Earlier text: General ArticlesResponsibility for Belief.
By G. H. Ide
It was a saying of Demosthenes that every speech should begin with an incontrovertible proposition. This was the reason, possibly, why Robert G. Ingersoll, a few Sabbaths ago, in Chicago, opened his address with what he assumed to be an indisputable proposition. As reported in the Times, his first words were, "Nothing can be more certain than that no human being can, by any possibility, control his thought. We are in this world; we see, we hear, we taste. Every thing in nature makes an impression on the brain, and that wonderful something weaves what we call thought. And the brain can no more help thinking than the heart can help beating. This being true, no human being can be held responsible for his thought." This is axiomatic according to the champion of infidelity. But if this is so plain that "a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err," it seems a little strange that the orator should draw this sharp contrast at the close of his address. "Without love," he says, "we are less than beasts, but with it we are gods." Now, on the supposition that man cannot control his thought, it is very difficult to determine whether, on the whole, it would be better to be a beast or a god. Certainly, the god deserves no credit for being a god, neither does the beast deserve any blame for being a beast. Since men, as beasts or gods, are not responsible for their thought, why should one be set above the other, and called by a different name, as though either could help being what he is. How much value is such a distinction if man has not power to control his thought? This theory, without doubt, has been a great comfort to Col. Ingersoll during the last few months, in his connection with the Star Route thieves. He could not control his thought, and that is why he was found defending official depravity. The poor man's brain got to weaving thought, and it happened to turn out a fabric that was admirably adapted to clothe his clients with immunity from the penalty of the law. It seems almost paradoxical that the shuttle of his brain did not change its movement during the long trial, and for a moment, at least, employ itself in weaving a little thought that respected honesty as well as fraud. Looking, then, at this statement, that man cannot control his thought, we find that it is tantamount to saying that he has not the power of attention. Hamilton, in his work on metaphysics, says, that the difference between an ordinary and an extraordinary man is this: the one is capable of the application of a more continuous attention than another; both have the power of controlling thought, but one to a greater degree than the other. Sir Isaac Newton, with his usual modesty when complimented on his genius, replied that if he had made any discoveries it was owing more to patient attention than any other talent. Bacon claimed that men differed from one another only in the power of attention. Paul, in his second letter to the Corinthians, speaks of "bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ." The most commonplace fact in experience is, that men can and do control their thought. Every parent who sends his child to school indicates thereby that he believes that thought can be directed and controlled. If a child cannot control his thought, why command him to study arithmetic and grammar, and give him the birch if he turns away from his tasks? Since, then, we can control thought, we are responsible for it—not responsible for having thought, but for the kind of thought we have. In connection with responsibility for thought, comes responsibility of belief. For what is belief? It is the practical conclusion of our thought. No one has a belief concerning any subject about which he has had no thought. We are responsible for what we think; so we are responsible for the results of our thinking, which are beliefs. But right here we meet with the current proverb that "it makes no difference what a man believes." "One belief is as good as another." But this is like saying, It is a good time to plant, but it makes no difference what the crop is. Belief is the harvest of our thought, and if there is any part of our life that needs to be correct, it is our belief. There is a farmer who declares that it makes no difference what a man believes. As he has no wheat to sow in his fields he decides to put in sawdust. "I believe in sawdust," he says. How much does that belief help him when the snow comes and his children are crying for bread? He discovers at last that in order to be saved from starvation he must believe in wheat, not in sawdust. We fall in with a man who is about to engage in navigation. He affirms, with an air of confidence, that it makes no difference what a man believes. "I have my own ideas about sailing a vessel. I do not believe what the books say about it; I take no stock in charts and compasses; one belief is as good as another about navigation." What does that man find out at last? That the difference between one belief and another is the difference between shipwreck and safety. "I believe," says the merchant, "that goods made of dust and scrapings are just as well for my shelves as goods made of wool or cotton. I do not tie myself up to orthodox notions of trade. I take liberal views of commercial affairs." What is his conclusion finally? If a merchant believes a fool, right he prospers in business; if he believes wrong he fails. But it is urged in respect to physical truths, men must believe right to gain any desirable end, but this is not necessary in the realm of morals and religion. Suppose, then, some parent has inculcated in his family the doctrine that it makes no difference as to what a man believes in the sphere of morality. He returns to his home some evening after work, and finds his boy telling falsehoods. He proceeds to reprove him, but the boy turns to him and says, "Father it makes no difference what a man believes about morality. It is a convenient way of avoiding a difficulty sometimes." Ah! it does make no difference what a boy believes about lying? That father would rather cut off his right hand, or lose his right eye, than to have his child grow up confirmed in falsehood. What he wants his boy to believe is this, that falsehood is hateful, abominable, wicked. Let a school-master begin to teach that it makes no difference what a pupil believes about the right and wrong of conduct, honor and dishonor, purity and impurity, and no citizen of respectability would allow his child to remain under such teaching for a single day. Now, this saying that it makes no difference what a man believes, is so utterly false in all its lower applications, that the natural inference is forced upon us that it is unsound in any application that can be made of it. Down here where results can be counted and measured, we say of this doctrine that it is lame, impotent, and foolish. All the enlightenment that connects itself with the civilization of our day comes forth to condemn the dogma. For what purpose do men study political economy? That they may have a right belief about the government and traffic of nations. For what purpose do they pursue the study of geology? That they may have a right belief concerning the formation and structure of the earth. Why astronomy? That they might have a right belief about the sun, moon, and stars. But why are they so eager to have right beliefs concerning these things? Because they assume that it makes a difference what a man believes about them. In respect, then, to a theory that cannot live on earth, the question arises, Can it live any better above and beyond it? Can nonsense in one realm be wisdom in another? It makes a difference what people believe concerning religion. A wrong belief is just as dangerous and disastrous as anywhere else. Why is it? Because, "as a man thinketh so is he." The connection between belief and conduct is one of cause and effect. Conduct, generally speaking, will never rise any higher than belief. Hence a right belief is the only way to insure right conduct. Does it make no difference what a man believes concerning the future? Some one declares his creed by saying, "Death ends all; there is nothing beyond the grave." Is that person what he would be if he believed that he would live as long as God Almighty lives, forever and forever? Has he the aspirations and heroisms of the one who looks forward to a glorious immortality? Certainly not. Does it make no difference what men believe about God? Yes; the same difference that it makes whether he regards the judge on the bench as one who winks at crime, or one who is ready to rebuke and punish it. Every human being then is responsible for his belief—for what he believes determines his character, and what his character is, determines his relation to God and to eternity. —G. H. Ide, D. D., in Advance. A MAN without God is without everything. In some of the ancient heathen civilizations it was a very serious crime to corrupt the morals of the youth. Socrates, the great philosopher, was condemned to death on charges of not worshiping the gods of the city, of introducing new divinities and corrupting the young. But for the last charge, it is not likely his enemies would have clamored for his death. It was well known that he instructed the young in his philosophy, and if that was erroneous he was clearly guilty of the latter charge, and for it he suffered death. If it were not for the danger of an unjust decision as to what is really corruptive of moral, it might be well to have at this day a death penalty for the awful crime of corrupting youth—teaching boys and young men to be intemperate, dishonest and brutal, and luring young girls to shame and ruin. If we had such a law the authors and sellers of such books as "Jesse James" would be liable to trial for their lives, and as there is no necessity for the publication of such vile literature, the existence of a stringent penalty would put a stop to their production. The biographies of such men as Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, John Wesley, Wm. E. Dodge, Peter Cooper, create in the minds of the young who read them an admiration and veneration for patriotism, true heroism, industry, economy, energy, honesty, Christianity, philanthropy; they inspire them with an ambition to emulate the virtues and noble qualities of the heroes who are set before them as models and studies. On the contrary, when the unformed youthful imagination is presented with a picture of heroism engaged in robbing a bank safe—of courage in sailing with rifle and pistol a passenger train, rifling the express and postal cars, and picking the pockets of unarmed travelers—the boy is apt to be just as much encouraged to long for the heroism of a criminal desperado as he would have been to follow the example of a worthy patriotic hero. It would be well for teachers and parents to use their kindly persuasive powers to counsel the young folks who look to them for advice to avoid all such noxious garbage as the trashy literature which makes heroes of unworthy characters. Moral poisons are quite as dangerous and contagious as those found in the drug stores, and they should be as carefully labeled and guarded against. —Rescue. Faith Illustrated.
By Rev. James Neill
One of the simplest and best illustrations of "faith" which I remember to have seen is a story told by M. Theodore Monod. A Sabbath-school teacher, when teaching his class on one occasion, left his seat and went around among his scholars with his watch in his hand. Holding it out to the first child he said: The boy stared at it and stood still. He then went to the next and repeated: The boy blushed, but that was all. One by one the teacher repeated the words and action to each. Some stared, some blushed, some smiled incredulously but none took the watch. But when he come nearly to the bottom of the class a small boy put out his hand and took the watch which the teacher handed to him. As the latter returned to his seat the little fellow said gently: "Then, if you please, sir, the watch is mine?" The elder boys were fairly roused by this time. "Do you mean to say, sir, that he may keep the watch?" "Certainly. I gave it to any boy who would have it." "Oh, if I had known that," exclaimed one of them, "I would have taken it." "Did I not tell you I gave it to you?" "Oh, yes; but I did not believe you were in earnest." "So much the worse for you; he believed me, and he has the watch." Saving faith is as simple as this. It just takes God at his word and trusts him. Though it sounds too good to be true, yet Christ is the gift of God, freely and fully offered (John 3 : 19), "his unspeakable gift."—Rev. James Neill. The Sabbath-School. ## Lesson for Pacific Coast—July 7. Acts 9:23-35; Gal. 1:15-18. ## Notes on the Lesson.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THERE is no one thing that shows the brevity of the Scripture narrative more clearly than the account of the period immediately following Saul's conversion, as given in the Acts. We read in Acts 9:22, 23, "But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him." Then follows his escape from Damascus, and his arrival at Jerusalem. Now in reading this account, the casual reader would suppose that Saul spent those "many days" in Damascus, teaching in the synagogues. It is only by an incidental remark in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, that we learn that the "many days" were three years, and that a part of this time (how much we do not know) was spent in Arabia. There is not the slightest discrepancy between Luke's history and the statement of Paul. Luke merely passes by this event, as he does many others, because it is not absolutely necessary to the object for which he wrote. He was not writing a minute history of Paul's life, any more than the evangelists professed to write a minute account of Christ's earthly ministry. PROF. WM. H. GREEN, of Princeton, in writing on the book of Joshua, and noticing how very brief the history is, and what a small portion of Joshua's life is recorded, makes the following general statement, which applies to all Bible history:— "The sacred history is never a mere annalistic record. It traces the development of God's earthly kingdom, and the progress of his scheme of grace. Events, which have no bearing upon this theme, however interesting they might be from other points of view, do not come within the scope of the Bible narrative. The long residence of Israel in Egypt, and thirty-eight out of the forty years' wandering in the desert, contributed nothing to the purpose for which the history was written. The silence of the historian respecting them creates no gap or unaccountable break in the narrative. It merely shows the steadfastness with which the plan adopted was adhered to." IT is necessary to bear this fact in mind in reading the Scriptures. If all did so, it would save much confusion. For instance, in the first and second chapters of Genesis we have the record of the creation, and the setting apart of the seventh day as the Sabbath. But the Sabbath is not mentioned again till we come to the sixteenth chapter of Exodus, in connection with events that occurred twenty-five hundred years after the creation. Now we are not to conclude from this that the Sabbath was unknown during all that period. Such a conclusion would be the farthest from the truth. The sacred historian has this one object in view: To trace briefly the history of God's people, and show the course that God took to preserve a knowledge of himself in the earth. It must be remembered that these events were not jotted down as memoranda at the time of their occurrence; they were all written by one man, and although they cover so long a period of time, they are condensed into the smallest space; the entire history was doubtless written in a short space of time. The historian records the command, in Gen. 2:2, 3, to keep the Sabbath. When God gives a command, there is no other supposition but that it is to be, and will be, obeyed; so the writer hastens on, and again refers to the Sabbath when he reaches the point where it is again made the subject of legislation. The entire account may have been written, for aught we know, in a few days, or even a few hours. It may not be out of place to state that, having recorded the command of God in regard to the Sabbath, the silence of the sacred narrative on this subject, for so long a period, is prima facie evidence that it was observed during all that period. So strong is this evidence that he who disputes it is bound to give a reason for his denial; but no reason can be given. BUT to return to the immediate subject of the lesson. For what purpose did Saul go into Arabia? There are two opinions in regard to this question. Some think that he went to carry the gospel to the heathen in that region. The other is that he went there for a season of quiet meditation and communion with God, before he entered upon his life-work; that it was at this time that he received some, at least, of those wonderful revelations of which he speaks. We regard the latter opinion as the only tenable one, for the following reasons:— 1. It was not till after Saul's return to Jerusalem that he was set apart for the ministry to the Gentiles. The disciples did not yet fully comprehend the fact that the gospel was to be preached to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews. It required a special vision from the Lord to overcome Peter's scruples against associating with the Gentiles, and it was only when he related the vision in full, and told how that, without the ordinary ceremony of laying on of hands, the Holy Ghost had been bestowed on them, that the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem were reconciled to his course. Now when we consider the feeling against Paul, on account of his work among the Gentiles, even after he had been ordained for that especial purpose, we cannot suppose that he would have been received if he had engaged in it before receiving his ordination. 2. The connection in which Paul mentions his visit into Arabia, throws much light on the object of that visit. He begins his letter to the Galatians, thus: "Paul, an apostle (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)," etc. Again, in verses 11, 12, he says: "For I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." And then he says: "But when it pleased God . . . to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James, the Lord's brother." And he still farther states that when he went into Syria and Cilicia, he was "unknown by face unto the churches of Judea." Now what is the object of all these statements? Simply that he may establish his authority as a true apostle of Jesus Christ. The apostles were all men who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning of his ministry, and were familiar with his teachings and practice. See Acts 1:21, 22. It was therefore necessary that Paul, to be equal with the other apostles, should be sent forth by the Lord himself, and not receive his knowledge of Christ at second hand. To show that this was the case, is the object of Paul in this first chapter of Galatians; and as positive proof, he states that after he was converted, instead of conferring with (i. e. receiving instruction from) flesh and blood, he went into Arabia. Surely the object of his visit could not be more clearly stated. THIS fact is of interest, not merely as an item of history, but as showing the source of apostolic authority, and the value of apostolic practice. None of the apostles claimed to have any power or authority of themselves. Paul especially repeats, again and again, that his teaching was not of himself, or of man, but of Christ. "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord," is his declaration to the Thessalonians. The apostles were simply Christ's representatives, carrying on the work as they had seen him do it. If they deviated from this in the least, they were culpable. Thus Paul says: "But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." As an evidence that the apostles were not infallible, we learn that Peter was guilty of dissimulation, Gal. 2:11-14, and that Paul himself engaged in sharp contention with a fellow apostle, Acts 15:37-40. As Dr. Lyman Abbott says, "It is not the practice of the apostles, but their teaching, that we are to follow;" and we might add, as Paul himself did, that their teaching is of authority only because it agrees with that of Christ. WHAT then, we ask, becomes of the argument for Sunday observance, based upon a change which it is pretended was made by the apostles? No one has yet had the boldness to claim that Christ ever kept Sunday, or ever taught its observance. It was his custom to worship on the Sabbath day. See Luke 4:16. Neither did he teach disregard for the Sabbath, but only for the senseless restrictions imposed by the Pharisees. On the contrary he taught his disciples to obey his commandments even as he obeyed his Father's commandments, John 15:10; and his and the Father's commandments were identical, John 12:49. Christ, then, taught, both by precept and practice, the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath. Taking all these things into consideration, we find that apostolic license for Sunday-keeping resolves itself into this: Even if the apostles had commanded it, or practiced it themselves (which they did not do), such precept or practice would have had no authority whatever, since it would have been contrary to the teaching and practice of Christ. E. J. W. Saints.
By George C. Hickmann
As PETER traversed the church he came to the saints at Lydda. "The saints" is an early and favorite title in the New Testament for the disciples of Christ, and doubtless was adopted and used as full of instruction and exhortation. It has no restricted or official application, but belongs equally to all believers, and is a designation from which no disciple should shrink. Every converted sinner is a saint, and the title should be cherished, not so much as implying honor—which indeed it does—as responsibility, without the consciousness and discharge of which the name has no meaning. Contrary to general misapprehension, that meaning is not subjective, but objective. Its primary and always its principal sense is, one set apart as sacred. Believers are called saints, not because they are of eminent sanctity, but because they are set apart as sacred to God. So the Sabbath is set apart from other days as sacred to God. All believers are devoted to God in baptism and by confession of Jesus Christ, and by profession of a life consecrated to him. This primary meaning does not exclude, but implies, the secondary, subjective sense of moral holiness. Thus the saint is justified, is regenerated, and pursues after personal holiness as becomes one set apart for God.—Rev. Geo. C. Hickmann, D. D. Premiums and Rewards.
By Editor
In answer to a question on the subject of prizes, the Sunday-school Times makes the following remarks:— "Rewards are allowable and proper, where prizes or premiums are to be condemned. A reward is a return for something rendered. A premium is an award for success in competition with others. A reward may be received without the discomfiture of another. A premium cannot be taken except at a competitor's cost or loss. A proffered reward is sure to be won, when a certain work is performed or a certain attainment is reached. The winning of a premium depends not so much on one's own well-doing, as upon the poorer doing of others. A wise system of rewards opens the possibility of success to all who will strive under its rules; and it forbids the claim of success to those who have not come up to a well-defined mark. The best devised plan of premiums may exclude from the award those who have done well, and who have done their very best; while it may give the first place to one who has neither done well, nor done his best, but who wins only through the lack of others. Prizes are always out of place in a Sunday-school. Rewards may be employed there within due bounds, and in the exercise of a sound discretion. It is not right to distinguish the scholar who does most. It may be well to give a particular recognition to every scholar who does well. Yet material rewards should never be a prominent element in the working methods of a Sunday-school. The reward of a gratified look and of a kindly word of approval from a loving teacher may be such a stimulus to a scholar's well-doing—in attendance and in Bible study—as no reward of books or pictures could become. After all, the truest power in the Sunday-school is spiritual power." Blakeslee in "the Pacific" on the Sabbath.
By Editor
THERE is no subject in the church or in the State—in religion or in politics—which is exciting more interest at the present time than that of the Sabbath and Sunday. The message of Rev. 14:9-12 is now being given by the Seventh-day Adventists to the whole world. This message contains "the commandments of God AND the faith of Jesus." The commandments of God in distinction from the gospel, or the faith of Jesus, are those which God himself declared from Mount Sinai. These have always been considered pre-eminently "the Law of God." Alexander Campbell, in his debate with Bishop Purcell, styled them "a synopsis of all religion and morality." Dr. Webster says the ten commandments are a summary of moral law. In them are briefly given our complete duties to God and to our neighbor. Not a principle of moral obligation in regard to the worship of God, or to the rights of our neighbor is omitted. It is a most remarkable document bearing the impress of the divinity which framed it, and spoke it, and wrote it on tables of stone. The examination of this law alone has led men of ability and legal culture to confess the inspiration of the Bible. To vindicate the claims of this law is the special work of Seventh-day Adventists. Indeed we would have no need to exist as a denomination, were it not that "the message" must be given, and "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God" must be rescued from its down-trodden position, where human tradition and the carnal mind have placed it under the feet of men. This must be accomplished before the Son of man comes to reap the harvest of the earth. Rev. 14:9-14; Isa. 58:13, 14; Rom. 8:7. We have no doubt that our presenting the claims of the seventh day, which the Bible says "is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God," has done very much to arouse the prejudices of the lovers of "the venerable day of the sun" into activity in its behalf. This agitation we do not regret. It is the order of the Lord: "Cry aloud, spare not; show my people their transgressions, and the house of Jacob their sins." As long as God's people are transgressing the commandment of God, so long it is our duty to warn without sparing, "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." An article appeared in the Pacific of San Francisco several weeks ago which we have been requested to notice. It is signed by "S. V. Blakeslee," and dated Selma, Cal. Of all the weak efforts to bolster up the failing cause of Sunday, few can equal this in bold assertions and misstatements. The spirit of the article, or of the man, is shown by the expressions which he used. Once he accuses us of "sophistical falsehood;" but twice of "intellectual falsehood;" and eight times of simple "falsehood!" Thus much in one column. We will not retort; we cannot accuse him of "intellectual falsehood." He does not excuse us on the ground of ignorance! and he need not. We never make any statements ignorantly about the Sabbath or Sunday. We know what we say, and we know the reason for saying it. But any writer who flings epithets as promiscuously as Mr. Blakeslee, ought to be very accurate in his statements. We shall see. Carefully examining his list of assertions we find that he has not given a particle of evidence to sustain them, or any one of them. We will now notice them as briefly as possible. 1. Of our claim that the Catholics changed "the Sabbath into Sunday," as the Catechism expresses it, he says:— "This is a positive historical falsehood, for there was no Roman Catholic Church till nearly six hundred years after this change was made, and not till nearly three hundred years after Constantine, who, not a Roman Catholic, made a law for Sunday observance." This is mere random talk. The pontificate or primacy of the Roman Bishops commenced under Constantine. It was he who united the civil with the ecclesiastical power in their hands, by constituting them the highest judges in his realm. We give the proof. Sozomen, an early historian, says:— "Constantine likewise enacted a law in favor of the clergy, permitting judgment to be passed by the bishops, when litigants preferred appealing to them rather than to the secular court; he enacted that their decree should be valid, and as far superior to that of other judges as if pronounced by the emperor himself; that the governor and subordinate military officers should see to the execution of these decrees; and that sentence, when passed by them, should be irreversible."—Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., page 11. Stanley, of Oxford (Scribner & Co., from 2d London edition, page 305), says:— "According to the fable of Sylvester, Constantine retired to Greece in leave Italy for the Pope; Per cedere al Pastor si fece Greco. So said the legend, and it was undoubtedly the case, that by retiring to the East he left the field clear for the bishops of Rome. In the absence of the emperors from Rome, the chief Christian magistrate rose to new importance. When the barbarians broke upon Italy the Pope thus became the representative of the ancient Republic. It is one of the senses in which the saying of Hobbes is true, that the papacy is but the ghost of the deceased Roman empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof." Thus much for the origin of the civil authority of the pope of Rome. We all know that his church primacy dates from the council of Nice, A. D. 325. In 451 the council of Chalcedon elevated the bishop of Constantinople to be next in rank to the bishop of Rome. But the Roman Church, jealous of her supremacy, protested against this action, and appealed to the decision of the council of Nice in favor of the Roman primacy. Imperial commissioners were appointed to hear the case, who thus decided:— "From what has been brought forward on either side, we acknowledge that the primacy over all and the most eminent rank are to continue with the archbishop of old Rome."—Schaff, ch. Hist., vol. 2, page 281. This is sufficient, though more might be given. We accuse Mr. Blakeslee of neither ignorance nor falsehood, but leave it to the reader whether his accusation against us is just. It is true that on the invasion of the Ostrogoths, the bishop of Rome had to depend upon the aid and decree of Justinian to fix him in his Roman throne; but the primacy, the pontificate, the papacy, originated under Constantine. 2. Of Constantine he says:— "He had been a heathen, and on becoming Christian, took Christianity just as he found it then, including the general observance of Sunday." We invite the careful attention of the reader to the article which follows, this, entitled, "Constantine and his Sunday Law." We could not bring out all the facts in this article; but they ought to be understood. Consider the object and tenor and extent of that first law for the observance of Sunday. Now Mosheim confesses that by reason of this law of Constantine the Sunday was better observed than it had been before. The truth is that there never existed before that decree any public authority, either in church or State, for cessation of labor on that day. If Mr. Blakeslee disputes this and will furnish the authority, the decree or order, by either Christ, the apostles, any bishop or ruler, either civil or ecclesiastical, we will publish it and give it a very wide circulation. It is easy to mutter "falsehood," but he will not find it so easy to furnish evidence to sustain his assertions and accusations. 3. "Justin Martyr, who was born about sixty years after Christ's crucifixion, speaks of Sunday by name as the day all Christians observed." Yes, he called it by name, and so did Constantine: the day of the sun, or Sunday. But Justin did not call it the Sabbath, nor give it any ecclesiastical or religious title; nor did he ascribe to it any religious character. These are his words:— "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles, or the writings of the prophets, are read as long as time permits." There are two facts stated in history which robs this of all point as far as Sunday observance or Sunday sacredness is concerned. (1) Friday was also observed as a day of religious exercises in honor of the crucifixion; but neither Friday nor Sunday was regarded as a Sabbath. (2) Justin's words, "as long as time permits," refer to their practice of holding these services for a certain time, after which they returned to their labor or recreation. Thus Dr. Heylyn, in his History of the Sabbath, said:— "Tertullian tells us that they did devote the Sunday partly unto mirth and recreation, not to devotion altogether; when in a hundred years after Tertullian's time there was no law or constitution to restrain men from labor on this day in the Christian church." And to this agree the words of Morer in his "Dialogues":— "Being taken up and made a day of meeting for religious exercises, yet for three hundred years there was no law to bind them to it, and for want of such a law the day was not wholly kept in abstaining from common business; nor did they any longer rest from their ordinary affairs (such was the necessity of those times) than during the divine service." Were Mr. Blakeslee's inference from Justin's words true, it would prove nothing as to the Sabbatic character of Sunday. They might even have regarded it as the Sabbath, and called it so, but that would have proved nothing in its favor in the absence of divine institution and commandment. But it is not true. Justin does not say what he claims. As we take considerable space in which to bring out the facts concerning Constantine and his Sunday Law—facts which are generally ignored by those who wish to Christianize "the venerable day of the sun"—we are obliged to defer till next week a notice of what Mr. Blakeslee says concerning the seventh day and the first day. We reached New Orleans safely, after leaving Mobile about midnight Friday night, or rather Saturday morning. After a short delay we took the cars for the south, and soon found ourselves rolling over the level country of Louisiana. The country is very flat, and the soil is very rich. The land is mostly cleared, and the farms are large. The houses are mostly frame, and painted white. The roads are mostly sand, and the fences are mostly rail. The trees are mostly pine, and the brush is mostly saw palmetto. The crops are mostly cotton, and the stock are mostly cattle. The people are mostly negroes, and the religion is mostly Methodist. The churches are mostly frame, and the services are mostly singing. The sermons are mostly exhortation, and the prayers are mostly extemporaneous. The singing is mostly shouting, and the shouting is mostly loud. The loud is mostly noise, and the noise is mostly confusion. The confusion is mostly excitement, and the excitement is mostly religion. We stopped at a little village called Franklinton, about fifty miles north of New Orleans. Here we found a small church, and a faithful brother by the name of J. M. Rees. He is a colored man, and a local preacher. He has been in the work for many years, and has done a good work. He has a wife and several children, and they are all faithful. He has a small farm, and he works hard. He is a good man, and a good preacher. We had a good meeting with him, and we left him with a good feeling. We then went to a place called Amite, about ten miles further north. Here we found a small church, and a faithful sister by the name of Mrs. M. E. Rees. She is a colored woman, and a local preacher. She has been in the work for many years, and has done a good work. She has a husband and several children, and they are all faithful. She has a small farm, and she works hard. She is a good woman, and a good preacher. We had a good meeting with her, and we left her with a good feeling. We then went to a place called Independence, about ten miles further north. Here we found a small church, and a faithful brother by the name of J. H. Smith. He is a colored man, and a local preacher. He has been in the work for many years, and has done a good work. He has a wife and several children, and they are all faithful. He has a small farm, and he works hard. He is a good man, and a good preacher. We had a good meeting with him, and we left him with a good feeling. We then went to a place called Hammond, about ten miles further north. Here we found a small church, and a faithful brother by the name of J. H. Smith. He is a colored man, and a local preacher. He has been in the work for many years, and has done a good work. He has a wife and several children, and they are all faithful. He has a small farm, and he works hard. He is a good man, and a good preacher. We had a good meeting with him, and we left him with a good feeling.