Loading...
Larger font
Smaller font
Copy
Print
Contents
  • Results
  • Related
  • Featured
No results found for: "undefined".
  • Weighted Relevancy
  • Content Sequence
  • Relevancy
  • Earliest First
  • Latest First
    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents

    March 25, 1886

    “The Suevi, the Vandals, and the Burgundians. (Continued.)” The Signs of the Times 12, 12, p. 180.

    (Continued.)

    IT will be often necessary, in the course of this history, to use the phrase “the bounds of the Western Empire,” or “the limits of the Western Empire;” and we shall here indicate those limits in such a way that every one who reads may understand.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.1

    Take any good map of Europe; begin at the Frith of the Clyde, in Scotland; and draw a line from a point twelve miles northwest of Glasgow to a point on the Frith of the Forth, twenty-two miles northeast of Edinburg; this is the line of the Wall of Antoninus. Follow down the east coast of Britain to the English Channel; cross the Channel to the mouth of the Rhine; follow up the Rhine to the mouth of the Neckar; and then follow up the Neckar to the place where two rivers flow in from the east, near together. From there go southeastward to Ratisbon, or, in other words, to a point on the Danube about the twelfth degree of east longitude; follow the course of the Danube to the mouth of the Drave; and from there carry the line of the southward flow of the Danube due soputh to the sea-coast of Tripoli. Then follow the northern border of the Great Desert, westward to the ocean, and, with the exception of Ireland, all the countries between the line thus draw and the Atlantic Ocean, formed the Western Empire.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.2

    “About four years after the victorious Toulun had assumed the title of Khan of the Geougen, another barbarian, the haughty Rhodogast, or Radagaisus, marched [A.D. 405] from the northern extremities of Germany almost to the gates of Rome, and left the remains of his army to achieve the destruction of the West. The Vandals, the Suevi, and the Burgundians, formed the strength of this mighty host; but the Alani, who had found a hospitable reception in their new seats, added their active cavalry to the heavy infantry of the Germans; and the Gothic adventurers crowded so eagerly to the standard of Radagaisus, that by some historians, he has been styled the King of the Goths. Twelve thousand warriors, distinguished above the vulgar by their noble birth, or their valiant deeds, glittered in the van; and the whole multitude, which was not less than two hundred thousand fighting men, might be increased, by the accession of women, of children, and of slaves, to the amount of four hundred thousand persons. This formidable emigration issued from the same coast of the Baltic, which had poured forth the myriads of the Cimbri and Teutones, to assault Rome and Italy in the vigor of the republic. After the departure of those barbarians, their native country, which was marked by the vestiges of their greatness, long ramparts, and gigantic moles, remained, during some ages, a vast and dreary solitude; till the human species was renewed by the powers of generation, and the vacancy was filled by the influx of new inhabitants.”—Chap. 30, par. 14.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.3

    The Alani, mentioned here, were a part of that nation which dwelt between the Volga and the Don, which, when the Huns swept over their country, A.D. 375, advanced, with “intrepid courage, towards the shores of the Baltic; associated themselves with the northern tribes of Germany; and shared the spoil of the Roman provinces of Gaul and Spain.”—Chap. 26, par. 11.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.4

    “The correspondence of nations was, in that age, so imperfect and precarious, that the revolutions of the North might escape the knowledge of the court of Ravenna; till the dark cloud, which was collected along the coast of the Baltic, burst in thunder upon the banks of the upper Danube [A.D. 406]. The emperor of the West [Honorius], if his ministers disturbed his amusements by the news of the impending danger, was satisfied with being the occasion, and the spectator, of the war. The safety of Rome was intrusted to the counsels, and the sword, of Stilicho; but such was the feeble and exhausted state of the empire, that it was impossible to restore the fortifications of the Danube, or to prevent, by a vigorous effort, the invasion of the Germans. The hopes of the vigilant minister of Honorius were confined to the defense of Italy. He once more abandoned the provinces, recalled the troops, pressed the new levies, which were rigorously exacted, and pusillanimously eluded; employed the most efficacious means to arrest, or allure, the deserters; and offered the gift of freedom, and of two pieces of gold, to all the slaves who would enlist. By these efforts he painfully collected, from the subjects of a great empire, an army of thirty or forty thousand men, which, in the days of Scipio or Camillus, would have been instantly furnished by the free citizens of the territory of Rome. The thirty legions of Stilicho were re-enforced by a large body of Barbarian auxiliaries; the faithful Alani were personally attached to his service; and the troops of Huns and of Goths, who marched under the banners of their native princes, Huldin and Sarus, were animated by interest and resentment to oppose the ambition of Radagaisus.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.5

    “The king of the confederate Germans passed, without resistance, the Alps, the Po, and the Apennine; leaving on one hand the inaccessible palace of Honorius, securely buried among the marshes of Ravenna; and, on the other, the camp of Stilicho, who had fixed his head-quarters at Ticinum, or Pavia, but who seems to have avoided a decisive battle, till he had assembled his distant forces. Many cities of Italy were pillaged, or destroyed; and the siege of Florence, by Radagaisus, is one of the earliest events in the history of that celebrated republic; whose firmness checked and delayed the unskillful fury of the barbarians.... Florence was reduced to the last extremity; and the fainting courage of the citizens was supported only by the authority of St. Ambrose; who had communicated, in a dream, the promise of a speedy deliverance. On a sudden, they beheld, from their walls, the banners of Stilicho, who advanced, with his united force, to the relief of the faithful city; and who soon marked that fatal spot for the grave of the barbarian host [A.D. 406].... The method of surrounding the enemy with strong lines of circumvallation, which he had twice employed against the Gothic king, was repeated on a larger scale, and with more considerable effect.... The imprisoned multitude of horses and men was gradually destroyed, by famine rather than by the sword; but the Romans were exposed, during the progress of such an extensive work, to the frequent attacks of an impatient enemy.... A seasonable supply of men and provisions had been introduced into the walls of Florence, and the famished host of Radagaisus was in its turn besieged. The proud monarch of so many warlike nations, after the loss of his bravest warriors, was reduced to confide either in the faith of a capitulation, or in the clemency of Stilicho. But the death of the royal captive, who was ignominiously beheaded, disgraced the triumph of Rome and of Christianity; and the short delay of his execution was sufficient to brand the conqueror with the guilt of cool and deliberate cruelty.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.6

    “The fame of the victory, and more especially of the miracle, has encouraged a vain persuasion, that the whole army, or rather nation, of Germans, who migrated from the shores of the Baltic, miserably perished under the walls of Florence. Such indeed was the fate of Radagaisus himself, of his brave and faithful companions, and of more than one third of the various multitude of Sueves and Vandals, of Alani and Burgundians, who adhered to the standard of their general.... After the defeat of Radagaisus, two parts of the German host, which must have exceeded the number of one hundred thousand men, still remained in arms, between the Apennine and the Alps, or between the Alps and the Danube. It is uncertain whether they attempted to revenge the death of their general; but their irregular fury was soon diverted by the prudence and firmness of Stilicho, who opposed their march, and facilitated their retreat; who considered the safety of Rome and Italy as the great object of his care, and who sacrificed, with too much indifference, the wealth and tranquillity of the distant provinces. The barbarians acquired, from the junction of some Pannonian deserters, the knowledge of the country, and of the roads; and the invasion of Gaul, which Alaric had designed, was executed [A.D. 406, Dec. 31] by the remains of the great army of Radagaisus.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.7

    “Yet if they expected to derive any assistance from the tribes of Germany, who inhabited the banks of the Rhine, their hopes were disappointed. The Alemanni preserved a state of inactive neutrality; and the Franks distinguished their zeal and courage in the defense of the of the empire.... When the limits of Gaul and Germany were shaken by the northern emigration, the Franks bravely encountered the single force of the Vandals; who, regardless of the lessons of adversity, had again separated their troops from the standard of their barbarian allies. They paid the penalty of their rashness; and twenty thousand Vandals, with their king Godigisclus, were slain in the field of battle. The whole people must have been extirpated, if the squadrons of the Alani, advancing to their relief, had not trampled down the infantry of the Franks; who, after an honorable resistance, were compelled to relinquish the unequal contest. The victorious confederates pursued their march, and on the last day of the year [406], in a season when the waters of the Rhine were most probably frozen, they entered, without opposition, the defenceless provinces of Gaul. This memorable passage of the Suevi, the Vandals, the Alani, and the Burgundians, who never afterwards retreated, may be considered as the fall of the Roman empire in the countries beyond the Alps; and the barriers, which had so long separated the savage and the civilized nations of the earth, were from that fatal moment leveled with the ground.—Chap. 30, par. 15, 16, 17, 18.SITI March 25, 1886, page 180.8

    A. T. J.

    (To be concluded next week.)

    “‘The Abiding Sabbath.’ The Commandment for Sunday-keeping” The Signs of the Times 12, 12, pp. 184, 185.
    THE COMMANDMENT FOR SUNDAY-KEEPING

    THE author of “The Abiding Sabbath” insists that the Sunday-sabbath “is established as an apostolic institution;” and that “the religious use of Sunday” has “the high sanction of apostolic authority;” not only by the example of the apostles, but by their plain commands—in fact by commands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood. Thus he says:—SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.1

    “Preachers of the gospel of the resurrection and founders of the church of the resurrection, they [the apostles] gave a new, sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their own example and by their explicit injunctions.”—P. 198.SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.2

    Now an “injunction” is, “That which is enjoined; an order; a command; a precept.” Enjoin, is “to lay upon, as an order or command; to give a command to; to direct with authority;” “this word has the force of pressing admonition. It has also the sense of command.” “Explicit denotes something which is set forth in the plainest language, so that it cannot be misunderstood.”—Webster. “Explicit injunctions,” then, are commands that are set forth in language so plain that they cannot be misunderstood. Therefore Mr. Elliott’s unqualified declaration is that, by commands so plain that they cannot be misunderstood, the apostles have given a sacred character to Sunday. But everybody who ever read the New Testament knows that that is not true. And so does Mr. Elliott; for as already quoted, on page 184 he plainly confesses “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.” And that by the word “Sabbath” in this place he means the Sunday is undoubted, because he immediately begins an argument to account for this “complete silence,” and to justify it. But knowing and confessing as he does, “the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command” for the observance of the first day of the week is concerned, it is impossible to conceive by what mental process consistent with honesty, he could bring himself, in less than fifteen pages from these very words, to say that the apostles gave a “sacred character to the day of the resurrection by their own example and by their explicit injunctions.” Compare pages 184 and 198.SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.3

    And it is by such proofs as this that Sunday is shown to be the Lord’s day and the Christian Sabbath! It is such stuff as this that Professor William Thompson, D. D., Professor Llewellyn Pratt, D. D., and Rev. George M. Stone, D. D., all of Hartford, Conn., “after a careful (?) and thorough (?) (!) examination” accounted worthy of a prize of five hundred dollars; and to which, by a copyright, the American Tract Society has set its seal of orthodoxy.SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.4

    But although he finds this “complete silence,” he finds no difficulty in accounting for it; and here is how he does it:—SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.5

    “It is not difficult to account for the complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.... The conditions under which the early Christian church existed were not favorable for their announcement.... The early church, a struggling minority composed of the poorest people, could not have instituted the Christian Sabbath in its full force of meaning. The ruling influences of government and society were against them.”—P. 184.SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.6

    Therefore, according to this five-hundred-dollar-prize Christianity, commandments for the observance of Christian duties can be announced only when the conditions under which the church exists are favorable to their announcement; that is, when the ruling influences of government and society are in favor of it. And the one great distinguishing institution of Christianity is dependent upon “the ruling influences of government and society,” for “its full force and meaning”! Christians can wear the badge of their profession only when the majority favor it! We confess that that is in fact the true doctrine of the Sunday-sabbath. We have heard it preached often. And we know that is the doctrine upon which it was based in the origin of its claim to Christian recognition. But is that the kind of religion that Christ instituted in the world? Is that the manner of “Christian walk and conversation” to which he referred when he said: “Enter ye in [strive to enter in] at the strait gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it”? Was it to incite his disciples to faithfulness under the favor of “the ruling influences of government and society” that Christ said, “The brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child; the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake; but he that endureth to the end shall be saved”? Was it to induce the “early Christian church” to wait for the sanction of the majority, and the favor of “the ruling influences of government and society,” that Christ gave the command, “What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the house-tops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul; but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell”? The fact is that Mr. Elliott’s reason for the “complete silence” of the New Testament in regard to a command for the observance of the Sunday, as well as the doctrine of the Sunday-sabbath itself, is contrary to every principle of the doctrine of Christ.SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.7

    But according to Mr. Elliott’s scheme of Christian duty and faithfulness, when was the “Christian Sabbath” really instituted “in its full force of meaning”? He tells us plainly. Hear him:—SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.8

    “For the perfect establishment of the Christian Sabbath, as has already been observed, there was needed a social revolution in the Roman empire. The infant church, in its struggles through persecution and martyrdom, had not the power even to keep the Lord’s day perfectly itself, much less could the sanctity of the day be guarded from desecration by unbelievers. We should expect therefore to find the institution making a deepening groove on society and in history, and becoming a well-defined ordinance the very moment that Christianity became a dominant power. That such was the case the facts fully confirm. From the records of the early church and the works of the Christian Fathers we can clearly see the growth of the institution culminating in the famous edict of Constantine, when Christianity became the established religion of the empire.”—P. 213.SITI March 25, 1886, page 184.9

    Now as there was no command for the observance of the Sunday institution, and as it was not, and could not be, kept by the “struggling minority” that formed the early Christian church, the “deepening groove on society and in history” that was made by “the institution,” could have been made only by influences from beyond the struggling minority, i.e., from the majority. And that is the fact. The majority were heathen. The worship of the sun was the chief worship of all the heathen. And as ambitious bishops, in their lust of power, of numbers, and “of the ruling influences of government and society,” opened the way for the heathen to come into the church, bringing with them their heathen practices and customs, the day of the sun, being the chief of these, thus gained a place under the name of Christianity, and so went on making its “deepening groove on society and in history,” until it culminated in “the famous edict of Constantine,” in honor of “the venerable day of the sun,” and commanding its partial observance. Of this famous edict, we shall let the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” himself tell:—SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.1

    “The Emperor Constantine was converted, and Christianity became, practically, the religion of the empire. It was now possible to enforce the Christian Sabbath and make its observance universal. In the year 321, consequently, was issued the famous edict of Constantine commanding abstinence from servile labor on Sunday. The following is the full text:—SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.2

    “‘The Emperor Constantine to Helpidius.SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.3

    “‘On the venerable day of the sun, let the magistrates and people living in towns rest, and let all workshops be closed. Nevertheless, in the country, those engaged in the cultivation of land may freely and lawfully work, because it often happens that another day is not so well fitted for sowing grain and planting vines; lest by neglect of the best time, the bounty provided by Heaven should be lost. Given the seventh day of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, both for the second time.”—P. 228.SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.4

    The man who can see in the life of Constantine any evidences of conversion, possesses a degree of penetration truly wonderful; equal, indeed to that which can discern “transient elements” where it demonstrates that there are none. The one act of Constantine which is most nearly consistent with the idea of conversion, was performed in March, A.D. 313, eight years before the earliest date we have ever heard claimed for his conversion. That act was the edict of Milan, “the great act of toleration,” which “confirmed to each individual of the Roman world the privilege of choosing and professing his own religion,” and stopped the persecution of Christians. But even this one act that was consistent with conversion, was undone by his “conversion,” for soon after his “conversion” the edict of Milan was revoked. We shall name here some of his principal acts after his “conversion;” March 7, A.D. 321, he issued an edict in honor of the venerable day of the sun. The very next day, March 8, 321, he issued an edict commanding the consultation of the soothsayers. In 323 Licinius was murdered by his orders, in violation of a solemn oath given to his own sister, Constantia. In 326 he was guilty of the murder of his own son, Crispus, his nephew, Licinius, and his wife, Fausta, to say nothing of others. To the end of his life he continued to imprint the image of Apollo on one side of his imperial coins, and the name of Christ on the other. In view of these things it may be safely and sincerely doubted whether he was ever converted at all. And we most decidedly call in question the Christian principle that could dwell consistently with a life so largely made up of heathen practices, and stained with so much blood.SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.5

    But to say nothing further on the subject of the “conversion” of Constantine, it is evident from Mr. Elliott’s argument that the “influences of government and society” which were essential to the complete sanctity of the “Christian Sabbath,” and for which it was compelled to wait nearly three hundred years, were embodied in an imperial edict of such a man, in honor—not of the Lord’s day, nor of the Christian Sabbath, nor of Christ, but—of the venerable day of the sun; that the legislation which was to enforce the “Christian Sabbath,” and make its observance universal, was a piece of legislation that enforced the “venerable day of the sun,” and made its observance partial, that is, obligatory upon only the people who lived in towns, and such as worked at trades; while country people might “freely and lawfully work.” However, on the nature of this legislation, we need ourselves to make no further comment. The author of “The Abiding Sabbath” exposes it so completely that we can better let him do it here. He says:—SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.6

    “To fully understand the provisions of this legislation, the peculiar position of Constantine must be taken into consideration. He was not himself free from all remains of heathen superstition. It seems certain that before his conversion he had been particularly devoted to the worship of Apollo, the sun-god.... The problem before him was to legislate for the new faith in such a manner as not to seem entirely inconsistent with his old practices, and not to come in conflict with the prejudices of his pagan subjects. These facts serve to explain the peculiarities of this decree. He names the holy day, not the Lord’s day, but the ‘day of the sun,’ the heathen designation, and thus at once seems to identify it with his former Apollo-worship; he excepts the country from the operation of the law, and thus avoids collision with his heathen subjects.”—P. 229.SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.7

    Now as he had been particularly devoted to the worship of Apollo, the sun-god; as he shaped this edict so as not to be inconsistent with his old practices, and not to conflict with the prejudices of this pagan subjects; as he gives the day its heathen designation, and thus identifies it with his former Apollo-worship; and as in it he avoids collision with his heathen subjects; then we should like to know where in the edict there comes in any legislation for his Christian subjects. In other words, if he had intended to legislate solely and entirely for his heathen subjects, and to enjoin a heathen practice, could he have framed an edict that would more clearly show it than does the one before us? Impossible. Therefore, by Mr. Elliott’s own comments, it is demonstrated that the famous edict of Constantine was given wholly in favor of the heathen, enjoining the observance of a heathen institution, Sunday, in honor of the great heathen god, the sun. And if that was to favor Christianity, then so much the worse for the Christianity (?) which it favored. At the very best it could only be heathenism under the name of Christianity.SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.8

    Such is the command, and such its source, that it is seriously proposed shall be observed instead of the holy commandment of the living God, spoken with a voice that shook the earth, and twice written with his own blazing finger upon the enduring stone. Such is the day, and such its sanctions, that it is proposed shall wholly supplant the day to which have been given “the highest and strongest sanctions possible even to Deity,“—the day upon which God rested, which he blessed, which he sanctified, and which he has distinctly commanded us to keep, saying, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.” “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” The observance of the seventh day is that which we, by the word of God, urge upon the conscience of every man. But if we had no better reasons for it than are given in this five-hundred-dollar-prize essay, or than we have ever seen given, for the observance of Sunday, we should actually be ashamed ever to put our pen to paper to advocate it.SITI March 25, 1886, page 185.9

    A. T. J.

    “Notes on the International Lesson. The Word Made Flesh. John 1:1-18” The Signs of the Times 12, 12, pp. 186, 187.

    (April 4.—John 1:1-18.)

    IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.” “In the beginning,” that is, before creation, before time was; for in his prayer at the last supper he said: “O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold the glory which thou hast given me; for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” John 17:5, 24. How long before, no finite mind can measure; for in the announcement by the prophet of the place of his birth, when he came into the world, it is said: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” Micah 5:2. The margin reads, Hebrew, from “the days of eternity.” The mind must be able to grasp eternity before it can measure the length of days of the Saviour of the world; before it can know how long the Word was before the world was.SITI March 25, 1886, page 186.1

    THAT the Word was Jesus Christ is evident from verse 14. He is called the Word of God because through him is revealed to us the thoughts of God, as our words express our thoughts and feelings to others. He is the expression of God’s will to the children of men. “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” Colossians 2:9. In him is shown the love of God to the children of men. “In this was manifested the love of God toward us because that God send his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9. The words which he spake are the words of God: “For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.... Whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.” John 12:49, 50. In short, in him God revealed himself; for said Jesus, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” John 14:9. Christ is the Word of God.SITI March 25, 1886, page 186.2

    “AND the Word was God.” “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name then they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Hebrews 1:4-9. The Father calls the Son, God.SITI March 25, 1886, page 186.3

    “ALL things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.” “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Hebrews 1:1, 2. “God ... created all things by Jesus Christ.” Ephesians 3:9. “For by him were all things created, that are in Heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers; all things were created by him, and for him; and he is before all things, and by him all things consist (exist).” Colossians 1:16, 17. Now as Jesus Christ made all things, “and without him was not anything made that was made;” and as “the Sabbath was made” (Mark 2:27), it follows that Christ made the Sabbath. And as the Sabbath was made as the memorial of creation, that man might thus remember and honor the Creator; and as the seventh day is declared to be “the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” whomade 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,” it follows that the seventh day is the Sabbath of Christ the Lord. It is Christ who rested the seventh day. It is Christ who blessed and sanctified the seventh day. It is Christ who made the seventh day the Sabbath. And as long as he remains what he is, “The same yesterday, and to-day, and forever,” the seventh day must remain the Sabbath. It can change no more than he can change; for he has declared by his living word that it is the Sabbath; and he cannot deny himself.SITI March 25, 1886, page 186.4

    IT is the duty of all men to “honor the Son, even as the honor the Father.” John 5:23. It is not enough to honor the Son as Redeemer and King. He must be honored as Creator also, or else he is not honored even as is the Father. Now the Creator has appointed a memorial of creation, by the keeping of which he is remembered and honored as Creator. That memorial is the Sabbath, which he himself has made and declared to be the seventh day. That is the day which Christ the Creator made the Sabbath; it is the day by the observance of which he is honored as Creator. Therefore it is the duty of all men to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The seventh day is the Sabbath of Christ the Creator. Will you keep it, and so honor him as Creator?SITI March 25, 1886, page 187.1

    “IN him was life.” “The wages of sin is death.” Romans 6:23. “All have sinned.” Romans 3:23. Death has passed upon the whole human race. But in Christ there is life. “The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life.” John 3:36. “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” John 6:53. “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.” 1 John 5:11, 12. “When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Colossians 3:4.SITI March 25, 1886, page 187.2

    “AND the Word was made flesh.” That Word which was in the beginning; which was with God before the world was, even from the days of eternity,—that Word was made flesh. Mark, it does not say that the Word came and dwelt in a body of flesh, though distinct from it, as it is said the immortal soul dwells in the body, so that when the body died the Word left it, as it is said the immortal soul at death leaves the body of man. It says nothing of the kind. It does say, “The Word was made flesh.” John says: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” 1 John 1:1. This could not be said if that Word dwelt in a human body, as the immortal soul is said to do; for no man ever saw what is called the immortal soul, much less did any man ever handle one with his hands. If it be said that it was so, and that only the body died, while the real Word left the body and did not die, then what but a human sacrifice was ever made for the sins of the world? No; “The Word was made flesh,” “for the suffering of death.” Hebrews 2:9. He “poured out his soul unto death;” “Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.” Isaiah 53:10, 12. “I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.” Revelation 1:18. “The Word was made flesh.” The Word of God died. And we have a divine sacrifice for sin. “Whosoever believeth on him shall not perish;” for “He is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.” Hebrews 7:25.SITI March 25, 1886, page 187.3

    “AS many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.” “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God.... Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” 1 John 3:1, 2. Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.SITI March 25, 1886, page 187.4

    A. T. J.

    Larger font
    Smaller font
    Copy
    Print
    Contents