7, No. 9. (3/3/1881)

BIBLE REVISION, WITH SPECIMENS.

By Christian at Work

It will be ten years on the 6th of next May since the matter of revision of the Scriptures was brought before Convocation by the Bishop of Winchester, and the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. One half of that body, under the Presidency of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, devoted themselves to the revision of the New Testament, the remainder to that of the Old Testament. The sittings of the former body have been held once a month for a week at a time, those of the latter for a fortnight six times a year. Then came the co-operation of the American Committee. And now we have as a result the completion of the New Testament, which, as we were assured by the American Committee, was to be published early the present month. But now comes the news, quite unanticipated, that the publication is delayed, and will not be made until the first of May. Meantime, the London Record has made public some of the results of the New Revision—with a view, doubtless, of feeling the public pulse. And now we are told there is a good deal of "churchly" opposition manifest, and especially that "hell" in so many instances should have given place to "hades." This illustrates the force of prejudice; for if anything in the present version is clear it is that hell—Gehenna, the place of torment—is often used incorrectly and wholly unwarrantably as a synonym for "the place of departed spirits," as in Acts 2:27,—"Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." Obviously Christ did not, after death, descend into hell, the place of torment, but into hades, "the place of departed spirits," however much the London church journals may take counsel of their prejudices and desire to retain an old, but incorrect derivative.

A few "advance" proofs of the New Revision have already made their appearance in London, and the alteration which will first strike the eye is the substitute of paragraphs for the old-fashioned chapters and verses. This is a most welcome change, the present arbitrary arrangement being alike devoid of rhyme and common sense. The omissions and changes in rendering which will be found in the revised New Testament, will, however, invite the greatest and closest attention both of devout readers and of critical students. Following the Sinaitic, Vatican, and Alexandrine manuscripts, the words in John 5:3, "Waiting for the moving of the water," have been expunged. The whole of the text, Acts 8:37, which has been often quoted by Baptists as crucial, will also disappear; as will also the words, "Let us not fight against God," in Acts 23:9. In accordance with the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS., Matt. 23:14 is expunged. A more striking change is the omission of Mark 9:44, 46, "Where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched." We only add though, that the doctrine of the eternal punishment of the wicked by no means rests on a solitary passage in Mark. John 5:4 is also expunged, a fact which will somewhat invalidate the authority of the Alexandrine MS.

As for other changes, we subjoin the most characteristic, printing both the present and the New Revision by way of comparison:—

THE AUTHORIZED VERSION.	THE NEW REVISION.
Matt. 6:9-13: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed by thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.	Matt. 6:9-13: Our Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.
Matt. 19:17: Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God; but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.	Matt. 19:17: Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good; but if thou wouldst enter into life, keep the commandments.
Mark 8:36, 37: For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?	Mark 8:36, 37: For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life?
Luke 10:15, 16: And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.	Luke 10:15, 16: And thou, Capernaum, shalt thou be exalted unto heaven? thou shalt be brought down unto hades. He that heareth you heareth me; and he that rejecteth you rejecteth me; and he that rejecteth me rejecteth him that sent me.
Luke 16:8, 9: For the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations.	Luke 16:8, 9: For the sons of this world are for their own generation wiser than the sons of light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when it shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles.
Acts 2:47: And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.	Acts 2:47: And the Lord added to them day by day those that were being saved.
Acts 17:23: To the unknown God. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.	Acts 17:23: To an unknown God. What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this declare I unto you.
Acts 26:24-29: And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad. But he said, I am not mad, most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, before whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things are hidden from him; for this thing was not done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.	Acts 26:24-29: And as he thus made his defence, Festus saith with a loud voice, Paul, thou art mad; thy much learning doth turn thee to madness. But Paul saith, I am not mad, most excellent Festus, but speak forth words of truth and soberness. For the king knoweth of these things, unto whom also I speak freely; for I am persuaded that none of these things is hidden from him; for this hath not been done in a corner. King Agrippa, believest thou the prophets? I know that thou believest. And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make me a Christian. And Paul said, I would to God, that whether with little or with much, not thou only, but also all that hear me this day, might become such as I am, except these bonds.
1 Cor. 16:22: If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema, Maranatha.	1 Cor. 16:22: If any man loveth not the Lord, let him be anathma Maranatha.
2 Cor. 2:15: In them that are saved, and in them that perish.	2 Cor. 2:15: In them that are being saved, and in them that are perishing.
2 Cor. 4:6: For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts.	2 Cor. 4:6: Seeing it is God, that said, Light shall shine out of darkness, who shined in our hearts.
Eph. 6:24: Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity.	Eph. 6:24: Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in uncorruptness.
Philip. 3:20, 21: From whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.	Philip. 3:20, 21: We wait for a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ; who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of his glory.

The reader will look in vain here for any violent changes. Indeed, it is difficult, in the specimens printed above, to realize the thoroughness, the importance, and completeness, of the work done by the two committees. But the work is important; indeed, in the matter of Bible interpretation and exegesis, no more valuable work has been done since the time when the King James' version was given to the world, two and a half centuries ago. The Christian world will anxiously wait for the complete Revision, and will want to know why it is obliged to wait three months more for that which is already prepared, and which should not be withheld an hour later than is absolutely necessary.—Christian at Work.

THE SORROW THAT WORKETH LIFE.

By Rev. Geo. C. Lockridge

SORROW and repentance are two words which are too often assumed to mean one and the same thing. But the fact that a man has been brought to sorrow by some crime is not proof of repentance of that crime. That men are made to sorrow by their sinful lives is not proof of their genuine repentance. Hence we see the necessity for clear definitions.

Paul sets this forth in a definite form in his second letter to the Corinthians. We see in his exposition of the subject that sorrow in itself is not good. It is not an end to be sought, but it must produce a definite result to be beneficial. He had written to them in a way to cause them grief so great that at one time he repented of the act. But upon hearing of the kind of sorrow his letter had caused, and the fruits—genuine repentance, real reformation—which it had brought forth, his sorrow changed to joy. "Now I rejoice," he says, "not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance; for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing." Then follows one of Paul's clear definitions: "For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; but the sorrow of the world worketh death."

The secret lies in this sentence. There are two kinds of sorrow—godly sorrow and worldly sorrow—with these results: the one death, the other life, complete, eternal; the one the loss of all, the other full salvation.

Sorrow is grief of mind. It may, however, have various causes and produce different results. It may result from our own action or from the action of others; from injury done or received. We thus find these sorrows specifically different. Sorrow results, in a final analysis, from sin; but men take radically differing views of sin. Hence there follows the different nature of their sorrow. Robertson says, "There are two views of sin: in one it is looked upon as wrong; in the other, as producing loss—loss, for example, of character. In such cases, if character could be preserved before the world, grief would not come; but the paroxysms of misery fall upon our proud spirit when our guilt is made public. The most distinct instance we have of this is in the life of Saul. In the midst of its apparent grief, the thing still uppermost was, that he had forfeited his kingly character; almost the only longing was, that Samuel should honor him before his people. And hence it comes to pass, that often remorse and anguish only begin with exposure."

With such men it is not hatred and loathing of sin because of what it is, but simply because it has come to the ears of friends or the world.

A Christian man went on a friendly visit into a prison, and found there a bright, intelligent, promising young man, who was committed for a first offense. He was in great grief at his condition. "Oh! if I had only known this, I would have done differently," he said. "I am so sorry." "But why are you sorry? Is it because you have committed the crime, or because your crime has been found out? Be honest with me and before God, and answer truthfully." He answered, "I never thought of it in that way. I am sorry because I am here." The exposure, the loss of good name—these were the occasion of his sorrow; not sorrow for sin, but for the exposure. It was the sorrow of the world.

But godly sorrow is different. Here there is genuine sorrow for sin. Guilt upon the soul, offense against an ever merciful and beneficent God;—these bring the grief. The consequences, such as suffering and loss, following the sin, are of less importance. This sorrow has that in it which results in good to the one exercised thereby; it is fraught with blessings, not simply pain and grief which results only in greater misery, and finally death.

This is godly sorrow, or, as the margin reads, sorrowing "according to God." It brings into the same feelings and views regarding sin that God has. Robertson says, again, "God sees sin not in its consequences, but in itself;—a thing infinitely evil, even if the consequences were happiness to the guilty instead of misery. So sorrow, according to God, is to see sin as God sees it."

The grief of Peter was as bitter as that of Judas. He went out and wept bitterly; how bitterly none can tell but they who have learned to look on sin as God does. But in Peter's grief there was an element of hope, and that sprung precisely from this—that he saw God in it all. Despair of self did not lead to despair of God." He viewed the vehement denial of his greatest friend, whom he had but a few hours before just as vehemently assured he would be faithful unto death, though all others forsook—the impetuous rage, the superfluous cursing and swearing—all this he looked upon as sin, just as Jesus himself saw it to be, as he turned upon him that look which brought Peter to himself again.

Judas' case is more difficult. Still we may say it is the consequences of his crime which he sees, not the crime itself. It is the result which overwhelms him. He turns his view toward himself, not toward God. The end—remorse, despair, death. Thus ends worldly sorrow. Not so the sorrow of Peter and the sorrow of the Corinthians. Theirs brings repentance, and repentance results in salvation. And now one more definition. Sorrow is not repentance, but godly sorrow produces it. Sorrow is turning from sin to God. Sorrow brings hatred of sin, but repentance forsakes it, flees from, renounces it once and for ever. The eloquent preacher whom we have already quoted says on this point, "By repentance is meant, in Scripture, change of life, alteration of habits, renewal of heart. This is

the aim and meaning of all sorrow. The consequences of sin are meant to wean from sin. The penalty annexed to it is, in the first instance, corrective, not penal. Fire burns the child, to teach it one of the truths of this universe—the property of fire to burn. ... The moral lessons contained in the penalties annexed to wrong-doing are just as truly intended, though they are by no means so unerring in enforcing their application." "On the first occasion they are simply corrective; in every succeeding one they assume more and more a penal character, in proportion as the conscience carries with them the sense of ill desert." And just so far as this divine voice, conscience, is heard and heeded, and followed, just so far does sorrow bring forth its appropriate fruits—repentance unto life; but when disregarded, sorrow unto death.

Let us not be deceived. We must not be satisfied when our sins have caused us pain, when they have brought us into sorrow. Have we turned from them? Is our life changed, our heart renewed? Or do we find ourselves, after our sorrow, doing the same things again? Thus we see how necessary it is to be clear in our definitions as teachers, and sure of our ground as students. We cannot afford to be wrong upon the vital truths of the gospel.—Rev. Geo. C. Lockridge.

The Sabbath School.

By Ellen G. White

CHOOSING THE DISCIPLES.

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

THE disciples had not yet fully joined themselves to Jesus to be co-laborers with him. They had witnessed many of his miracles, and their minds had been enlightened by the discourses they had heard from his lips; but they had not entirely left their employment as fishermen. Their hearts were filled with grief by the death of John, and they were troubled with conflicting thoughts. If the life of John had been permitted to end so ingloriously, what would be the fate of their Master, when the scribes and Pharisees were so bitter against him? Amid their doubt and fear, it was a relief for them to return once more to their fishing, and, for a brief space, find in their old employment a diversion from their anxiety.

Jesus frequently dismissed them to visit their homes and rest; but he gently though firmly resisted all their entreaties that he should himself rest. At night he found the seasons of prayer for which he could not claim time during the day. While the world he had come to save was wrapped in slumber, the Redeemer, in the sanctuary of the mountains, would intercede for man with the Father. Often he spent entire nights in prayer and meditation, going back in the morning to his active work.

It was morning on the Lake of Galilee, and the fishermen were in their boats, weary with a long night of fruitless toil. But, with the dawn, Simon discovered the form of Jesus walking upon the beach. He directed the attention of his disciples to their beloved Teacher; and they all pulled for the shore. It seemed impossible for the Saviour to obtain any retirement. Already the crowd had gathered thickly about him as he walked on the shore. The sick and afflicted were brought for him to relieve. At length the people had pressed so closely about him that they scarcely left him comfortable standing-room. It was just at this time that the fishermen were nearing the shore. Jesus requested Peter to take him in his boat, and, immediately upon entering it, directed the disciple to pull out a little from the land. Then, being removed a short distance from the people, he was in a better position to be seen and heard by them, and from the boat upon the lake he preached in regard to the mysteries of the kingdom of God. His language was simple and earnest, appealing to the minds of the people with convincing power.

The discourse ended, Jesus turned to Peter and bade him launch out into the deep, and let down his net for a draught. But Peter was thoroughly disheartened; not only was he sorrowful because of the death of John the Baptist, and his mind tortured with unbelief in consequence of that event, but he was discouraged in regard to his temporal prospects. He had been unsuccessful in his fishing, and the past night had been spent in unavailing labor. It was therefore in a desponding tone that he replied to the command of Jesus: "Master, we have toiled all night, and have taken nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I will let down the net."

He called his brother to his aid, and together they let down the net into the deep water, as Jesus had directed. When they came to draw in the net they were unable to do so because of the great quantity of fish it contained, and they were obliged to summon James and John to their aid before they could draw in the net and unload it. When this was done the boat was so heavily laden that there was danger of its sinking.

Peter had seen Jesus perform wonderful miracles, but none made so strong an impression upon his mind as this miraculous draught of fish, after a night of disappointment. The unbelief and discouragement that had been oppressing the disciples through the long, weary night, now gave way to awe and amazement. Peter was thrilled with a sense of the divine power of his Master. He felt ashamed of his sinful unbelief. He knew that he was in the presence of the Son of God, and felt unworthy to be in such companionship. He impulsively flung himself at the feet of Jesus crying, "Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord!" But even as he spoke, he was clinging to the feet of Jesus, and would not have been willing for the Saviour to take him at his word, even if he had attempted to do so.

But Jesus understood the conflicting emotions of the impetuous disciple, and said to him, "Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men." Similar words were afterwards addressed to the three other fishermen, when they were all upon the shore. As they were busily employed in mending their nets, which had been broken by the great weight of fish they had taken, Jesus said to them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." Immediately after this they left their nets and boats and followed the Saviour. These humble fishermen recognized the divine authority of Jesus, and forthwith gave up their regular occupation, and left their worldly possessions in obedience to the command of their Lord.

These four disciples were more closely associated with Jesus in his earthly life than any of the others. Christ, the light of the world, was abundantly able to qualify these unlearned fishermen of Galilee for the high commission he had chosen for them. The words spoken to these lowly men were of mighty significance; they were to influence the world through all time. It seemed a simple thing for Jesus to call those poor, discouraged men to follow him; but it was an event productive of tremendous results; it was to shake the world. The quickening power of God, enlightening the minds of those illiterate fishermen, was to enable them to spread the doctrines of Christ far and wide, and others were to take up the task, until it would reach all lands, and be taught in all ages, winning many to salvation. Thus would the poor fishermen of Galilee be, indeed, "fishers of men."

Jesus did not oppose education. The highest culture, if sanctified by the love and fear of God, receives his approbation. An objection is sometimes brought against education because Jesus chose ignorant fishermen for his disciples. But these men were subject to his refining influence for three years, and the Saviour was the most perfect educator the world has ever known. The Prince of Life did not choose the learned lawyers, the scribes and elders, for his disciples, because they would not follow him. Therefore he choose the humble peasants for his helpers. The rich and educated among the Jews were exalted by their own worldly wisdom and self-righteousness, and felt all-sufficient in themselves, realizing no special need of a Redeemer. Their characters were fixed, and they would not receive the teachings of Christ. But the humble fishermen were rejoiced to be connected with the Saviour, and become co-laborers with him.

BIBLE STORIES.

How we all have loved them, and love them still, even we grown-up ones, and you who feel yourselves almost grown-up! When the little ones of a family circle are gathered to listen to a Bible story, you will seldom fail to see the older ones listening, too, although they may know the story by heart. And surely this is well, for our blessed Lord caused these Scriptures "to be written for our learning," and we never shall find that we have grown too old or too wise to learn fresh wisdom from them.

These dear, familiar histories of Abraham and Isaac, of Jacob and Joseph, of David and also Samuel, and of the prophets, should not be read or listened to merely for amusement. It was meant that we should learn something from all that is told us of their earthly lives. Yes, by carefully studying these "Bible stories" of the saints of old we may learn to "embrace and ever hold fast" that blessed hope which cheered them on—even the hope of everlasting life.—Cross and Crown.

CHRIST AT CAPERNAUM.

It appears to have been on a Friday that Jesus summoned Peter and his companions. The day passed, doubtless, in further work for the kingdom. As the sun set, the beginning of the Sabbath was announced by three blasts of a trumpet, from the roof of the spacious synagogue of the town, which the devout commandant of the garrison, though not a Jew, had built for the people. The first blast warned the peasants, in the far-stretching vineyards and gardens, to cease their toil; the second was the signal for the townsfolk to close their business for the week, and the third, for all to kindle the holy Sabbath light, which was to burn till the sacred day was past. It was the early spring, and the days were still short, for even in summer it is hardly morning twilight, in Palestine, at four, and the light is gone by eight.

The morning service in the synagogue began at nine, and as the news of the great Rabbi being in the neighborhood had spread, every one strove to attend, in hopes of seeing Him. Women came to it by back streets, as was required of them; the men, with slow Sabbath steps, gathered in great numbers. The elders had taken their seats, and the Reader had recited the Eighteen Prayers—the congregation answering with their Amen—for though the prayers might be abridged on other days, they could not be shortened on the Sabbath. The first lesson for the day followed, the people rising and turning reverently towards the shrine, and chanting the words after the Reader. Another lesson then followed, and the Reader, at its close, called on Jesus, as a Rabbi present in the congregation, to speak from it to the people.

His words must have sounded strangely new and attractive, for, apart from their vividness and force, they spoke of matters of the most vital interest, which the Rabbis left wholly untouched. He had founded the kingdom of God, and now sought to build it up by realizing its conditions in the souls of men, who should each, forthwith, be living centers of influence on others. But a course so retired, and unknown to the world at large, as that which he followed, of speaking to modest assemblies in local synagogues, makes it easy to understand how his life might be overlooked by the public writers of the age. Yet, in the little world in which he moved, the noiseless words by which he carried on his work created an intense impression. He gave old truths an unwonted freshness of presentation, and added much that sounded entirely new, on his own authority, instead of confining himself, like the Rabbis, to lifeless repetitions of traditional commonplaces, delivered with a dread of the least deviation or originality.

They claimed no power to say a word of their own. He spoke with a startling independence. Their synagogue sermons, as we see in the book of Jubilees, were a tiresome iteration of the minutest Rabbinical rules, with a serious importance which regarded them as the basis of all moral order. The kind and quality of wood for the altar; the infinite details of the law of tithes; the moral deadliness of the use of blood; or the indispensableness of circumcision on the eighth day, were urged with passionate zeal as momentous and fundamental truths. The morality and religion of the age had sunk thus low, and hence the fervid words of Jesus, stirring the depths of the heart, created profound excitement in Capernaum.

Men were amazed at the phenomenon of novelty, in a religious sphere so unchangeably conservative as that of the synagogue. "New teaching," said one to the other, "and with authority—not like other Rabbis. They only repeat the old: this man takes on Him to speak without reference to the past." But if they were astonished at his teaching, they were still more so at the power which He revealed in connection with it.

"BUT WHY NOT?"

By J. H. W.

THE "theological world" is in a ferment on many points, and it is interesting to notice the various ways in which the truth is made to appear, against the will of those who would fain "make the worse appear the better reason." The N. Y. Independent, though determinedly opposing immersion as the only baptism, is liberal in the use of its columns. Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost recently wrote an article under the head, "But Why Not Immerse?" addressing it to the editor of the Independent, as follows:—

"Your editorial comment of December 30, 1880, upon the communication of 'one N. S. B. in The Journal and Messenger' has just fallen under my eye, and suggests a query which I shall presently propound. I have been much interested in your articles from time to time relating to the history of immersion as an exclusive practice among Baptists, as also with your whole treatment for several past years of those questions which distinguish the Baptists as a sect from other Christian denominations. As is usual when The Independent discusses any question, there has been exhibited breadth of view, fairness, and kindness. These, like all matters of doctrine and church order, are always open for such discussion, and he who sincerely desires to know the exact truth will rejoice in every smallest particle of light that can be thrown upon them. Up to the present time, all known facts confirm me in the belief that our Lord and the apostles desired confessors to be immersed upon profession of faith in Christ, and that submitting to the ordinance of immersion is a simple act of obedience, of very considerable importance, ranking with such commands as to the assembling of the saints for public worship, the doing of all things with decency and order, the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and those of like quality — commands which, if they are not as important as those to believe or to continue in prayer, are, notwithstanding, injunctions from Christ which lose none of their force by relative comparisons. Nevertheless, I can understand how others are not led to the same conclusion. I clearly apprehend the argument by which one who believes that Christ and the early church were immersed justifies himself and considers himself obedient in choosing another mode of applying water in the rite of baptism. Now, the question which I wish to propound this, and I wish you would be good enough to answer it with the candor of a large man, who is ashamed to be dominated in the least by prejudice; or, if you please, of a little child, who speaks out what lies in the mind, without considering to what it stands related or what might be its logical outcome."

"Here is the question: Supposing that a man believes Christ, the apostles, and the early church to have been immersed; supposing that he might also believe 'that the essential part of baptism is the profession of repentance and discipleship, and that the method of doing it is incidental,' what good reason has he for departing from the original method? Why should he want to do so? Why is not the mode which Christ found and submitted to good enough for the disciple? Admitting, for a moment, that he has the liberty to change the primitive mode, how comes it that Christ's way is not the most pleasing and delightful to the disciple who really desires to follow him? I repeat, admitting that he has liberty to change the mode, why should he want to? I have heard that Mr. Spurgeon said he would drink a glass of liquor once a year, just to demonstrate his liberty. But I presume he would not feel justified in using it habitually, upon the same ground. If liberty must be demonstrated in this matter of baptism, why not baptize by affusion one candidate each year in every church? Why make a practice of that which is confessedly (to a great extent among non-immersionists) a permitted mode, unauthorized by precept or example in the early church? Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience, when he could just as well do exactly as Christ did, and be sure he was right, not having to justify himself even on so good ground as Christian liberty?"

"It has always seemed to me that it ought to be the delight of the Lord's people to do as he did in the matter of baptism, as in all things else, instead of resorting to so many ingenuities of argument to justify themselves in departing from his way."

We do not see how any can find fault with the position of Mr. Pentecost. He is right, as far as he goes. But it did not rest there. Soon appeared another letter with an introduction by the editor of the Independent, under the head, "But why not?" as follows:—

"We knew perfectly well what to expect when we published, three weeks ago, the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost's article 'But why not Immerse?' without a word of comment. We knew we should have reply after reply sent to us, and that we should not be able to publish them. One communication received, however, is not meant as a reply, but is really so good a reply that we are forced to publish it. The very clever writer is the Rev. W. C. Titsworth, pastor of the Seventh-day Baptist church in Farina, Ill. He changes the question asked by Mr. Pentecost to the following: 'But why not keep the seventh day as the Sabbath?', and proceeds:—"

"TO THE EDITOR OF THE INDEPENDENT: 'Will you permit me, Sir, to take a little liberty with the article of the Rev. Hugh O. Pentecost, in your last issue — viz., that of substituting words and phrases enough to make it apply to the day of the Sabbath, instead of to baptism? 'I wish to say, however, that I was especially pleased to find so well put my own opinion on the question, the discussion of which I too have interestedly followed in the columns of The Independent. I have no difficulty in understanding how a Christian not a Baptist should differ with me as to the Sabbath; but I confess that I never read a Baptist defense of immersion which might not be used, without much change, as an argument against Sunday observance, and I can not see why Mr. Pentecost's argument, in the paper before me, doesn't apply with as much force against such observance as against sprinkling or affusion. 'Therefore, by your leave, I will make changes in the article which will make it an argument for remembering the Sabbath as Christ and the apostles did:— 'Up to the present time all known facts confirm me in the belief that our Lord and the apostles kept the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and that submitting to this order of things is a simple act of obedience, of very considerable importance, ranking with such commands as to the assembling of the saints for public worship, the doing of all things with decency and order, the partaking of the Lord's Supper, and those of like quality — commands which, if they are not as important as those to believe or to continue in prayer, are, notwithstanding, injunctions from Christ which lose none of their force by relative comparisons.' I clearly apprehend the argument by which one who believes that Christ and the early church kept the seventh day justifies himself and considers himself obedient in choosing another day on which to keep the Sabbath. 'Here is the question: Suppose a man believes Christ, the apostles, and the early church to have kept the seventh day; suppose he also believes that the essential thing in Sabbath observance is keeping a day in religious rest, and that the day kept is incidental. What good reason has he for departing from the original observance of the seventh day? Why should he wish to do so? Why is not the day which Christ found observed as a Sabbath and himself observed as a Sabbath good enough for the disciple? Admitting for the moment that he has the liberty to change the primitive day of the Sabbath, how comes it that the Master's way is not the most pleasing and delightful to the disciple who really desires to follow him? I repeat, admitting that he has liberty to change the day; why should he wish to? If liberty must be demonstrated in this matter of keeping the Sabbath, why not each church keep one Sunday in the year? Why make a practice of that which is confessedly but a permitted mode, unauthorized by precept or example in the early church? Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience, when he might just as well do exactly as Christ did, and be sure he is right, not having to justify himself on so good ground as Christian liberty even? 'It has always seemed to me that it ought to be the delight of the Lord's people to do as he did in the matter of keeping the Sabbath, as in all things else, instead of resorting to so many ingenuities of argument to justify themselves in departing from his way.'"

On this the editor makes the following remarks:— 'Mr. Titsworth is correct. Mr. Pentecost's argument is just as good for the seventh-day Sabbath as for immersion, and we daily expect an article from some Dunkard minister, seriously applying the argument to feet-washing, and asking: Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience by neglecting the washing of feet, whether as a church or a social custom, when he could just as well do as Christ did and be sure he was right? And others will continue: Ought a disciple to follow his own whim or convenience in neglecting the command so often repeated to apostolic churches to 'salute one another with an holy kiss,' when he could just as well obey this command and be sure he was right? Ought a disciple to neglect the command to anoint the sick with oil, when he could just as well obey it and be sure he was right? Mr. Pentecost will, perhaps, affirm that these were customs and commands peculiar to the apostolic age, and, hence, they are not binding upon us. But that is just what many say about immersion. Where, then, is the difference? It is not a difference in principle; but it is a simple question of less or greater adhesion to ancient usages. The Baptists boast about their obedience to the divine commands; but they make their choice as to which of the divine commands they will obey to the letter. If others are moved to exercise the same choice and liberty as they do, why should they blame those that imitate the very example they have set?'

Yes; "Mr. Titsworth is correct." But that does not make Mr. Pentecost wrong. The Independent is too easily self-satisfied when it passes over the whole list of specified duties because somebody else is placed in a dilemma. But this is a very common method of settling questions of religious duty. The editor has traced a consistent course only in one direction. He has shown that the consistent course for Mr. Titsworth and Mr. Pentecost is to accept all the requirements of the New Testament. He does not seem to apprehend that consistency in his position will lead him to reject every precept in the New Testament. This is evident. For, if he rejects those presented by Mr. Pentecost and Mr. Titsworth, and those specified by himself, by what rule will he enforce any gospel duty? If baptizein means to immerse, and if the early church immersed in obedience to the precept to baptize, neither of which is denied by the Independent, and if it yet claims that immersion was for the early church alone, how will it prove that baptism by any method was for any since the days of the apostles?

To all things enjoined by Christ and his apostles, we hereby give our assent. And to all dissenters we ask, "Why not?"

Continue reading: THE NUMBERING OF THE PEOPLE THE SECOND TIME