Earlier text: Salvation ConditionalAn old man said: "I always speak to the children. They speak to me. It keeps me young. It makes me happy. It gives me an interest in them." Good results are these, from a small effort, and suggestive. While our Sabbath-schools are not designed wholly for children, these form a very essential part of the school. Speak to them. Treat them as you do grown-up gentlemen and ladies. Make them happy. Have a genuine interest in them, and have the happiness of knowing that you are kept young thereby.—Ex. “No, I won’t drink with you to-day, boys,” said a drummer to several companions, as they settled down in the smoking-car and passed the bottle. “The fact is, boys, I have quit drinking—I’ve sworn off.” His words were greeted by shouts of laughter by the jolly crowd around him; they put the bottle under his nose and indulged in many jokes at his expense, but he refused to drink, and was rather serious about it. “What is the matter with you, old boy?” sang out one. “If you’ve sworn off drinking, something is up; tell us what it is?” “Well, boys, I will, although I know you’ll laugh at me. But I’ll tell you, all the same. I have been a drinking man all my life, ever since I was married; as you all know, I love whisky—it’s as sweet in my mouth as sugar—and God only knows how I’ll quit it. For seven years not a day has passed over my head that I didn’t have at least one drink. But I am done. Yesterday I was in Chicago. On South Clark Street a customer of mine keeps a pawn shop in connection with his other branches of business. Well, I called on him, and while I was there a young man of not more than twenty-five, wearing threadbare clothes, and looking as hard as if he hadn’t seen a sober day for a month, came in with a little package in his hand. Tremblingly he unwrapped it, and handed the article to the pawnbroker, saying:— “And, boys, what do you suppose that it was? A pair of baby shoes, little things with the buttons only a trifle soiled, as if they had been worn only once or twice.” “Where did you get these?” asked the pawnbroker. “Got ‘em at home,” replied the man, who had an intelligent face and the manner of a gentleman, despite his sad condition. “My—my wife bought them for our baby. Give me ten cents for ‘em—I want a drink.” “You had better take the shoes back to your wife; the baby will need them,” said the pawnbroker. “No s-she won’t, because—because she’s dead. She’s lying at home now—died last night.” “As he said this the poor fellow broke down, bowed his head on the showcase, and cried like a child. Boys,” said the drummer, “you can laugh if you please, but I—I have a baby of my own at home, and I swear I’ll never drink another drop.” Then he got up and went into another car. His companions glanced at each other in silence; no one laughed; the bottle disappeared, and soon each was sitting in a seat by himself reading a newspaper.—Chicago Herald. Prohibit Gambling and Rum, Not Regulate
By Home Guard
We do not "regulate" gambling; we prohibit it. We do not "regulate" piracy; we prohibit it. We do not "regulate" murder and theft and highway robbers; we prohibit them. Why endeavor to "regulate" rum, the cause, and prohibit the result. We chop off the branches, but cultivate the root. Drunkenness and Responsibility
By Asotin Spirit
"STEVE HUNTER, while drunk, attacked his wife at Clinton, Ill., and inflicted wounds which will probably prove fatal." And nobody responsible; not even the murderer, for the murder was committed while he was drunk, and certainly you would not hold a man responsible for what he does while drunk; and as for the saloon-keeper, he paid his money for the privilege of making the man insane, and to interfere with the right to sell liquor would be a violation of natural rights; so the selling and killing must go on.—Asotin Spirit. DEATH is a "cessation of life." Webster says it is that state wherein there is "an entire cessation of the vital functions." Hence, life must precede death; there can be no cessation of the vital functions where no vital functions have existed. It is not strictly correct to speak of a stone as "dead matter," for it never died; it never took on the condition of death; it never had life. Every one can see that there can be no death where there is no process or act of dying. Then the question arises, Can there be eternal or everlasting death without an everlasting act of dying? According to the philosophy of some people, there cannot. But we think there can. This is an objection which is often urged against those who believe that death is the penalty for sin. They say that a person cannot long suffer the pangs of death, and that his punishment is therefore of brief duration, as it must cease when his consciousness and sufferings cease. This may appear to them to be very good philosophy, but is scarcely good sense, and certainly not according to the teachings of the Scriptures. The apostle Paul speaks of "eternal judgment." But we cannot think that he means that the process of judgment must be going on eternally. That is not the truth. Eternal judgment is that of which the consequences are eternal; it is a judgment of eternal destinies. The act of judging any individual must necessarily cease at some time; the consequences or the result of the act will never cease. And thus it is of eternal death. A person will never die unless he sometime reaches the point where he is dead; where the act of dying ceases. "The death that never dies," is a figment of a poet's fancy; at least, as the phrase is generally used. If by it were meant that the condition of death, into which the wicked will be brought as the penalty of their sins, will never cease, that from that death there will be no resurrection, then we would accept it as the truth of the Scriptures. The idea of punishing a dead man with death would be an absurdity; and if a court should sit on a dead man's case, and resolve to punish him, the decision would be a nullity, unless the man were restored to life that he might be punished. All laws recognize the fact that a man must be conscious of the infliction of the penalty in order to his punishment. What would be thought of the court which would fine a man one thousand dollars for an offense, and then order the officer to go and abstract that amount from the coffers of the criminal, but not to let him know it? Such an order would only excite the derision of all sensible people. With the infliction of death upon the ungodly, the Lord has threatened "tribulation and anguish;" Rom. 2:9. Or, as the Saviour says of "the children of the wicked one," "And shall cast them into a furnace of fire; there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matt. 13:38, 42, 49, 50. See also 2 Pet. 3:7, and Rev. 20:10-15. This tribulation and anguish is in the "furnace of fire," or "lake of fire and brimstone," which is the second death. Thousands of wicked ones go to the grave, of whom the man of God says, "there are no bands in their death; but their strength is firm. They are not in trouble like other men, neither are they plagued like other men." Ps. 73:4, 5. To say that such have received their punishment because they are dead is to make a farce of the most solemn threatenings of God's word. Many, very many, of them have died as the patriarch said of the wicked, "One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet;" and the threatenings of tribulation and anguish upon such will be fulfilled only when that other scripture is fulfilled: "Do ye not know their tokens, that the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath." Job 21:23, 29, 30. The Saviour said they shall "come forth . . . to the resurrection of damnation." John 5:29; for "there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Acts 24:15. They are willing to take awful risks who will quarrel with such plain statements of the word of God as these. Now it must be conceded that no one can be "brought forth to the day of wrath," and be visited with "tribulation and anguish," and not be conscious of it. There is no tribulation, no anguish, where there is no consciousness; and it is equally evident that the tribulation and anguish must cease when the penalty of death is fully inflicted; when all the vital functions have forever ceased. And then returns the self-same question, though not in the same words, yet to the same intent: If tribulation and anguish are necessarily connected with the infliction of punishment on the wicked, must not the tribulation and anguish endure as long as the punishment endures? We answer, No; the tribulation and anguish are inseparable from the process of dying; but the process of dying eventuates in death; and when death has taken place, the process has ceased; anguish is past; consciousness is lost. But is the person still under the effects of the sentence? Or, in other words, is he still under punishment? Yes; and will be to everlasting; he will be, as long as the death endures to which he was sentenced. It is easy to see that a person may be conscious of suffering under the sentence of an eternal judgment, without being eternally conscious of suffering. He may be conscious of suffering the pains of eternal death without being eternally conscious of the pains of death. And therefore he may be conscious of suffering the anguish of eternal punishment, without being eternally conscious in that anguish. Indeed, if that eternal punishment be eternal death, or everlasting destruction, it must be impossible that he should be eternally conscious, for, in that case, death could never take place—he would never be destroyed. Peter says that God knows how "to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 2 Peter 2:9. Some say that past generations of the wicked have already been punished, as they are already dead; and the wages of sin is death. But if that be so, then the generations of the righteous have also been punished in like manner, for they are dead also. But we need not argue the case; the argument is all made out in the inspired word. Thus: 1. Paul said, at Athens, that God has appointed a day in which he will judge the world. But if the wicked dead are already punished, there was no propriety in Paul placing the judgment of the world in the future; the longer part of it was then in the past. 2. He said the Lord would judge the quick, the living, and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom. According to that view this declaration could only be partly true, for the dead are already judged, and true wherein it is true only to a quite limited extent. 3. Peter said that the heavens and earth which are now are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. This language can have no force according to the view we call in question, for the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men has been in existence ever since the day of Cain's death. 4. The book of Revelation says that "the time of the dead, that they should be judged," comes under the seventh trumpet, at the very close of the gospel dispensation. If that view be correct, this text cannot be true, for they have been already judged, and as to the wicked dead, they have been both judged and punished. We could greatly multiply such evidences, but there is no need. They who deny a few plain Scripture declarations will find no difficulty in denying many. We believe that the lake of fire, the second death, awaits all the ungodly, and that "it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment," than for those who reject the greater light of the present day. Matt. 10:15. Thus believing, "we persuade men." "There Is One Body."
By Editor
THESE are the words of Paul in his letter to the Ephesians. Christ is the head of the body, which is the church. As Christ is one, there is but one head, and of course there can be but one body. If there were more than one body, there would of necessity be more than one head. And yet, in spite of this truth, there are people, calling themselves by the various names of "Kingdom believers," "Age to Come believers," and "Christadelphians," who virtually deny this conclusion; who affirm that the Gentiles are not fellow-heirs with Israel, and of the same body, and partakers of the promises of God in Christ by the gospel. Eph. 3:6. These would build up the middle wall of partition that has been broken down, and insist that he only is a Jew which is one outwardly, and that they are all Israel which are of Israel. Rom. 2:28, 29; 9:6, 7. Paul speaks to those who were "Gentiles in the flesh," that is, by birth, and says:— "That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." And some there are who have not yet learned that in the gospel the position of believers from the Gentiles is so changed that they do not stand a separate body. The apostle continues:— "But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers [from the covenants of promise] and foreigners, but fellow-citizens [of the commonwealth of Israel] with the saints, and of the household of God." Eph. 2:12-19.457 It seems very much like obstinacy for any one or any class to still maintain, in the face of these declarations, that the literal Israelites are heirs to "the covenants of promise" to the exclusion of the Gentiles. Who are Abraham's seed? Not the unbelieving Israelites, but the faithful from every nation who believe in Christ. "For they are not all Israel which are of Israel." "He is not a Jew which is one outwardly." And if this be so, how can the promise be claimed for him which belongs to the Jew—to the Israel of God? The Saviour speaks of those who say they are Jews, but are not; they are of the synagogue of Satan. Rev. 3:9. To this agree his words to the Jews while he was on earth. John 8:39, 44. And Paul says again: "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Gal. 3:29. We repeat what we have often said, that all the special promises to the literal descendants of Jacob, were to them as a nation, and were under a covenant made with them at Horeb, called the first or old covenant. But that covenant is all done away. Now if Israel, as a nation, can claim any promise under that covenant, two points must be taken for granted:— 1. An injustice was done to them in abolishing a covenant under which they had claims; or, if it were all of grace, it was a frustration of grace to many generations, to take from them a covenant under which they had claims on certain unfulfilled promises. 2. As all these special or national blessings belonged to the old covenant, and can have no place under the new, if they are yet to be fulfilled, the old covenant must be restored. That is to say, the middle wall of partition which was broken down by the gospel, must be built up again. And this can only be done by the abrogation of the new covenant, for both covenants cannot be in force at the same time. And what is the position of those who are aiming to do such a work as this? Paul said: “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Gal. 2:18. And they who would restore the old covenant, and claim national blessings to those who are not of faith, and therefore are not truly Abraham’s seed, make themselves transgressors against the gospel. They are enemies to the cross of Christ, by which Jews and Gentiles are made one body, and alike partakers of the promises. Paul also says to the Romans that the natural branches (literal Israel) were broken off by reason of their unbelief, but they may be restored by faith. Hence the restoration is an individual work, and is accomplished in precisely the same manner, and by the same means, that the Gentiles are grafted in. In a state of unbelief they are not Abraham’s seed; they are not heirs to the promises; they have become aliens and foreigners. God has not cast them away so that they cannot be recovered; but the work of recovery is in the same manner in which the Gentiles are made children of Abraham. He who denies this, denies the gospel of Christ. When we presented these facts at the North Pacific camp-meeting, a “Judaising” preacher said to his friends that we had not touched the point. He used a harsher expression than we care to re-produce—especially as it reflected directly upon the truths which we read from the Bible. But he rested principally upon the declaration that God had promised to favor Israel for his name’s sake, and for their father’s sake. Granted; and what then? Suppose we take the words of Christ and of Paul and prove that the believing Gentiles are the children of Abraham, and heirs of the promise; and in like manner prove that the unbelieving literal or fleshly descendants of Abraham have forfeited the promises, and have become the synagogue of Satan, and are not the children of Abraham, or children of the promise, the objector gains nothing by his confident declaration. We fully believe that every promise of God will be fulfilled; but we take the Scriptures to prove to whom they will be fulfilled. We do not believe that any promise of God will ever be fulfilled to any who forfeit them by unfaithfulness. Who can gainsay this, Christ said the kingdom of God was taken from fleshly Israel because of their unbelief, Matt. 21:43; and James tells us who are heirs of it. Jas. 2:5. And to this agree all the Scriptures. The Reason Why.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
For years people were content to keep the first day of the week as the Sabbath because they were taught from childhood that this was right. No one felt called upon to give a special reason for doing that which no one questioned. We say that no one questioned the correctness of their action, not because there were none who condemned first-day observance both by word and act, but because those who kept the seventh day were so few in number as to be practically unknown. And so people kept Sunday because their parents did, and were content. Whenever the good people wished to reason with a worldling who would persist in finding his own pleasure on the first day of the week, they would quote, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy," taking it as a matter of course that "Sabbath" meant Sunday, and that the fourth commandment was gotten up for the express purpose of protecting the first day from worldly toil and pleasure. But the time came when their quiet was disturbed. Those who read the commandment far enough to find out that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord," and had the courage to obey the commandment as it reads, preached the "new" doctrine with such vigor as to attract general attention. To the surprise of all the people who were quietly following custom, and to the disgust of many of them, it was found that the seventh day really is the Sabbath of the Bible, that it was that day that received the divine blessing and sanctification in the beginning, and that unfortunately the Bible writers had omitted to say anything about a change of the day of weekly rest. Some persons very sensibly concluded that if the Lord had wanted men to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh he would have said something about it, and immediately adopted God’s original plan. They reasoned that God was abundantly able to make known his will, that he had done so very clearly in times past, even concerning matters of seemingly little importance, and that when he had not spoken it was very presumptuous in man to speak for him. See Eze. 13:7. Others, however, acted on the principle that Sunday-keeping must be right because, (1) It has been kept by nearly all the world for many centuries; (2) The leaders of the church do not accept the seventh-day Sabbath (see John 7:47, 48), and they certainly ought to know what is right; (3) It would be very inconvenient to make a change; and therefore (4) They were determined not to change. Having come to this conclusion, they felt that it was incumbent on them to give some reason for their course of action, especially since they were very strongly urged to do so by those who kept the Sabbath "according to the commandment." Accordingly they promptly gave, substantially, the following "reasons":— - "The Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, because Christ rose from the dead on that day."
- "The first day of the week is the one that was originally sanctified. The Jews were too wicked to be allowed to keep it, so the Lord let them keep Saturday for a while; but there has really been no change at all in the Sabbath day."
- "We keep Sunday because the world is round, and it is impossible to keep any one day."
- "The seventh day is indeed the Sabbath, and all men ought to keep it, for it is plainly commanded; but we can’t tell which day of the week is the seventh, and therefore we keep the first."
- "The seventh day was the Sabbath from the beginning, but the Jews lost their reckoning while in Egypt, and since that time nobody has had the correct reckoning of the time."
- "The Jews lost the correct reckoning during the Babylonian captivity, and consequently no one can tell whether or not the day that they now keep is the true seventh day."
- "Christ kept the seventh-day Sabbath, and so did his disciples, 'according to the commandment;' but during the dark ages of papal supremacy much time was lost; indeed, no reckoning whatever was kept for a long time, and so it is absolutely impossible to tell whether our Saturday is the seventh or the fourth day of the week, or even to tell in what year of the Christian era we are now living."
- "We keep the first day of the week because, after the resurrection of Christ, the apostles kept it, and from their time to the present we have an uninterrupted record of Sunday observance."
- "The commandment enjoins the observance of only a seventh part of time; there is nowhere in the Bible a command to keep a definite day, so we keep Sunday."
- "The ten commandments are now abolished, and the New Testament is the Christian’s only guide; but it is not a book of laws, and we don’t find in it any express command for Sabbath observance, and we therefore observe the first day of the week."
These are only a few of the many "reasons" given for keeping Sunday rather than the seventh day. As will be readily surmised, they were not developed in council, but were "sought out" by different individuals as occasion required. We but state the simple truth, however, when we say we have heard every one of the above "reasons" given in a single discourse, and that by a minister who was held in high repute as a man of learning. Whenever the above-mentioned "reasons" seemed unsatisfactory, others were given that were equally conclusive!
In spite of all this, people would wonder why the Bible contains no command for Sunday observance. They "knew" Sunday-keeping was right, but felt hurt that the Lord had not vouchsafed them one word of encouragement. If only one text could be found, what a relief it would be. Such ones may set their minds at rest. The Rev. J. M. Bailey, D. D., has found out just the reason why the Bible is silent on the subject of first-day observance; and he has given his discovery to the world through the columns of the Morning Star, a Free-Will Baptist journal published in Dover, N. H. He says:— "It appears that the day of convocation was changed from the seventh to the first on the very day of the resurrection of Christ. What he said to the disciples about it to convince them, we have no means of knowing. [Italics ours.] He met some of them several times that day, and then appeared in their assembly where they met with closed doors for fear of the Jews, and sanctioned their meeting by breathing on them the Holy Spirit, and sending them forth as the Father had sent him. Probably for fear of the Jews, what he said against Judaism, or in favor of the Christian Sabbath, was not published." Do not smile, dear reader. This was written in sober earnest, by a learned D. D., for the express purpose of combating the errors of seventh-day keepers. We do not know how he regards his work, but it is our opinion that he leaves nothing more to be said. Before closing we wish to ask, Who was it that was so fearful? Was it Christ, who denounced the Jews to their face, calling them hypocrites? Of course he did not fear personal violence to himself. Was it Peter who feared to tell what Christ had said against the Sabbath and in favor of Sunday?—he who faced the Jewish Sanhedrin, and, charging that body with the murder of Jesus, boldly declared that "we ought to obey God rather than men." Paul was not present on that night, but he was "not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" (2 Cor. 11:5), being taught by the Lord Jesus himself. Gal. 1:11, 12. No one can accuse him of fearing to preach the word, and he himself declared that he had not shunned to declare "all the counsel of God." Acts 20:26, 27; but he has left nothing on record concerning Sunday-keeping.
We need not pursue the subject further. We will simply say that we too believe that fear operated to a certain extent to prevent the disciples from preaching that the Sabbath was changed. Not the fear of458 the Jews, but fear of disobeying Christ's instruction in Matt. 28:19, 20; fear of being found false witnesses of God, and bringing upon themselves the curse recorded in Gal. 1:8, 9. Christians and Mechanical Inventions
IN opposition to the infidel assertion that only persons of small mental calibre believe in Christianity, Rev. W. F. Crafts, in the Christian at Work, gives a list of twenty of the principal mechanical inventions now in use, the most of which were produced by men who believed in the Christian religion. It is stated that the world is indebted to infidels for but very few of the useful inventions of the age. AT the meeting of the Pacific Coast Council in East Portland, June 30, 1884, the recommendation that our Conferences encourage as many as possible to go to Healdsburg College, "to fit themselves for work, not only as preachers, but as canvassers, colporters, and teachers," being under consideration, Prof. Brownsberger made the following remarks:— We all agree that much depends upon education. And much of our education is received outside of the school-room, in association with others. Few operate on correct principles. It is most important that right principles be inculcated in childhood, yet this duty is mostly neglected. The first object of the Healdsburg school is to give education to young men and young women to fit them for work in the cause of God. This is the object of all the schools established by the Seventh-day Adventists. The school at Battle Creek, for a time, declined to the giving only of a usual college course in Greek, Latin, etc., with a view to fitting the pupils for professions in secular things. As "the whole duty of man" consists in obeying God, and to glorify God is the chief end of man, we hold that our first object as educators should be to make men and women practical workers in the cause of God. This is the chief object of the Healdsburg College. The character of the instruction in the Scriptures in this school, is more that of a drill than of lectures. Drill on the Bible, and in practical work in the various branches of the cause of God. This is instruction in practical godliness. The daily recitation is from forty-five minutes to an hour. Questions on the topic of the hour are written on the blackboard beforehand, that the students may study them before they refer to the Bible references, which gives them time and opportunity to investigate, and think and reason for themselves. Then they are instructed in the Scriptures which give a solution of the subject under consideration. It is not a process of pouring in, but of leading out, by genuine educational principles. Reviews are frequent. Unless it is so, the lessons will soon fade from the mind; the ideas become dim. Review, review, review, makes thoroughness. This is just what they need when they go into the world and into the work; and then they can give Bible, in an intelligent manner, for whatever they believe or teach. We want familiarity with the Bible; and by such a process—such a drill—the students cannot help becoming familiar with the Bible. In connection with Bible study there are many other things taught, so that every person who goes out to work may make himself useful in many ways. Some think that just one thing is all that is necessary. But we want to be able to do many things. In the school we have a missionary class daily during part of the year. Actual missionary work is done; letters are written, and everything is done to instruct in real work. By daily examinations, interchange and corrections of letters written, the rough edges are smoothed down and polished in the correspondence, and also in their association with others. Also the general principles of book-keeping are taught, and especially the methods of keeping missionary books and accounts. Instruction in the Sabbath-school work is not the least important. There is a great lack of good superintendents and teachers. There is a work to be done in the Sabbath-school that cannot be done in any other place. In Healdsburg we aim to have a model Sabbath-school, and to work as many as possible into becoming practical, efficient teachers. The teachers' meetings are made the most interesting part of our Sabbath-school. We intend to make it the very best school for building up the Sabbath-school work, as well as the other branches of the cause. Besides these different lines of instruction, we have classes specially for those who need to be educated in the common branches. We could not put these into our general classes and reasonably expect to secure immediate results. Some use poor language, and must be taught that especially for a while. Others spell poorly. And, oh, so many are poor readers! When reading the Bible or a hymn, they obscure the real spirit or point of it, rather than make it clear, and forcible, and impressive to those who hear. All these points are made the subjects of special drill. The exercises of the Students' Home (North College Hall), are intended to make the students both diligent and useful. All things there combine to elevate, refine, and fit them to have a refining influence upon others, and to strengthen them in character. As we go on, and the school increases, all these things will develop more and more, and we shall be better prepared to do good work for the cause in which we are engaged. We have the very best facilities and the very best instruction to fit your young men and young women for usefulness in the world, and in the cause of God. NOTE.—The above is only a synopsis of the Professor's remarks, as they were not reported in full. They were well received, and increased the interest in the school. These northern Conferences are coming to realize that Healdsburg College is not merely a "California school," but is established for the benefit of the coast States and Territories. Sunday Lord's Day, Papal.
By Uriah Smith
1. THE whole theological world are assiduously taught that the first day of the week has been called the Lord's day, and unanimously observed as the Sabbath by Christians ever since the days of Christ. This claim is not sustained by either the Bible or history. Rev. 1:10 is the only scripture that is brought forward to prove that the term "Lord's day" had become the familiar title of the first day of the week in the days of the apostles. There are a number of objections to such an application of this scripture:— First. John does not say that it was the first day of the week which he here calls the Lord's day, nor does he make the least statement from which such a conclusion can be inferred. That point has to be wholly assumed. Secondly. As we look back of the time of John's vision on Patmos, into the history of Sunday with Christ and the apostles, we find no intimation that they regarded it as the Lord's day; for Christ never took the day into his lips, and the apostles speak of it only eight times, and uniformly call it the first day of the week. Thirdly. John wrote his gospel two years after his Revelation (see Thoughts on Revelation, p. 28); and in his gospel he twice speaks of the first day of the week, and calls it, not Lord's day, as he would have done if it had come to be the general name for that day when his Revelation was given, but simply "first day of the week." Fourthly. The seventh day of the week is in the most express manner called God's holy day. It is the one day of the seven which he has reserved to himself. And the Son of man, through whom the worlds were made, John 1:3; Heb. 1:2, and who was consequently associated with his Father in the institution of the Sabbath at the beginning, expressly styles himself the Lord of the Sabbath-day. Mark 2:28. Therefore we say that the Lord's day of Rev. 1:10, is the seventh day of the week, not the first. No ecclesiastical writer previous to A. D. 194 gives the title of Lord's day to the first day of the week. The so-called epistle of Barnabas is spurious. The letter of Pliny to Trajan speaks of a stated day, but does not specify which day of the week it was. The epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians is itself a forgery; and the passage which is made to speak of Sunday as the Lord's day has been interpolated into that forgery. Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, does not use the term Lord's day, as is so often asserted. Clement of Alexandria, A. D. 194, uses the term ambiguously, perhaps referring to the first day of the week. Victor, bishop of Rome, A. D. 196, attempted to honor the day by an effort to have Easter uniformly celebrated on that day. Tertullian, A. D. 200, furnishes the first evidence of abstinence from labor on that day. In A. D. 321, Constantine made a law in behalf of the "venerable day of the sun," which was the first Sunday law. But this was a pagan edict, Constantine not yet having become even nominally Christian. At his so-called conversion, two years later, in A. D. 323, this law for Sunday as a heathen festival, being unrepealed, was made use of by Sylvester, bishop of Rome, now reckoned in the line of popes, to enforce Sunday observance as a Christian institution. These are the indubitable facts of history, authenticated by a reference to the original authorities in the "History of the Sabbath," by J. N. Andrews, to which the reader is particularly referred. 2. An objection. The papacy was not fully established till A. D. 538, more than two hundred years after Constantine's law. How, then, can Sunday be called an institution of popery, and the change be attributed to the little horn, according to the prophecy of Daniel, which is a symbol of the papal power? Let it be remembered that Sunday, as a subject of prophecy, is Sunday as a Christian institution. The question, then, is, What power or influence established this observance in the Christian church? Not Constantine; for his legislation referred to it as a heathen festival, although he furnished a means which was shrewdly manipulated by pope Sylvester in enforcing it among Christians. But it was brought in by the working of that influence which finally resulted in the establishment of the papacy. The papacy existed in embryo long before Constantine's time. The mystery of iniquity worked even in Paul's day, 2 Thess. 2:7, waiting only the removal of the restraining influence of paganism, to reveal, in its full strength, the papacy before the world. The root of this monstrous system of evil runs back far into the centuries before its open development, like the tree which sends its tap-root far down into the earth beyond the sight of the observer. Through that root the Sunday has found its way into the professed church of Christ; and on that tree it appears as one of the most characteristic fruits. As an institution, Sunday is both pagan and papal; as a rival of the Sabbath of the Lord, it is wholly papal. Waldensian Mission Reports 500 Converts
The Waldensian Mission in Italy reported about 500 converts last year, chiefly from the Roman Church. Catholic Boards of Education
By Editor
THE following item from the Lever is worthy of note: "The Catholics have set on foot a project which is, perhaps, the most important of any they have yet undertaken in regard to school matters in this country. It is to establish boards of education in all large cities, that shall have charge of all the Catholic schools, and thus systematize and make more effective the work of Catholic education. The first has just been instituted at Milwaukee, and the work is under the immediate authority and canonical blessing of the pope. This action is most significant and important, and will virtually consolidate the Catholic school system of America under the management and direction of Rome."