The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 76

December 5, 1899

“Editorial” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 49, p. 788.

FROM the evidence which we have given from the record made by the N.W.C.T.U., it is certain that “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day,” from the requirements of Sunday laws, which the union “favors,” does not exempt. That is to say, “the usual exemption” is so hedged about with restrictions that it is robbed of all the quality of an exemption. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.1

In order for any person to have the benefit of this “usual exemption,” it is not enough to observe another day, but the person observing another day must “believe in” it. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.2

Nor is it enough to “believe in” and “observe” another day; but the person observing another day must “conscientiously believe in” it. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.3

And when a person does conscientiously believe in and observe another day than Sunday as the Sabbath, still the exemption does not count unless the person “religiously” observes the day that he conscientiously believes in and observes. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.4

And when he “religiously” observes the day that he “conscientiously believes in and observes,” still the exemption does not count unless he “regularly” observes the day that he conscientiously believes in and religiously observes. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.5

And then the exemption does not count unless the “religious” and “regular” observance of this day that he “conscientiously believes in” and “observes,” is performed “by abstaining from labor and business.” ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.6

And even THEN the exemption does not count unless the work that he does on Sunday is work of “religion,” or work of “real necessity and mercy,” or “such private work as will neither interfere with the general rest or with public worship.” ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.7

That is to say that “the usual exemption” requires belief, and even conscientious belief; and religious action, and regular religious action, on whatever day a man may choose to observe as the Sabbath; and also requires religious conduct, both public and private, on Sunday, or else the exemption does not count. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.8

And even with all this, the “usual exemption” does not exempt from the requirements of the law, but only from the penalty of the law. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.9

This is certain, and we know it, from the fact that Mrs. Bateham, speaking for the N.W.C.T.U., said so at the great hearing on the national Sunday law, before the Senate Committee, in Washington, D.C., Dec. 13, 1888. Senator Blair had said to Mrs. Bateham these words:— ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.10

Let me ask you a few questions, Mrs. Bateham, to see if the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union understood exactly the relation of what they propose to do to this legislation. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.11

He then stated that an exemption of the observers of another day would allow these observers of another day to do the work of the post-offices, and that of such other occupations as the Sunday law was intended to prohibit, and thus the law would fail of its purpose in prohibiting these occupations on Sunday; that is, it would so fall by means of the very thing which they themselves proposed—the exempting of observers of another day in hope of checking their opposition to the law. His remarks are summed up in the following sentences:— ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.12

Now, you go to our Seventh-day Baptist or Adventist friends, for instance, and propose to introduce a principle by which they can carry on the Post-Office Department on the Sabbath just as completely as they see fit. In other words, you propose to exempt them from the operation of the law so far as it prohibits post-office work on the Sabbath. Suppose you have a Seventh-day Baptist man for postmaster. Suppose you fill up every post-office in the country, on the Sabbath, with Seventh-day Baptist people. You have the Post-Office Department in operation by virtue of this exemption because they can do the work conscientiously on that day. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.13

To this Mrs. Bateham made the following reply:— ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.14

If you remember the clause, we do not propose to provide that they shall be able to do this work; but that they shall be exempt from the penalty. They are not allowed to do the work; but they are to be exempt from the penalty. Therefore, unless they could prove that they had not done this work to the disturbance of others, it would be impossible for them to carry on post-office matters, for instance, or any other public employment, on Sunday. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.15

That is to say that by “the usual exemption for those who observe the Sabbath day,” every person who observes any other day than Sunday, is subject to surveillance, to arrest, and prosecution; and is thus subject to be put to all the expense, inconvenience, and loss of a course of prosecution, up to the point where it is discovered that all the manifold restrictions of the exemption have been complied with—then, and only then, the penalty of the Sunday law shall not be applied in his case. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.16

In other words, no one can be exempt from the requirements of the law: no one shall be allowed to do any work, either public or private, on Sunday, without being subject to prosecution. But when the prosecution has been put through its whole course, then he may be exempt from the penalty, provided he has fulfilled all the requirements of “the usual exemption,” which are that he shall “believe in,” and “conscientiously believe in,” and “conscientiously believe in” and “regularly” observe, and “conscientiously believe in” and “religiously” observe, another day than Sunday; and provided the work which was done was a “work of religion,” or a work of “real necessity and mercy, or such private work as does neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.” ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.17

This is also certain, because it is already a settled rule of the courts: that the burden of proof lies on him who claims the exemption; and also because Mrs. Bateham, speaking for the N.W.C.T.U., said that “unless they could prove that the work had not been to the disturbance of others, it would be impossible for them” to have the benefit of the exemption. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.18

And such is “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.” By the official and representative statement of the N.W.T.C.U., we know that such is “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.” ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.19

And that such is its exact operation was stated by Mrs. Tomlinson, in the late national convention at Seattle, and can be confirmed by the actual experience of nearly a hundred cases in the courts of several States within the last few years. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.20

What, then, is “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day” worth, which the N.W.C.T.U. has put itself on record as favoring?—It is not worth the paper that it is written on. It is a delusion and a snare to all who favor it. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.21

We do not say that the women of the W.C.T.U. understand that all this is in the usual exemption; but that is exactly what is in it, whether they understand it or not. And we write this simply that they and all may understand what is in it. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.22

“Editorial Note” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 49, p. 788.

THE Outlook also enters the lists as an apologist for slavery and polygamy within the jurisdiction of the United States. And, more inventive than any of its contemporaries, it actually drags down the Scriptures to sustain itself and the new-founded cause of slavery and polygamy. It does it thus:— ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.1

In our opinion the way in which Providence, as interpreted by the Mosaic dispensation, dealt with both these evils in the early history of Judaism indicates a better solution of the problem than that afforded by instant and immediate abolition. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.2

Now what sort of discernment or disposition is that in a professed Christian journal, that will reject the Sabbath of the Lord, which is laden with all spiritual blessings to mankind, and reject it because it was of “the Mosaic dispensation;” and then will ring in the provisions of the Mosaic dispensation in apology for sanctioning slavery and polygamy, which are laden only with the curse? ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.3

“Studies in Galatians. Galatians 3:6-9” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 49, pp. 788, 789.

THE Galatians and other Gentiles were justified by faith in Christ without circumcision. They thus became children of Abraham, because Abraham was justified by faith in Christ without circumcision. They thus became heirs also of the inheritance promised to Abraham, because Abraham received the promise of the inheritance by faith, without circumcision. Therefore, since they were children of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise to Abraham, and had the righteousness which fully entitles them to the inheritance,—all without circumcision,—and since in all this they were exactly as Abraham was, and were walking in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised, what possible need could there be of circumcision? ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.1

This is the answer that was made to the demands of the Pharisees who believed, who insisted that Gentiles who believe in Christ must be circumcised in order to be saved. This is the answer, in both Romans and Galatians, to the contention of the Pharisees who believed. This is the Christian argument. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.2

But to this they came back with the question, What profit was there ever in circumcision? What was circumcision for? How did it ever come in? And why should it ever have come in? And they argued, even admitting that Abraham had all this before he was circumcised, and the Gentiles now coming in and finding it all by faith without circumcision, just as Abraham did, the fact is that after Abraham got it all by faith, he was circumcised. Then, admitting that these have it all by faith, as he got it, why should not these be circumcised after they have it by faith, just as Abraham was circumcised after he got it by faith? Thus, claimed the Pharisees, it is not enough to say that Abraham received this by faith without circumcision, and that the Gentiles have gone far enough when they have received it all without circumcision, as did Abraham; because, when Abraham had received it without circumcision, he was afterward circumcised. Then the Gentiles have not gone far enough in the way of Abraham unless they, having what Abraham had without circumcision, also, as did Abraham, go yet farther, and be circumcised. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.3

This was the claim of the Pharisees who believed, and who went everywhere in opposition to the work of Paul, insisting that all the Gentiles who believe in Christ must be circumcised in order to be saved. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.4

And this same question is raised, even to this day, by many persons. Even to-day there are large numbers of people who ask the question, Why should not Christians be circumcised, because surely Abraham was circumcised, and he is the father of all them that believe? So that, though the same contention is not still carried on that was started by the Pharisees of Jerusalem in the days of the apostles, yet really the same query abides. And Romans and Galatians—Galatians particularly—is, even today, present truth; not only because of its insisting upon the everlasting truth that those who are justified by faith, as was Abraham, without circumcision are the children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise without circumcision. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.5

Why, then, was Abraham circumcised after he received the righteousness and the promises, and yet his true children—his children by faith—now be not circumcised? The answer is: For the simple reason that circumcision was not in the original plan. It was no part, and is no part, of the original order of God in justification or salvation. The truth is that if Abraham had continued to walk in the faith in which he walked before he was circumcised, he never would have been circumcised, nor any of his children. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.6

Why, then, was Abraham circumcised? It is important to know. And in order to know, it is important to look at the record in the Bible; for it is all there, and it is all plain. Notice, in Genesis 11:29-32 is the record of Abram’s leaving his native country. Then Genesis 12:1 tells us that the Lord “had said” unto Abram, “Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will show thee.” This shows that it was in obedience to the call of the Lord that Abram left his country, though his father’s house and his kindred were with him in this. And it was at that time, when God “had said” to him thus, that God also showed that he would justify the heathen through faith; for then it was that he preached the gospel unto Abram, saying, “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” Genesis 12:3; Galatians 3:8. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.7

After his father died, Abram came into the land of Canaan, and then it was that “the Lord appeared unto Abram and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land,” Genesis 12:7. But Abram’s kindred were yet with him; and though the Lord had now promised him the land, he had not yet showed it to him as he had said he would do, and he could not show it to him until he had become separated from his kindred as well as from his country and from his father’s house. But in the thirteenth chapter, Lot and his people, the only kindred that were with him, did separate from him; and just then, “after that Lot was separated from him,” the Lord said unto Abram, “Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever.” And the land which Abram then saw, and which was then promised to him, included “the world;” for this promise was “the promise, that he should be the heir of the world.” Romans 4:13. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.8

Then in Genesis 15, Abram said to the Lord “Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.” Verses 3-6. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.9

At the same time the Lord said to him: “I am the Lord that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.” And Abram asked, “Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” In answer the Lord made a covenant with Abram,—a covenant of sacrifice,—pledging his own life to the fulfilment of all that he had promised and spoken; for he told Abram to take “an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle dove, and a young pigeon.” And when Abram had divided them all in the midst except the birds, and had laid the pieces one against another upon the altar in sacrifice to God, and watched the sacrifices until the going down of the sun, then “a deep sleep fell upon Abram; and lo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him,” and “when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.” And “the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land.” Genesis 12:7-18. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.10

Thus Abram had received the blessing of God, which was to make him a blessing to all nations; he had received the promise of the world for an inheritance; he had received the promise of the seed in whom all nations should be blessed; he had received the righteousness of God; and God had made his covenant with him, in which he pledged himself: and all this by faith alone, utterly without circumcision, and with no mention or even hint of circumcision, or of any necessity for it. Thus the Lord had given to Abram, and by faith Abram had received, all that the Lord has to give anybody, and all that anybody ever can receive. And it was, and is, altogether of faith, and faith alone—faith without works, without circumcision. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.11

In the sixteenth chapter of Genesis, “Sarai said unto Abram. Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai.” Genesis 16:2. Hagar conceived and bare Ishmael. And we know, from the other scriptures, that this whole arrangement was altogether a scheme of the flesh, springing wholly from distrust of the promise of God, springing from unbelief; and Abraham had to repudiate it all, and bear the fearful test of the offering of his only son Isaac, on Mount Moriah, before he recovered his true standing in faith alone. It was an effort of themselves to fulfil the promise of God, which, in the nature of things, God alone could fulfil. It was an effort of the flesh to do the works of the Spirit, and so was a lapse by Abram from the true faith and work of God, into unbelief and the plans of self and the works of the flesh. Then it was that circumcision came in. And it was because of this that circumcision did come in. It was a mark made in the flesh as a reminder, a humiliating reminder, of Abram’s resort to the flesh; and thus also a reminder that every one who bore it must not make the same mistake that Abram did, but must remain true to the faith and work of God. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.12

Consequently, it is written: “Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law, but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.” And Abraham was “the father of circumcision” to them who are of the circumcision, when, and only when, they walked “in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.” Thus it was “a token that God had cut them out and separated them from all nations as his peculiar treasure.”—The Spirit of Prophecy 1:262. This must be so until the seed should come in the line of Abraham, in whom alone all these things can be fulfilled. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.13

Thus it is perfectly plain that if Abraham had been faithful to that which he received from God by faith, he never would have been circumcised. And it is equally certain that when any one, receiving by faith in Christ alone, as Abraham received it, that which Abraham received, he needs not to be circumcised. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.14

Since the Seed has come who is the giver of all the promises, who is the pledge of the covenant, who is the one from whom must come all that was promised to Abram, and which Abraham received by faith alone, then, whosoever believes in Him and walks by faith alone in him, as did Abram before he was circumcised, in the nature of things he needs not be circumcised. For the fruit of this faith was, in Abram, and is in every one who believes, the keeping of the commandments of God. Genesis 26:5; Galatians 6; 1 Corinthians 7:19. And so it is written: “If man had kept the law of God, as given to Adam after his fall, preserved by Noah, and observed by Abraham, there would have been no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision.—Patriarchs and Prophets, 364. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.15

And since the faith of Jesus brings to the believer in Jesus, and gives to the believer in Jesus, the perfect keeping of the law of God, the perfect righteousness of God, there is “no necessity for the ordinance of circumcision.” And let all the people say, Amen. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.16

This is the mighty truth that Paul saw. This is the mighty truth that Stephen saw. And though it is made so plain in the Scriptures, and is now so plain to us, yet to the carnally minded Jews and the formalistic “Pharisees which believed,” it seemed but the uprooting of all religion, and as fairly an attack upon the very foundations of the Throne. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 788.17

“Editorial Bit” Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, 76, 49, p. 789.

THE Catholic Mirror, Oct. 14, 1899, takes the pains to present, for the instruction of English-speaking people, a translation from the French, an article declaring that “the [Catholic] church claims, and always has claimed, the right of punishing heresy;” that “the church believed it her duty to repress heresy, and impressed the civil authorities with the same duty, holding herself responsible for whatever wrong or right there was in such repression;” that “the church took this stand against heresy, because the chief heresies of the Middle Ages were subversive of society, and, therefore, the church in destroying them, saved society from anarchy and even destruction.” Among the “great heresies” are named those of the Albigenses, the Waldenses, Wycliffe, and John Huss. These “forced the church, as the guardian of society, to suppress them with severity.” The article then closes with the following as a sort of conclusive summary:— ARSH December 5, 1899, page 789.1

The church in the Middle Ages did persecute heresy often with extreme severity. It did so legitimately, because these heresies meant social anarchy, the ruin of the family, and the commission of crimes which to-day are repressed by civil punishments, often death itself, in every civilized country. The church saved society by repressing heresy in the Middle Ages, and she has, therefore, no excuse to offer for her action beyond an occasionally misdirected zeal of her officers. ARSH December 5, 1899, page 789.2