Earlier text: General ArticlesA Letter to the Disciples of the Lord.
By Roswell F. Cottrell
THE SABBATH HAS ALWAYS KEPT GOOD COMPANY. IT is a common saying that a man is known by the company he keeps. If he associates with good, respectable company, he is considered respectable; but if he chooses vicious and dissolute companions, he must bear their character. God, instead of associating the Sabbath with Jewish ordinances, which pointed to Christ, and were abolished by his death, placed it in company with nine moral precepts, which are, in the nature of things, obligatory on every son and daughter of Adam. This was not done without some good reason. If I were asked the reason, I would humbly suggest that the Sabbath was of a nature entirely different from Jewish rites, having neither beginning nor ending together with them. And that its obligation is as universal and unlimited, as that of its nine companions. Brethren, I repeat it, there was a reason for this; and I insist upon your giving me a reason, coinciding with your views of the Sabbath's being done away, or that you admit that I have given the true one. O, thou short-lived Jewish institution! How didst thou contrive to forsake thy fellows, and to ingratiate thyself into the very midst of an immortal company? Thou ordinance which was against us, which was contrary to us! By what foul means didst thou induce our Saviour to say, thou wast made for us? Thou beggarly element to which the Galatians, who were idolaters before their conversion, desired again to be in bondage! What infinite trouble and perplexity hast thou, by thy intrusion, caused the priesthood! But for thee, the dissecting-knife need never have been applied to God's law—that law, which, in the words of an apostle, "is spiritual—is holy, just and good." How many of my beloved brethren have, by thy means, been induced to attempt to dash in pieces God's law—by the use of Paul's comparison between the minister of the law, and the ministers of the gospel, 2 Cor. 3, and thus to leave God without a law, while they might pick up the pieces, selecting the nine and rejecting thee! My dear brethren, how has the Sabbath been slandered by the lovers of God and his truth! THE MONUMENT.—AN EXTRACT. "We will now suppose that a person wandering through the streets of some great city, suddenly comes to an inclosure containing a collection of spacious and beautiful buildings. On inquiring, he finds that they are designed for a benevolent purpose—say, a home for friendless and indigent females. He obtains permission to enter the inclosure, and the first thing which attracts his attention is an imposing monument, upon which is an inscription to the effect that the ground was given, the buildings erected, and the institution endowed by the munificence of one John Howard; and that this monument was raised to commemorate the fact. We will next suppose that after this monument has stood unmutilated for many years some person undertakes to demolish it, and build another in its place, for the purpose of commemorating a different event; or, if he should not choose to build a monument entirely new, that he removes the slab containing the inscription, and substitutes another having a new inscription, an inscription which leaves out the name of John Howard, making no allusion to him, nor to the object for which he had caused those buildings to be erected. Would not the person who would act thus show that he did not feel towards the name and memory of John Howard as he ought to feel? Would it not be natural to infer that he harbored some enmity against him? that he did not wish his name perpetuated? or, that he hated the work itself, and did not wish such a monument of godlike benevolence to be kept in memory? Some such inference, we think, would be perfectly natural. Indeed, we see no room for any other, unless it be this, that the destroyer of the monument was actuated by the mere love of mischief. "The advocates of the first day of the week may take notice that we have spoken this parable against them. The Sabbath is a monument upon which is the plain and unmistakable inscription, that Jehovah created the worlds; that by power, wisdom and goodness, he formed and perfected all in six days, and rested on the seventh; and that for the purpose of commemorating this fact, the monument was erected, so that men might have no excuse for atheism, and none for idolatry. Ho! all ye that pass by, the wayfaring man and the fool, as well as the philosopher and the learned, stop—read—and know that Jehovah is the Creator of all things. Those who deny the obligation of the Sabbath under the gospel, are represented by the man who tears down the monument, and builds another in its place. Those who pretend to admit the perpetuity of the Sabbath, but contend for a change of the day, on the ground of the work of redemption, are represented by the man who secretly removes the slab containing the inscription, and substitutes another, with a different inscription. And now, so far as the design of the Sabbath is concerned, what difference does it make whether the monument be altogether demolished and a new one built, or merely the slab of inscription removed, and another substituted. Practically, it makes no difference. The advocates of both these seemingly different views, are agreed in their object. They both desire to maintain the observance of a day different from that which the law of the Sabbath enjoins, and both desire it on the same grounds. They both wish to have the first day of the week considered holy, and not the seventh; and both are governed in this by a desire of commemorating—not the creation, but—the work of redemption. "Must we, therefore, conclude that the advocates of the first-day observance are actuated by a feeling of enmity against Jehovah, as the Author of creation, and that they desire that his name should no longer be had in remembrance on this account? Must we conclude that they despise the work of creation—that they see so little of beauty and glory in it—so little of benevolence and goodness—that they think it unworthy of any farther commemoration? We had supposed that it were enough for unregenerate sinners to cherish enmity against Jehovah as the God of creation. 'The CARNAL mind is enmity against God.' We had supposed that when one was created anew in Christ Jesus, his enmity was destroyed, and that he then loved to contemplate Jehovah as the Author of his existence, and of all created things, and that he began to love the law which Jehovah, as Creator, enjoined. We always thought that the effect of redemption was to open the eyes to see, not only the beauty of redemption itself, but the beauty and glory of creation, and the goodness and benevolence of Jehovah as displayed in the works of his hand. This, at any rate, is our experience; and it is passing strange if the effect of redemption on every heart to which it is applied, is not to eradicate everything like atheism, and to create that faith which is firmly persuaded that God exists, Heb. 11:6, Ps. 14:1, and that the worlds were framed by the word of his power. Heb. 11:3. "But we are persuaded that our first-day brethren do not mean what their practice so clearly implies. Still we cannot forbear asking why they go about to tear down the monument which proclaims Jehovah as the Creator of the world? Why seek to demolish that which was set up for the very purpose of being a standing testimony against atheism and idolatry. Surely you do not mean to strike hands with infidels and heathens! Or why seek to alter the inscription which God originally placed upon this monument? Why seek to make it tell a different story, as if the old one were too old to be repeated any longer? You may, perhaps, reply that a monumental institution, to proclaim Jehovah as the God of creation, is not necessary, inasmuch as it is so abundantly proclaimed by the works of his hands. If so, then it was never necessary; and for four thousand years the Sabbath was a useless institution. The truth is, men are just as apt to be infidels now as they ever were, and the Sabbath is just as necessary now, as a testimony against their infidelity, as it ever was. Why, then, seek to destroy the Sabbath, or to modify it, and alter its character, so that it can no longer be recognized as commemorative of creation? We are astonished that Christians will act thus. "But that which makes their course in regard to the Sabbath still worse, is that they attempt to father it upon Jesus Christ! The Church of Rome, with all her impiety, has never been guilty of this. But you, who call yourselves Protestants, allege that Christ tore down the monument which God had set up to be a witness against atheism and idolatry! You allege, at least, that he began to batter and deface the inscription, and gave his apostles instructions to complete the work of demolition after his resurrection! If Jesus Christ were an atheist; if he taught that the world came into existence by chance, without any forming hand; if he desired to spread this belief among men, and blot out, as far as possible, everything which attests that Jehovah was the Creator—we should suppose that one of the first things he would undertake would be to destroy the Sabbath. But if, on the contrary, he came to declare the glory of the Father; if he came to bear testimony against infidelity, and by his redeeming power to lead men back to the acknowledgment and worship of the Creator, as we know he did, it stands to reason that he would honor the Sabbath, that he would enforce it by his example, and that he would say of this, as of any other divine precept, 'I come not to destroy the law—one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from it, till all be fulfilled.'" Is in favor of the Sabbath. The apostles never broke the Sabbath, nor were they accused of it, after the resurrection, by their most bitter enemies. And think you those fault-finding Jews would have kept silence on this point if they had broken it, or sought to introduce another day in its stead? On the contrary, they continued to speak of the Sabbath as of an institution which really existed, without calling it old or Jewish. It was Paul's custom to preach in the synagogues on the Sabbath. Acts 17:2. You reply, It was because they could find the Jews assembled on that day. Very well. They might have appointed meetings on the first day occasionally, if they observed that day at all. On one occasion as they were going out of the synagogue, the Gentiles asked Paul to preach to them on the next Sabbath. Acts 14:42. If that request had been made to a modern preacher, he would have replied, You need not wait for another Jewish Sabbath; to-morrow is Lord's day, we will preach to you to-morrow. It is marvellous how silent the apostles were in regard to this new institution. When Paul was at Corinth he labored at his trade of tent making, but when the Sabbath came, he was found at the synagogue persuading both Jews and Greeks. Here, when the chief ruler of the synagogue and many of the Corinthians believed, an excellent opportunity presented itself for the apostle to introduce the new institution. But here, as everywhere else, he was silent in regard to it. But he preached every Sabbath, and continued there a year and six months. Now, brethren, if you can examine this subject without prejudice, I have not a doubt that you will come to the conclusion that the Sabbath was made for us. If you can forget your early teaching, you will not find a hint at the new institution in the Old or New Testament, if we except Daniel 7:25. The phrase, "Lord's day," is found but once in the Bible, Rev. 1:10, and that rule of interpretation which would apply it to the first day, would prove from the Bible that we all ought to hang ourselves. One solitary instance is recorded of the disciples meeting on the first evening of the week, Acts 20:7, but not a hint is given of this being a custom. The direction, "Let each of you lay by him in store," would never have suggested the idea of meeting together, to any rational mind, had it not been connected with the words, "first of the week." But these last words occurring but twice in the New Testament except in the evangelists, some good use must be made of them where they do occur; as, where timber is scarce, every crooked tree must be used for something. It is truly said of biased minds, "They first get their tenets, then make it their care
To search out such scripture as best will compare;
And when they have found that which suits them the best,
They falsely construe it and skip all the rest." Brethren, read the Book as for the first time on this subject, saying in your hearts, God's will, not mine, be done, and the result will be a reformation which will honor God, and promote his cause on earth. Self-Respect and True Manhood
SELF-RESPECT is as necessary an element of true manhood as egotism is repulsive. A man who cannot respect himself is to be commiserated, as is he whose excessive humility forbids proper self-appreciation; but the man who on false philosophy refuses to maintain proper self-respect needs an educative influence and process which shall tone up his value of his own manhood to its proper pitch.—Golden Rule "AND in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Acts 6:1. I find an instance of consistency without design in this passage, on comparing it with Josephus. It seems that when the disciples became more numerous, a jealousy began to discover itself between the Grecians and the Hebrews. The circumstance is casually mentioned by St. Luke, as the accident which gave occasion to the appointment of deacons; yet how strictly characteristic is it of the country and times in which it is said to have happened. "There was a disturbance at Cæsarea," writes Josephus, "between the Jews and Syrians respecting the equal enjoyment of civil rights; the Jews laying claim to precedence because Herod, who was a Jew, had founded the city; the Syrians, on the other hand, admitting this, but maintaining that Cæsarea was originally called the Tower of Straton, and did not then contain a single Jew." (Antiq. xx. 7, § 7.) In the end the two parties broke out into open war. This was when Felix was governor. On one occasion, under Florus, we read of 20,000 Jews perishing at Cæsarea by the hands of the Greek or Syrian part of the population. (Bel. Jud. II. 18. 1.) And again we are told that "fearful troubles prevailed throughout all Syria, each city dividing itself into two armies and the safety of the one consisted in forestalling the violence of the other. Thus the people passed their days in blood and their nights in terror." (Bel. Jud. II. 15. 2.) It is most improbable that the writer of the Acts, if he were making up a story, should have bethought himself of a circumstance at once so unimportant as this murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, and yet so truly descriptive of the people where his scene was laid. This little incident (the more trifling the better for our purpose) carries with it the strongest marks of truth; and, like the single watch-word, is a voucher for the general honesty of the party that utters it. Indeed, the establishment of one fact may be thought in itself to entail the credibility of many more. If it be certain that there was a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration, then it is probable that there was a common fund out of which widows were maintained; that many sold their possessions to contribute to this fund; that it must have been a strong motive which could urge to such a disposal of their property; that no motive could be so likely as their conviction of the truth of Christianity; and that such a conviction could spring out of nothing so surely as the evidence of miracles. I do not say that all these matters necessarily follow from the certainty of the first simple fact, but I say that admitting it, they all follow in a train of very natural consequence. "And after certain days King Agrippa and Bernice came unto Cæsarea to salute Festus." Acts 25: 13. This Agrippa (Agrippa Minor) had succeeded, by permission of Claudius, to the territories of his uncle Herod; at least, Trachonitas, Batanæa, and Abilene, were confirmed to him. From this passage in the Acts it appears, as might be expected, that he was anxious to be well with the Roman Government, and accordingly that he lost no time in paying his respects to Festus, the new representative of that Government in Judea. It is a singular and minute coincidence well worth our notice, that Josephus records instances of this same Agrippa's obsequiousness to Roman authorities, of precisely the same kind. "About this time," says he, "King Agrippa went to Alexandria, to salute Alexander, who had been sent by Nero to govern Egypt." (Bel. Jud. II. 15. § 1.) And again (what is yet more to our purpose,) we read, on another occasion, that Bernice accompanied Agrippa in one of these visits of ceremony; for having appointed Varus to take care of their kingdom in their absence, "they went to Berytus with the intention of meeting Gessius (Florus) the Roman governor of Judea." (Jos. Life, § 11.) This is a case singularly parallel to that in the Acts: for Gessius Florus held the very same office, in the same country, as Felix. "And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with the chief captains and principal men of the city, at Festus' commandment Paul was brought forth." Acts 25: 23. It might seem extraordinary that Bernice should be present on such an occasion—that a woman should take any share in an affair, one would have supposed, foreign to her, and exclusively belonging to the other sex. But here again we have another proof of the veracity and accuracy of the sacred writings. For when Agrippa (the same Agrippa) endeavored to combat the spirit of rebellion which was beginning to show itself amongst the Jews, and addressed them in that famous speech given in Josephus, which throws so much light on the power and provincial polity of the Romans, he first of all "placed his sister Bernice (the same Bernice) in a conspicuous situation, upon the house of the Asamonæans, which was above the gallery, at the passage to the upper city, where the bridge joined the temple to the gallery;" and then he spoke to the people. And when his oration was ended, we read that "both he and his sister shed tears, and so repressed much violence in the multitude." (Bel. Jud. II. 16. § 3.) There is another passage, occurring in the life of Josephus, which is no less valuable; for it serves to show yet further the political importance of Bernice, and how much she was in the habit of acting with Agrippa on all public occasions. One Philip, who was governor of Gamala and the country about it, under Agrippa, had occasion to communicate with the latter, probably on the subject of his escape from Jerusalem, where he had been recently in danger, and of his return to his own station. The transaction is thus described:— "He wrote to Agrippa and Bernice, and gave the letters to one of his freedmen to carry to Varus, who at that time was procurator of the kingdom, which the sovereigns (i. e. the king and his sister-wife) had intrusted him withall, while they were gone to Berytus to meet Gessius. When Varus had received these letters of Philip," and had learned that he was in safety, he was very uneasy at it, supposing that he should appear useless to the sovereigns now Philip was come." (Josephus' Life, § 11.)—From Blunt's "Undesigned Coincidences." Lord Beaconsfield said there were many people who would resolve to lead virtuous lives on the principle that "virtue is its own reward," if they could only get the reward in advance. But the trouble with those people would be that, having received the reward in advance, they would have a call in another direction, and the virtuous life would go by default. BRAINS cannot be measured by the size of the head, nor eloquence by the extent of the mouth. Recreation for Christians.
By Mrs. E. G. White
As a people Seventh-day-Adventists labor too hard, without allowing themselves change or periods of rest. Recreation is needful to those who are engaged in physical labor, and is still more essential for those whose labor is principally mental. It is not essential to our salvation, nor for the glory of God, to keep the mind laboring constantly and excessively, even upon religious themes. There are amusements which we cannot approve, because Heaven condemns them, such as dancing, card playing, chess, checkers, etc. These amusements open the door for great evil, producing in some minds a passion for those plays which lead to gambling and dissipation. All such plays should be condemned by Christians, and something perfectly harmless should be substituted in their place. Our holidays should not be spent in patterning after the world, yet they should not be passed by unnoticed, for this will bring dissatisfaction to our children. On these days when there is danger that our children will be exposed to evil influences, and become corrupted by the pleasures and excitement of the world, let the parents study to get up something to take the place of more dangerous amusements. Give your children to understand that you have their good and happiness in view. Let several families living in a city or village unite and leave the occupations which have taxed them physically and mentally, and make an excursion into the country, to the side of a fine lake, or to a nice grove, where the scenery of nature is beautiful. They should provide themselves with plain, hygienic food, the very best fruits and grains, and spread their table under the shade of some tree, or under the canopy of heaven. The ride, the exercise, and the scenery will quicken the appetite, and they can enjoy a repast which kings might envy. On such occasions parents and children should feel free from care, labors or perplexities. Parents should become children with their children, making everything as pleasant for them as possible. Let the whole day be given to recreation. Exercise in the open air, for those whose employment has been within doors and sedentary, will be beneficial to health. All who can, should feel it a duty to pursue this course. Nothing will be lost, and much gained. They can return to their occupations with new life and new courage to engage in their labor with zeal, and they are better prepared to resist disease. We hear a great deal spoken nowadays of the want of religion in the churches. The press never ceases to hurl the accusation against us that all life is dying out of every Christian denomination; that we require sensational preachers to fill our pews, and absurdly grotesque titles to their sermons; that the dear, blessed, old-time religion is not sufficient to save souls; that we must be remodeled, some of our so-called effete superstition done away with, and in a placid, nineteenth century manner, reclining in our luxurious armchairs, think about our duties as Christians! As long as we contribute to the cause of Christ in all the various channels (and if we are rich we won't feel that much), and on Sunday make our appearance with our families at morning service, and perhaps when we have a leisure evening we make our appearance at prayer-meeting, and offer up a soulless petition because we fancy it is expected of us, we imagine we have done our full duty. O members of churches of the present day, it is just such conduct as this that makes religion, to use a Scripture phrase, awful in its significance, "stink in the nostrils" of the world now! The devil loves Christians of this type. They do no harm to his kingdom, and if they save their own souls it is all they do. They go to their Master empty handed at the last great day! But do they save their own souls? That is the question. We read in the Scriptures, "The kingdom of Heaven suffereth by violence, and the violent take it by force." That means, surely, earnestness on our part if we hope to win the blessing. The power of the Holy Ghost is not going to come into a church that is half dead, whose members pray at the weekly prayer-meeting like so many parrots, and with little more feeling. Can such prayers as these reach the Almighty and bring down the blessing? Instead, they only serve to clog more the feelings of the man or woman who utters them. If we cannot, like Jacob, wrestle with God in heart-felt earnestness, and feel alone with Him though even in a crowd, then do not let us pray at all; and if we spent more time on our knees, in our closets, and never attempted to pray in public till we felt we could not help it, that the Holy Ghost was urging us on, THEN, brethren, the blessing would come, the revival would begin, and the churches would live again. Religion, we are told by the scoffers of the present day, has become a mere machinery, and this reproach, to a great extent, has become true. Where is the fire of the magnificent days of Wesley? Where the strength of the thunders of Luther? What would that great reformer say, could he visit the Protestant churches of every denomination now? "Is this the babe, for which I suffered," he would say, "this boneless, puny thing? Did I wage war with the Titians of Roman Catholicism to bring the world to this? Where is the spirit of the men who fought, bled, and died for the church. Have their sons lost all the fire, that there is little or no earnestness among the people of God?" O for some of that laughed-at enthusiasm, that spirit the world calls fanaticism! Let us have one such enthusiast, one such fanatic in a church, and he would kindle life in the others. One man who would not care if he were called a fool for the Lord's sake, but putting his hand to the plough would heave up the dead bones, and make them cry aloud to the Lord once more. What a comfort he would be to the minister who sees no reward of his ministry, whose heart is well nigh fainting at the barrenness round him.—Christian at Work. Questions of the Christian Advocate.
By Editor
According to promise we proceed to answer the questions asked by the Christian Advocate. "1. When does an Adventist Sabbath begin, Friday at 6 P. M., or Friday night at 12 P. M.? When does it end?" We cannot tell. We have heard of "the American Sabbath," and several other kinds of Sabbaths, but never of "an Adventist Sabbath." We never heard of the institution of such a Sabbath, nor have we seen any law for its observance. If such a Sabbath exists, it must be as destitute of divine authority as the so-called "Christian Sabbath." The Bible is silent in regard to both. But of "the Sabbath of the Lord thy God"—the seventh day—we can give definite information. As it is found in the Bible some might imagine that a "Doctor of Divinity" did not need to be enlightened in regard to it. But that is hardly a safe rule by which to judge; or if it is, the editor of the Advocate is an exception. Each day consists of an evening and a morning; the evening coming first, as darkness was upon the earth before light. See Gen. 1. And the Lord always recognized this order of the day, as in Lev. 23:32: "From even unto even shall ye celebrate your Sabbath." The believing Jews would not bring their sick to the Saviour upon the Sabbath, but "at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased." Mark 1:21-32. If the Doctor will take a Concordance he will find other texts which teach the same thing. When he finds something in the Bible to indicate that the day begins at midnight, we hope he will inform us. "2. If a Seventh-day Adventist and an ordinary Baptist should go into partnership, and the Adventist keep Saturday and work Sunday, and the Baptist work Saturday and keep Sunday, their business would run continually, and would that be right?" No; it would not be right, were the Baptist ordinary or extraordinary. The Adventist would not keep the Sabbath under such circumstances, because his action would be contrary to the divine law. We suppose, however, that the "ordinary Baptist" would "keep Sunday" well enough, because there is no divine law governing such an observance. "3. Is it not best and most in accordance with the divine command, that all who love God's law in any country should agree to keep holy a certain day as the Sabbath?" We answer: Yes, provided they agree to keep the day which the divine commandment enjoins. But if they choose another day and substitute that for the Sabbath of the Lord God, we answer, No. And in that case it would make no difference how universal the agreement might be, for numbers cannot make it right to set aside the divine requirement. "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." If the Sabbath is a question of agreement, to be settled by the majority, we invite the Doctor to point out the Bible provision for the election! "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." The Doctor ought to know enough about the principles of law to know that if its provisions and obligations and terms are to be settled by the agreement of the subjects, then it is no law—its authority has ceased. And this is just what these theories of "agreement," or "any day," or "the seventh part of time," are doing; they are breaking down the authority of the fourth commandment. "4. Is it wise or pious for Adventists to unite with infidels and saloon-keepers in breaking down all legal barriers to a day of rest and worship?" It is not right for Adventists or any others to join with infidels and saloon-keepers to aid them in anything contrary to divine law and morality. But it is right to do what we know to be right, no matter who else does the same. Principles are above men. We would rather do right with an infidel than to do wrong with the editor of the Christian Advocate. In 1880 we voted for James A. Garfield, and we knew all the time that infidels and saloon-keepers were voting for him also. In 1882 our rights, both civil and religious, were being assailed, and we resisted the assault without caring who was with us or who was against us. Our opponents talk as if we ought to willingly submit to any injustice because it is done in the interests of their religion. But we do not suppose that imprisonment in dark dungeons was any sweeter, or that the fire of torture burned any less fiercely, because inflicted by "the church," and professedly "for the glory of God." We ask the editor of the Advocate if the issue of the last election in California was one of saloon keeping, or of a day of rest and worship? Notice the following points: 1. The columns of the Advocate informed us that the subject of temperance was not broached in the Sacramento Convention. That Convention did exactly what the League of Freedom asked it to do, both in the framing of its platform and the nomination of its candidates. This we know, for we heard the request, and we saw the result. And Mr. Shaeffer, who said he represented the liquor interest, promised for himself and his associates to support the Sunday Law if they would ignore the temperance question. This the editor of the Advocate knows full well, and therefore his insinuations proceed from prejudice and ill-will, not at all from any principle involved. And he and his ministerial associates did all in their power to break up the Prohibition Party, and to elect the candidate chosen by the League of Freedom; the candidate of the Convention which ignored the temperance question, just as the "liquor interest" requested it to do. 2. The Supreme Court decided that the Sunday Law was not a law for or against any religion, but purely a civil matter. As such only, and as "a police regulation," it was advocated by the "Home Protection Association." If it was a question of "worship;" if anybody's religion was involved, then the campaign for Sunday was carried on in the most hypocritical manner. If the Advocate is right, then the law was clearly unconstitutional, and has wisely been expunged from our statute books, for it "discriminated" in favor of somebody's "worship" and against somebody else's. If the law contained any "legal barriers" for "a day of worship," it was to the detriment of the worship of those who observed the day "as originally given" by the Creator. Then the minority of the Supreme Court was right, and the majority erred in their decision. We can extend this answer, but shall let the subject rest unless the unjust insinuation which the question contains is repeated. We have enjoyed a "day of rest and worship" for the last thirty years without the aid of any "legal barriers" of human devising. We had the sanction of the law of God, and with this we were satisfied. The laws of man barely tolerated our rest and worship, and sometimes not even that, taking the whole commandment into account. Yet we found "the Sabbath a delight," see Isa. 58:13, 14; and our delight in it—our joy of Christian devotion—could not have been increased by any act of the legislature! We pity those "Christians" who cannot enjoy their worship unless it is sustained and enforced by the statutes of the State. We are thankful that our religion is not of that kind. We recommend to them the reading of the eleventh chapter of Hebrews, and the "History of the Reformation." "5. If the Lord should come and find the Signs of the Times working with the enemies of his religion to rob the poor man of his day of rest, and to give liquor-sellers unrestrained liberty to make his day a great curse instead of a blessing, what would our neighbor do about it?" "If" all that should come to pass we suppose we should do just what our neighbor of the Advocate will "do," if he is found in that day breaking the Sabbath of the Lord and teaching men so. But we are making, and hope to continue to make, most strenuous efforts not to be found working with the enemies of the Lord and of his holy day. So far as "the poor man's day of rest" is concerned, if he chooses to rest on Sunday, the State has made provision for his benefit by making it a legal holiday. That is as far as "police regulations" or "sanitary measures" can extend. If men had not conspired against the Lord's Sabbath and elevated the "day of the sun" above it, the sanctions of the divine law would be efficient to protect all rights. But the modern Scribes and Pharisees, having made void the commandment of God through their tradition, are wondrously solicitous that the State shall unite with the Church to enforce their tradition. As far as we had any party preferences in the late campaign, we sympathized with those who sought to restrain the sale of liquors every day, and to remove the curse from the whole week. But these the Advocate opposed right heartily. And now it tries to cover up the inconsistency of its course by casting slurs on those who stood true to their religious principles. Concerning our paraphrase of its remarks on the two men traveling round the world, it says:— "The two Methodists going in opposite directions around the world, or toward either pole, would have piety and sense enough, we hope, to conform to the customs of the people they met, and to worship gladly and cheerfully with God's people in any latitude," &c. Exactly; we think they would so "conform," especially if the editor of the Advocate were their counselor. With the Mohammedans they would keep Friday, which, according to the Advocate, is just as acceptable as Saturday or Sunday. Thus far has Methodism descended. But we are glad to express our opinion that Seventh-day Adventists might prove to be "Non-conformists." They would turn away from every "custom of the people they met" which was not in conformity with the Bible and the law of God, however "pious" its intent, or however "religious" its adherents. These are our answers. We are glad the Advocate asked the questions, thus giving us a suitable opportunity to define our position on these several points. We feel very friendly toward its editor, and are well satisfied with the result of our article on the "Same Identical Time." It has accomplished just what we desired. Now we have only one desire unsatisfied in regard to the Advocate. The Methodist publishing houses issued a book written by a Mr. Armstrong, introduced and indorsed by a Dr. Huntington, against the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, the seventh day, in which he professed to give an exposition of the original of Ex. 16. This exposition we sharply criticized, as we thought it justly deserved, claiming that it not only erred in its position on the grammar of the Hebrew, but it misrepresented the original text. We called upon the editor of the Advocate, believing him to be a scholar, to point out the error, if any existed, in our criticism of their work. Of this he has taken no notice. If Mr. Armstrong's work cannot be defended, it stands as a willful misrepresentation of the sacred text, and an abuse of its English readers who could not detect the deception practiced. We regret that such a denomination as the Methodist should make itself responsible for such a work. The Sabbath cause needs to resort to no such subterfuges. In this we rejoice. It is so strongly and so plainly taught in the Scriptures that we rest upon it with the "full assurance of faith." Thank God for the clear light of his holy commandments.