THE relation of justification and obedience is precisely the relation of faith and works. The Scriptures make this subject very plain, yet scarcely any doctrine seems to be more misapprehended. The difficulty arises from a widely prevailing and growing desire to put off the law of God, or to plead exemption from its obligation. As law is the foundation of every Government, the divine Government not excepted, we shall have to notice further the nature of our obligation to the law in order to elucidate its relation to justification by faith.
There is a peculiar expression in Isa. 51:6. The Lord says: "My salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished." That this refers to his attributes or personal character, would appear improbable, even in the absence of any testimony on the subject; for the idea of the abolition of his attributes or of his personal righteousness is too absurd to ever receive a notice. But if it refers to his law, which is the foundation of his righteous government, the expression is reasonable and also necessary as a revelation. And there is proof that it has this application. In Ps. 119:172, it is said, "All thy commandments are righteousness." Now as the character of the divine Lawgiver is best revealed to us through the revelation of his will, and as his attributes must of necessity show forth in his Government, the stability of his character is determined or shown by the stability of his law; for it would be of little account to declare in words that he was unchangeable, while he showed in action that he was not. Again, this application is confirmed by the connection: "Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law." Verse 7. We have quoted the scriptures showing that God's law of ten commandments is a rule of holiness, of justification, condition of life, perfect, the whole duty of man, &c., which identify it as the same law referred to in Isa. 51:6, 7, and Ps. 119:172, which is the embodiment of righteousness. Hence, they who say that God's law of ten commandments is abolished, directly contradict this scripture, and are vainly contending with God. This view may be strengthened by an examination of the Saviour's words in Matt. 5:17-20; but we only invite investigation of that text, and pass to the apostle's argument on justification.
What is the import of the apostle's declaration in Rom. 3:28? It reads: "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Does it mean that we now form our characters in Christian life without works, or without obedience to the law? So many seem to think; but we cannot. 1. That view is highly unreasonable. We cannot form any character by mere feeling or belief. It is only by actions, by deeds, or by works, that any character can be formed. 2. It is contrary to the whole scope and tenor of the Scriptures, as we shall try to show.
The idea of the text is presented also in verse 21 of the same chapter, which we have considered in another place. It reads: "But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets." There is no difficulty at all if it is borne in mind that the subject is that of justification to a sinner condemned. Now it is a truth so evident that no argument is needed in its favor, that a criminal cannot be justified by the law which he has broken. Surely there is nothing so strange in this that any need to be troubled to comprehend its force or bearing. It is only by losing sight of the relations brought to view in this chapter, and of the principles which must characterize the actions of a just Government in dealing with transgressors, that difficulties are found. We are indeed "justified freely by his grace," but on a basis which enables God to be just while he is a justifier of the believer. This must never be forgotten if we would honor his justice and his Government. Pardon must have respect to the broken law. And as there can be no condemnation without law, for "sin is not imputed when there is no law," even so justification must be according to law, or else justice will be disregarded. There can be no determination of character, either good or bad, without the law. By the law is the knowledge of sin. This is one direction in which the law imparts knowledge, but not the only one. The law is a witness of the righteousness of God. The apostle says that we are made the righteousness of God in Christ. 2 Cor. 5:21. This means that our characters are conformed to his revealed will. And the righteousness of God manifested in us, through the faith of Jesus Christ without the works of the law, is just this, that Christ removes our sin and places us before the throne of justice as free, as sinless as though we had never broken the law. The law being the measure of holiness, of perfection, and the only rule of judgment, is of course a witness of the righteousness so effected. This cannot be denied. The expression, "The doers of the law shall be justified," is sufficient proof that the law contains all that is necessary to justify the obedient; and the law witnesses to the righteousness of God which is effected through faith in Christ in the characters of the faithful, because it enforces and demands that righteousness. We can readily understand why a sinner, a carnally-minded man, restive under just restraint, whose heart is enmity against God, should desire the abolition of such a law. But we cannot understand why a man who professes to love God and to be loyal to his Government should desire its abolition; nor can we believe that the God of justice, who will bring every work into judgment, will consent to its abolition. He has said: "My righteousness shall not be abolished," and we respect his word and bow to the rule of his righteous judgment. Eccl. 12:13, 14; Rom. 2:12, 16.
Many stumble over the gospel plan because they make no difference between justification and obedience. If we had regard only to original justice, there could be no difference; that is, if a man had never sinned he would have been justified, and of course saved, by his obedience. But this original or personal justice no one now possesses. Hence, while the principles cannot change, and the rule of justification is ever the same, the means are entirely different from what they would be if man had never sinned. Here is where many err. They suppose, or seem to suppose, that if the law ceases to be the means of justification, it ceases also to be the rule. They do not judge of the law by its nature or original object, but from a partial view of the position of its transgressor. The law, as a rule of right, will form a perfect character, but cannot reform an imperfect one. The rule of the mechanic will determine or point out a right angle on the end of a board he is framing; and if the board is square—if the angle is right, it is justified or proved right by the rule. But if the angle is not right, the rule will point out the inaccuracy, but will not make it right. That must be effected by another tool. But if the saw is the means of making the proper angle on the board, does the saw therefore become the rule of determining angles or measurements? By no means. And there is precisely this difference between the law and the gospel. "By the law is the knowledge of sin;" but the gospel is the remedy. The law points out the errors of character, the gospel reforms them. The law being the only rule of right, "the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. 2:13. This is but plain justice; for no one can suppose that the man who did the law—who obeyed God in all his life, would be condemned. But Paul also says that there are no doers of the law—that all have sinned; and from this he draws the very evident conclusion, "therefore, by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." Rom. 3:20. So we are justified now "freely by his grace," entirely by faith; works do not enter into our justification. And why not? Because, as the apostle shows, this justification by faith has respect to "the remission of sins that are past." Rom. 3:25. Over these our future acts of obedience can have no influence or control.
It has been thence inferred that the sinner justified is under no further obligation to keep that law by which he cannot be justified. But it cannot be that they who teach thus realize how destructive is that view to every principle of right and justice; how it dishonors the gospel of Christ; how it tends to pervert a holy gospel of love to a mere system of license. Of all the abuse the gospel has ever received at the hands of its professed friends, this is the deepest. It is contrary to Scripture, and to all just reasoning. Ask the advocate of that theory if the law of his State will justify the thief in stealing, or the murderer in killing. He will answer, No; the law condemns such actions. Ask him how the criminal can escape the true desert of his crimes, and he will reply, Only by the governor's pardon. Ask again, If the law condemns the transgressor, and he can be justified only by pardon, does that pardon release him from obedience to the law, so that he may thereafter disregard its claims? Will he affirm this? Will he tell you that that pardon thereafter becomes the rule of life to such a man? And if the pardoned one should again be committed for crime, will the jury try him, and the judge condemn him by the governor's pardon, or by the statute of the State? Could we get any to take the same unreasonable position in regard to the law of the State that many take in regard to the law of God? Not one. If angels ever weep at the blind folly of mortals, it would seem that such teachings furnish an occasion. To see men of talent, of learning, of apparent piety, strip the plan of salvation of every principle of justice, pervert it to a system of license, draw conclusions directly contrary to reason and common sense, and argue on the divine Government as they would be ashamed to argue in respect to the Government of the State, surely, this is enough to fill the heavens with astonishment.
This error is not altogether confined to those who are called Antinomians. All those who teach that Christ did not suffer the penalty of the law, that his death did not meet the full demands of justice, but was substituted for its demands, really subvert the law by denying that the gospel has honored its claims. We think that in many cases they are unconscious of the demoralizing tendency of their position. This, however, will be considered more fully when we come to the subject of the vicarious death of Christ.
Had man never sinned, he would have been justified on the ground of obedience—by works. Without sin he could not have been condemned. This shows that justification is in works, provided that the works are perfect. To deny this is equivalent to affirming that man would have been condemned—not justified—if he had continued in perfect obedience. And this is what we have before said, that justification is in the law, but man lost it by transgression of the law. It is obedience only that forms a right character. "He that doeth righteousness is righteous." 1 John 3:7. Faith in the blood of Jesus removes guilt, and presents us before the throne as righteous by imputation; but faith, without works, does not build up character. That is to say, that we are justified from past sins by faith without works, but we cannot maintain that justification through future life by faith without works. In this respect, "faith without works is dead." James 2:20. And so Paul instructs the brethren: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." Phil. 2:12. Editor.
(To be Continued.)
Clinching a Sermon.
I HEARD a sermon once from a venerable itinerant preacher, on benevolence. I thought the effort was very lean; but one thing impressed me a little. "Go," said he, "and do something after I have done preaching. Have it to say when I come back, four weeks hence, that you have done something, and my word and God's word for it, you will be a better and a happier man." I knew a poor widow living on the edge of some woods about a mile from my home. Her husband had been dead two or three years, and with three helpless little girls she had a hard conflict with poverty. I had often spoken kindly to her, and thought my duty ended when the words were uttered; but when the sermon of the white-headed preacher was done, the resolution was formed to go and do something. Next day, I visited the cellar and measured out a bushel of potatoes, a bushel of apples, and a variety of other things, and having put them into a wagon, started for the cottage of the widow. A load of wood, for which I paid $3, preceded me. An hour's drive brought both loads in front of the house; and when my explanation was given, there were wet eyes and warmer hearts in the parties. The widow wept for joy, and the children joined in; while I, finding my feelings too much for my strength, had to give away also to tears. The fact was one that gave me a new spiritual start, and when the preacher came back, I thought the discourse one of the most eloquent I had ever listened to. The change was in myself, not in him or his preaching.—The Standard.
Examining Our Hearts
We should examine our hearts as a seaman does a ship before a storm, not as a coquette does her person and her dress for a ball.
NOTWITHSTANDING the subscription at the close of this letter stating that it was written at Philippi, commentators generally agree that it must have been written at Ephesus; and indeed any one reading the epistle without the subscription would naturally locate the writing at the latter place. We find good evidence in chapter 16: 5-8, where he states that he will pass through Macedonia and come unto them, and if possible abide through the winter, adding, "But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost." In the 19th verse he says, "The churches of Asia [of which Ephesus was the capital] salute you; Aquila and Priscilla salute you," &c. These were living at Ephesus. Acts 18: 26. These subscriptions are not attached to the original epistles, and, as they often conflict with the inspired history, and with statements in the letters themselves, are not deemed reliable.
PAUL here, as in most of his epistles, asserts his apostleship. It cannot be said that he did this boastingly, for we find that so far as his personal prerogatives as an apostle were concerned, he was always willing to waive the dignity; but as to the dignity of the position itself, he never compromised that for a moment. Of these facts he had given evidence at Thessalonica and at Philippi, and his reference to these experiences in his letters to the Thessalonians was necessary in order to remind them of his humble demeanor while wearing such high honor directly from the Lord. It was necessary in this instance, because the letter he had received from Corinth, as also verbal charges against some in the church, rendered it compulsory that he should make some very important decisions. And furthermore, as there were divisions among them as to the recognized leadership, it is quite probable that some would not be disposed to acknowledge his authority. It is meet for those in authority in the church to maintain the proper dignity of their positions, and it is the duty of the church to "esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake."
"SOSTHENES our brother." From the little we know of this brother, his experience had been in a manner similar to Paul's, and it is not surprising that, under the circumstances, his conversion should create between them a close bond of sympathy. Sosthenes, it will be remembered, was ruler of a synagogue in Corinth, and was conspicuous, if not the leader, in the insurrection against Paul, in consequence of which he was beaten by the Greeks. So both he and Paul were prominent Jews, had both been violent persecutors of the church, and upon both a measure of judgment had been meted out.
"UNTO the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," &c. Verse 2. Them that are sanctified means those that are set apart, as Dr. Barnes says, "separated from the mass of heathen around them, and devoted to God and his cause." He also says, "The word saints here does not differ materially from the word sanctified. It means those who are separated from the world, and set apart to God as holy." We might add, that to maintain any degree of Christian deportment in such a place as Corinth would mark a wide contrast between the church and those not of the faith. The apostle intimates that they could not even attend to their ordinary secular affairs without contact with fornicators, extortioners, idolators, etc., so common were these vices among the people. Chap. 5: 9, 10. This introduction is strikingly similar to that of Jude's epistle.
"WITH all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." In this we have the broad intention of the Spirit that actuated the writer of this epistle. Although the immediate object of the letter was to correct errors in that church, it was clearly foreseen that counsel upon these and the other topics treated, would be wanted wherever the gospel should be preached.
Centuries have passed since the promulgation of these inspired injunctions and teachings, yet the teachers of "present truth" have constant use for them in correcting error and rebutting false doctrine; and they have lost none of their pith or poignancy.
"THERE are contentions among you." Some claimed to be followers of Paul, some of Apollos, others of Cephas, and some had the correct idea of leadership, and clung to Christ. The peculiarity of this dissention is that Paul, Apollos, and Cephas were not rivals of Christ nor of each other. Their doctrines were harmonious, and neither of them desired to be a faction leader, much less a leader of the whole, in his own name. The instigation to such a division must have been purely diabolical—"the mystery of iniquity" already working. And with the apostle's pointed rebuke before us, and in the face of the Saviour's fervent prayer and solemn injunction that his followers might be one as he and the Father are one, it is surprising how men can claim Scripture authority for hundreds of divisions—doctrinal and physical—in the body of Christ. And some, while maintaining that their individual sects have the essential truth, will claim that a multiplicity of denominations is necessary to accommodate the various minds of Christians who cannot agree upon doctrine—who refuse to be "one," as the Saviour commanded. To Paul's question, "Is Christ divided?" they deliberately act, Yes. Such Christianity is not of Paul, nor of Apollos, nor of Cephas, nor of Christ.
"I THANK God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius." Verse 14. Those who hold water baptism to be a "non-essential" lay great stress upon this and the following verses, as showing that Paul deemed it a matter of little consequence. But the Lord has not left this important memorial so slightly guarded, nor are we shut up to this passage, from which an unwarranted inference is drawn, to learn Paul's estimate of it. He had received his commission direct from the Lord, as the other apostles had, and was guided in his teaching by the same Spirit that actuated the baptism of three thousand on the day of Pentecost. Although he may not have baptized many with his own hand, he was nearly always accompanied by assistants; and his reason for thankfulness was because, if he had baptized more himself, it would have strengthened the party spirit of those claiming to be "of Paul." Christ sent him to preach the gospel, and he could not have done this without preaching baptism. That was part of the great commission. Matt. 28: 19, 20. It would be as impossible to consistently preach the gospel without its ordinances and memorials, as it would be to preach the ten commandments consistently while setting aside the Sabbath. We have only to refer to the Pentecostal scene at Jerusalem; to the experience of Peter at the house of Cornelius; to the instance of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch; and to the case of the Philippian jailer—all instances of the direct interposition of the Spirit of God—to prove the inseparable connection between the gospel and baptism. It is the perpetual memorial of the burial and resurrection of Christ, upon which the gospel must stand or fall.
"FOR ye see your calling, brethren," &c. Verse 26 and onward. It will be noted that the basis of estimating the "wise" and "mighty," as also the "foolish" and "base" things referred to in these verses, is "after the flesh;" that is, according to a worldly estimate. It is a fact that not many of the so-called great men of the earth become Christians. They are too busy with the matters pertaining to this life. The so-called wise men cannot stoop to be taught by One who had "never learned" in the recognized schools of theology, philosophy, etc. The King is obliged to send into the "highways" and "hedges," and gather the "poor," the "blind," the "lame," and kindred classes (according to the estimate of the world) in order to fill his table. The foolish (worldly estimate) things will confound the wise (popularly so called); and the weak things (after the flesh) will confound the worldly mighty ones. When we reflect that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," we can well afford to forego that wisdom which God hath "made foolish." We may indeed lightly esteem the might of this world in comparison with that weakness of the flesh in which, with God's help, "one can chase a thousand, and two can put ten thousand to flight." God has chosen the instruments that would glorify his name, "that no flesh should glory in his presence."
PAUL was one of the exceptions to the foregoing rule. He was a wise man after the flesh, so recognized by his fellows. But he is also an instance of the fact that all such exceptions must put away that distinguishing feature, to be efficient and acceptable in the work of the Lord. He had tried eloquence and science at Athens, with little success. At Corinth he put aside all that and labored, although "in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling," yet "in demonstration of the Spirit and of power." He experienced a far different result when he used the wisdom of God, even "the hidden wisdom." Well could he say, in his second letter to this church: "I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake; for when I am weak, then am I strong." 2 Cor. 12: 10.
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.
The Use of Helps
THE USE OF HELPS.—If a teacher cannot get along without the use of a lesson-help during the class recitation, why should he expect his scholars to get along without one? If he has not learned that which he wishes to teach them, before he comes to the class, he certainly has no right to expect them to learn it during the brief time allotted to the lesson exercise.—S. S. Times.
Christian Singing and Living
WHAT a pity it is that so much of the pith and energy which are frequently displayed in church and Sunday-school singing, fail to go any farther than the breath of the singers can carry them! If more of the vim and whole-heartedness which are displayed in Christian singing were put into Christian living, would there not be a revivifying of many churches and Sunday-schools which are known as sluggish and backward?
Encouragement for Sabbath-School Teachers
By Editor
It ought to be a real comfort to a Sabbath-school teacher to have scholars who have had no good teaching at home, and who have no thought of any responsibility for the preparation of their lessons out of the Sabbath-school hour. Scholars who are well taught by their parents, and who study their lessons faithfully, can almost take care of themselves. Teaching them in the Sabbath-school is, in a sense, a supplemental work. But when a scholar gets all his teaching in the Sabbath-school, and during the lesson hour, he is one of the scholars worth having in charge. Sabbath-school teaching ought to amount to something in his case. This is a word of encouragement to teachers who have such scholars. Instead of repining over their trying lot, they have reason to rouse themselves to the exceptionally good work to which they are summoned by the peculiar need of their scholars.
Profitable Bible Study
THERE is a way of Bible study which yields very little profit. It is a mere curious search after minute information, or for arguments upon mooted points. In this way the soul may grow lean as the mind is informed. We should every day look for the essence of truth for the heart, and not merely seek something for the memory or understanding.
Miracles of the Nineteenth Century
By Lyman Abbott
If infidelity wishes to shake the Christian's faith in a personal God, it must account, not for the miracles of the first century merely, but for those of the nineteenth.
"A Check on Adventism."
By Editor
IT is a general practice in courts of justice that a person's testimony is not to be rejected for an inaccuracy on a point not material to the issue. But if, with the facts before him, he contradicts the facts directly in issue, he is impeached. And if, in addition to this, he contradicts himself, his testimony is entirely discredited. Mr. Woodward occupies a position peculiarly unfortunate in every way in telling his Sunday story.
1. He blunders in almost every incidental statement he makes. 2. He contradicts the plainest facts of Scripture. 3. He contradicts himself, not once or twice merely, but, many times, and that on the main issue. As we shall impeach him on the main issue, both by the Bible and by his own testimony, it will not be necessary to follow him in all his meanderings.
His work being a direct assault upon the Adventists, of course he makes many assertions concerning them. And we cannot believe that any man could make so many misstatements as mere mistakes. We are forced to the conclusion that he intentionally misrepresented us to make us appear to disadvantage before his readers, and to build up a prejudice against us. A few of his statements we will notice.
1. "The SIGNS OF THE TIMES last fall was willing to unite with the League of Freedom, a band of abandoned men leagued to break law."
All the readers of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES know that that statement is false, and maliciously false. If Mr. Woodward has no respect for the fourth commandment of the decalogue, that is no reason why he should so flagrantly break the ninth. The Methodist ministry very generally supported a ticket nominated by a convention which ignored the temperance question; which was presided over by a liquor dealer; which nominated for the first office in the State a wine producer; they voted for him and for other anti-temperance men, in hope to save the "Sunday Law;" and in this they more nearly coincided with the League of Freedom than we did. We heard the representative of the League of Freedom pledge the support of the League to the Convention, Sunday Law and all, if they would ignore the temperance question, which was done. We opposed the liquor interest because it is a great and growing evil in this State; and we opposed the Sunday Law because it was unconstitutional, discriminating against us in religious faith and practice. We claim the right from the law of God, "the higher law," to work six days and rest the seventh; and we shall always oppose those religious bigots who wish to trample on our civil and religious rights and liberties to gratify their own selfish feelings.
2. "Adventism teaches, regarding man, that the body and soul are one; or, in other words, that man has no spirit."
The words we have italicized are untrue, as regards our belief; and every one who knows about our faith knows that they are untrue. As to the first part of the statement, it is true only in part. All who have investigated the subject know that in the majority of the instances of the use of the word soul, neh-phesh, in Hebrew, it means the entire being, or person; it is sometimes rendered body, and in a few instances, dead body. But it does not always mean the body; and there is the deception of his statement. He intended that the reader should think that we assert that it means the body only, in all cases. We do not believe that man is immortal in the present state, but must seek for immortality. Rom. 2:7. We will believe that he is immortal if one text can be given from the Bible which says so. But we do not argue that point now; we only wish to point out the deception of his statement.
3. "Adventism teaches that Christ is only relatively good, while God is absolutely good."
Adventism teaches no such thing. To make out that we err in this matter he quotes passages to prove that Christ was sinless! as though we denied it. Methodism cannot produce any testimony which exalts Christ above that which Adventism can produce. And whatever any may think of the statement of Rev. 3:14, which says that Christ was "the beginning of the creation of God," his argument must appear to all but a fallacy. He says:—
"That he was not the first being created is evident, from the first verse in the Bible: 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'"
This is astonishing. Is it possible that Mr. Woodward thinks that the heavens and earth spoken of in Gen. 1:1 were the first of all things in the universe which God created? "All the sons of God shouted for joy" when the earth was created. Job 38:7. Were they all uncreated beings, or were they a part of the heavens and the earth created at that time? Were the cherubim who guarded the way of the tree of life no older than Adam? Did Lucifer, or "Satan and his angels," who "kept not their first estate, but sinned," create themselves? Or was the tempter as inexperienced as Eve? Or, finally, does Mr. Woodward ever think when he writes?
4. "We have often heard Advent teachers affirm that a day in the Bible always means from evening to evening, or one year."
He never heard "Advent teachers" affirm any such thing, for not one of them believes any such thing. In a work (against the "Age to Come") which we wrote in 1856, which is accepted by all Seventh-day Adventists, we argued at length to show that "the day of the Lord," mentioned in many Scriptures, means a period of time more than one thousand years in length. And, as an example of the use of the word day, we there refer to "the day of salvation," which has now existed more than eighteen hundred years, admitting that it commenced with the proclamation of the gospel by the Saviour and his apostles. We do say that a solar day always means from evening to evening, and we prove it. And we say that when the word day is used as a symbol, connected with other symbols, in prophecy, it means a year, and this is easy of proof. But to say that we affirm that in the Bible it has no other meaning than these two, is to say what is not true.
5. "They find a definition of a certain word somewhere in the Bible, and ever after, wherever that word is found, attach to it the same definition."
This statement is so absurd that Mr. Woodward could not honestly make it unless he were so ignorant of us that he is not competent to testify at all. If we were not known; if our publications were not scattered in every direction, then might he make people believe such falsities, but now he cannot. We are willing to let our publications be compared with those of any denomination in the land, as far as the adoption of just rules of Biblical criticism are concerned. If the Methodists hope to put a "check" on us they must do it by other means than by such bald misrepresentations. Our literature is so well known that the day is past for any to hope to triumph over us by misrepresenting our faith or our methods of advocating it.
6. "If the Saturday-Sabbath people think that they can observe the same time as Sabbath the world over, they are very much mistaken."
It is not necessary to quote further on this point. He argues as though he had a point to make; but it is of no use, for we do not think any such thing, and if he does not know it, it is because he is surprisingly ignorant of our faith. It is singular that men will pretend to know all about our faith, and imagine an absurdity of their own devising, and then argue against it as zealously as though they were meeting something more substantial than a figment of their own brains. Every intelligent reader knows that we do not think that the seventh day comes in all latitudes and longitudes at the same time. God made the sun to rule the day; and so it does round the entire globe, and not only at one particular point. Our opposers take to themselves great credit for knowing enough not to begin to keep Sunday at the same moment in all places! So they know when we begin to keep the seventh day? Yes; at the setting of the sun. And do they really think that the sun sets all round the world at the same time? They must think it does to us so that we may begin to keep the day together! But they know our practice; and to argue against their own "whimsys," as if they were overthrowing our positions, when they know we never took such positions, is not paying a high compliment to the intelligence of their readers. But it gives them a chance to show their smartness, and seems to please them amazingly. Perhaps these are among the "cogent," the irresistibly powerful things which Dr. Stratton found in the book. But we have much more wonderful things to notice. The following is an inexcusable deception.
7. "There is frequently mentioned by these lecturers, and others, the change from the Julian to the Gregorian Calendar. Some say there was time lost; others, that no time was lost, but that the dates were simply changed; others are in doubt whether the days of the week were disturbed in their order, or not, by this change."
Every reader who is unacquainted with us would gather from this paragraph that "these lecturers" are certainly among those who take these several positions; but that is not true. Mr. Woodward goes on to state some facts with which every person of reading is acquainted, and in his conclusion says: "Neither were the days of the week disturbed in their order; the date of the day of the month was simply changed." This is the exact truth for which we constantly contend. We very often have to meet those who, to avoid the force of our arguments for the seventh day, say that time has been lost, or that dates were changed or disarranged so that the definite day is a matter of uncertainty, and others ease their consciences by saying, "We do not know anything about it." But Seventh-day Adventists have never considered it a matter of any uncertainty; the days of the week have never been disturbed in their count or order. If the reader wishes to be assured to this point he may procure a tract at this office entitled, "The Lost-Time Question," in which he will find the whole matter made plain, and these several positions noticed by Mr. W. are treated as objections and disproved. Every candid reader must condemn his course as dishonorable in trying to fasten such positions upon us when they are exactly the opposite of what we believe.
These are sufficient to show the animus of Mr. Woodward in his course toward the Seventh-day Adventists. Much more might be quoted, but we pass them by. To show the importance which he attaches to the day of the Sabbath, we quote as follows:—
"The question as to which of the days of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord takes precedence of all other questions; for if some hold one day and others another day of the week to be the Sabbath, we shall fall into confusion, and the result will be, in this age of recklessness, no Sabbath at all, which means the end of the Christian Church, anarchy in society, and moral darkness over the entire world."
We do not think that he overestimates the importance of the Sabbath, as a beneficent institution; nor the importance of "the question as to which of the days of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord." This, he says, takes precedence of all other questions. So we think, because, if one certain day of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord, and men keep another day, then they do not keep the Sabbath of the Lord at all. This cannot be disputed by any one. Nor is the result changed if all should agree to keep that other day, for it would be simply an agreement to substitute some other day for the Sabbath of the Lord, and all the world united cannot give authority to set aside an institution of Jehovah and to set up something else in its place. And thus it will be seen that the important point to consider is that of obedience, not merely of uniformity. And this shows beyond mistaking that the position of the California Christian Advocate is a material error when it said that it made no difference whether Sunday, or Saturday, or Friday be kept, so that men are agreed upon it! Human agreement cannot make a truth of a falsehood, or sanction a departure from the commandment of God.
Now if we are able to prove by indisputable facts, by the plain reading of the word of God, that the seventh day, and not the first day, is the Sabbath of the Lord, as we insist that we can, by what authority, or for what reason does Dr. Stratton declare that we are contending for a mere "whimsey"? His own "cogent" and "timely" work declares that the settlement of the question, which of the days of the week is the Sabbath of the Lord, takes precedence of all others, and this is the question we are pressing upon the public mind. Will the Doctor consent that it is an all-important question, and declare that it is a mere whimsey also? Or is it important when we consent "to the established usages of Church and State," and a "whimsey" when we plead for the Bible and the authority of the commandment of God?
We shall next week commence the examination of his position on the pentateuch, with which he takes most unwarrantable liberties.