Earlier text: The Future“The Abiding Sabbath.”
By Alonzo T. Jones
IN continuing his search for the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord's day, the author of the “Abiding Sabbath” comes to Acts 20 : 7. As this text mentions a meeting of disciples on the first day of the week, at which an apostle preached, it is really made the foundation upon which to lay the claim of the custom of the primitive church, and the example of the apostles in sanctioning the observance of Sunday as the Sabbath. But although there was a meeting held on the first day of the week, and although an apostle was at the meeting, as a matter of fact, there is in it neither custom nor example in favor of keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. Here is what Mr. Elliott makes of the passage:— “The most distinct reference to the Christian use of the first day of the week is found in Acts 20 : 7: ‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.’ . . . The language clearly implies that the apostle availed himself of the occasion brought about by the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week to preach to the people. . . . Here, then, is a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week, less than thirty years after the resurrection. The language is just what would be used in such a case.”—Pp. 194, 195. It is hard to see how he can find “a plain record of the custom of assemblage on the first day of the week,” when the record says nothing at all about any such custom. In all the narrative of which this verse forms a part there is no mention whatever of anything that was there done being done according to custom, nor to introduce what should become a custom, nor that it was to be an example to be followed by Christians throughout all time. So the fact is that Mr. Elliott's “plain record” of a custom, is not a record of any such thing. Nor is his statement that “the language is just what would be used in such a case,” any more in accordance with the fact; for when Luke, who wrote this record, had occasion to speak of that which was a custom, he did so plainly. For example: “And he [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke 4 : 16. Again: “And Paul, as his manner [custom] was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures.” Acts 17 : 2. In these two passages, the words, “as his custom was,” and “as his manner was,” as Luke wrote them, are identical—Kata to eiōthos—and in both instances mean precisely as his custom was; and that “language is just what” Inspiration has used in such cases as a plain record of a custom. Therefore we submit that the total absence of any such language from the passage under consideration, is valid argument that it is not a record of any such thing as the custom of the assemblage of Christians on the first day of the week. If the record really said that it was then a custom to assemble on the first day of the week; if it said: Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together, as their custom was, as the same writer says that it was the custom of Christ and of Paul to go to the Sabbath assemblies; if it said: Upon the first day of the week Paul preached to the disciples as his custom was; then no man could deny that such was indeed the custom: but as in the word of God there is neither statement nor hint to that effect, no man can rightly affirm that such was a custom, without going beyond the word of God; and that is prohibited by the word itself— “Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.” Deut. 12 : 32. More than this, reading into that passage the “custom” of assemblage on the first day of the week, is not only to go beyond that which is written; it is to do violence to the very language in which it is written. The meaning of the word “custom” is, “A frequent repetition of the same act.” A single act is not custom. An act repeated once or twice is not custom. The frequent repetition of an act, that is custom. It is so, likewise, in the case of example. Webster says: “The word ‘example’ should never be used to describe what stands singly and alone.” Now as Acts 20 : 7 is the only case on record that a religious meeting was ever held, either by the disciples or the apostles, on the first day of the week, as there is no record of a single repetition of that act, much less of a “frequent repetition” of it, it follows inevitably that there is no shadow of justice nor of right in the claim that the custom or the example of the apostles and of the primitive church sanctions the observance of that day as the day of rest and worship—the Sabbath. Instead, therefore, of the Sunday deriving any sacredness from the word of God, or resting for its observance upon the authority of that word, or upon that which is just and right, or upon the example of the apostles or the custom of the primitive church, it is contrary to all these. It is essentially an interloper, and rests for its so-called sacredness and for its authority upon nothing but sheer willfulness. The next reference noticed by Mr. Elliott is 1 Cor. 16 : 1, 2, of which he writes:— “Another incidental allusion to the religious use of the day—an allusion none the less valuable because incidental—is the direction of Paul in 1 Cor. 16 : 1, 2: ‘Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.’ . . . The Corinthians were on that day to deposit their alms in a common treasury.”—Pp. 195, 196.169 Paul's direction is, “Let every one of you lay by him in store;” Mr. Elliott says they were “to deposit their alms in a common treasury.” Now can a man lay by him in store, and deposit in a common treasury, the same money at the same time? If there are any, especially of those who keep Sunday, who think that it can be done, let them try it. Next Sunday, before you go to meeting, find out how God has prospered you, and set apart accordingly that sum of money which you will lay by you in store by depositing it in the common treasury of the church. Then as you go to church, take the money along, and when the collection box is passed, put in it that which you are going to lay by you in store; and the work is done! According to Mr. Elliott's idea, you have obeyed this scripture. That is, you have obeyed it by putting away from you the money which the scripture directs you to lay by you. You have put into the hands of others that which is to be laid by you. You have carried away and placed entirely beyond your control, and where you will never see it again, that which is to be laid by you in store. In other words, you have obeyed the scripture by directly disobeying it! True, that is a novel kind of obedience; but no one need be surprised at it in this connection; for that is the only kind of obedience to the Scripture that can ever be shown by keeping Sunday as the Sabbath. The commandment of God says: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. . . . The seventh day is the Sabbath.” And people propose to obey that commandment by remembering the first day instead of the seventh. The word of God says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt not do any work;” and people who keep Sunday propose to obey that word by working all day on the day in which God says they shall do no work. And so it is in perfect accord with the principles of the Sunday-sabbath that Mr. Elliott should convey the idea that 1 Cor. 16 : 2 was obeyed by doing directly the opposite of what the text says. But he seeks to justify his theory by the following remark:— “That this laying in store did not mean a simple hoarding of gifts by each one in his own house, is emphatically shown by the reason alleged for the injunction, ‘that there be no gatherings [i. e. “collections,” the same word used in the first verse] when I come.’ . . . If the gifts had had to be collected from house to house, the very object of the apostle's direction would have failed to be secured.” This reasoning might all be well enough if it were true. But there is no truth in it. This we know because Paul himself has told us just what he meant, and has shown us just what the Corinthians understood him to mean; and Mr. Elliott's theory is the reverse of Paul's record of facts. A year after writing the first letter to the Corinthians, Paul wrote the second letter; and in the second letter he makes explicit mention of this very “collection for the saints,” about which he had given these directions in the first letter. In the second letter (chap. 9 : 1-5), Paul writes:— “For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluous for me to write to you; for I know the forwardness of your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have I sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be in vain on this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready; lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting. Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up beforehand your bounty, whereof ye had notice before, that the same might be ready as a matter of bounty and not as of covetousness.” Now if Mr. Elliott's theory be correct, that the Corinthians were to deposit their alms in a common treasury each first day of the week, and if that was what Paul meant that they should do, then why should Paul think it “necessary” to send brethren before himself “to make up” this bounty, so “that it might be ready” when he came? If Mr. Elliott's theory be correct, what possible danger could there have been of these brethren finding the Corinthians “unprepared”? and why should Paul be afraid that they were unprepared? No; Mr. Elliott's theory and argument are absolutely false. In the first letter to the Corinthians (16 : 2), Paul meant just what he said, that on the first day of the week every one should “lay by him in store;” and the Corinthian Christians so understood it; and so likewise would every one else understand it, were it not that its perversion is so sorely essential in bolstering up the baseless fabric of the Sunday Lord's day. But the Corinthians, having no such thing to cripple or pervert their ability to understand plain language, understood it as it was written, and as Paul meant that they should understand it. Each one laid by him as directed; then when the time came for Paul to go by them and take their alms to Jerusalem, he sent brethren before to make up the bounty which had been laid by in store, so that it might be ready when he came. Therefore, 1 Cor. 16 : 2 gives no sanction whatever to the idea of meetings on the first day of the week. And now after all his peregrinations in search of the origin of the first day of the week as the Lord's day, Mr. Elliott arrives at the following intensely logical deduction:— “The selection of the Lord's day by the apostles as the one festival day of the new society seems so obviously natural, and even necessary, that when we join to these considerations the fact that it was so employed, we can no longer deny to the religious use of Sunday the high sanction of apostolic authority.”—P. 198. All that we shall say to that is, that it is the best illustration that we have ever seen of the following rule, by Rev. Philetus Dobbs, D. D., for proving something when there is nothing with which to prove it. In fact, we hardly expected ever to find in “real life” an illustration of the rule; but Mr. Elliott's five-hundred-dollar-prize logic has furnished a perfect illustration of it. The rule is:— “Prove the premise by the conclusion, and then prove the conclusion by the premise; proving A by B, and then proving B by A. And if the people believe the conclusion already (or think they do, which amounts to the same thing), and if you bring in now and then the favorite words and phrases that the people all want to hear, and that they have associated with orthodoxy, ‘tis wonderful what a reputation you will get as a logician.” If Dr. Dobbs had offered a five-hundred-dollar prize for the best real example that should be worked out under that rule, we should give a unanimous, rising, rousing vote in favor of Rev. George Elliott and his “Abiding Sabbath” as the most deserving of the prize. Yet with all this he finds “complete silence of the New Testament so far as any explicit command for the [Sunday] Sabbath or definite rules for its observance are concerned.” A New Testament institution, and in the New Testament neither command nor rules for its observance! Next week we shall notice how he accounts for such an anomaly. Forgiveness; Real, not Figurative.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THERE is probably no one who gives the matter any consideration, who doubts that the offerings for sin, under the Levitical law, represented the real sacrifice made by Christ; although there are very many who fail to notice that the service performed by the priests was only a type of the real service which is conducted by Christ, our great High Priest, in the true sanctuary in Heaven. The Scriptures, however, give abundant evidence of the fact that the tabernacle built in the wilderness was but a pattern of "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and not man;" that the high priest was a type of Christ; and that, in short, the whole service was typical, or figurative. But here some are liable to make a mistake. Many suppose that because the service of the sanctuary was only figurative, therefore the forgiveness which the sinner is said to have received was also only figurative. The fallacy of this supposition will be apparent if a comprehensive view is taken of the whole subject. It will be remembered that the figurative sanctuary service continued until Christ made the real sacrifice on the cross. Then if the supposition noted were true, it would appear that before the time of Christ no sinner had really been forgiven! But Elijah went to Heaven, and therefore his sins must certainly have been forgiven. David says: "I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin." Ps. 32:5. That is positive proof of sins actually pardoned. Therefore we must conclude that sins were pardoned in fact, before the time of Christ. "But," asks one in astonishment, "do you think that there was any virtue in the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin?" Not at all; neither do we believe that there is any virtue in the mechanical act of baptism; yet we are commanded to be baptized as a condition of securing remission of sins. What is it that secures our forgiveness? It is the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 4:25); it is not by the mere act of baptism, but by the faith which is thereby indicated, that we secure pardon for transgressions. So in the case of the man in the Levitical age. He was forgiven, not through any virtue in the blood of the goat or bullock which he offered, but by virtue of his faith in Christ's sacrifice, which faith he manifested by offering an animal that typified Christ. We must not lose sight of the fact that the plan of salvation has not varied in the least since the days of Adam. When man first sinned, then Christ was given as a ransom. It was then that Christ voluntarily offered to die in man's stead; it was then that God's love to the world led him to consent to deliver up his only begotten Son; it was then that the promise of life through Christ was made to the human race. Now a promise on the part of God is just as sure as a thing that is actually performed; for he cannot lie. And for this reason it is that Christ is said to have been "slain from the foundation of the world." It made no difference that the death of Christ was not accomplished until four thousand years after the fall; from the time the promise was made, forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ was just as certain to the man who repented as it is to-day. Notice the exact parallel between the case of men in the days before Christ and that of those after Christ. They had ceremonies by which they manifested their faith in Christ; and because of this faith they were forgiven. We have ceremonies (as baptism and the Lord's Supper) by which we manifest our faith in Christ; and because of our faith we obtain the forgiveness of our sins. They looked forward by faith to the time when Christ, according to the promise, should be offered; we look backward to the cross and we see the promise actually fulfilled. But while their sins were forgiven in fact, they were blotted out only in figure. Even in this the parallel holds good; for the sins of men now living, although forgiven, have not yet been blotted out. The exhortation to us is, "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord." Acts 3:19. And because the way of salvation is uniform throughout, and God deals with men in the same way in all ages of the world, we do not like the terms "old dispensation" and "new dispensation;" or "Jewish dispensation" and "gospel dispensation." Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, lived in the "gospel age" as well as we. See Gal. 3:8. The gospel is the good news of salvation through Christ, and the patriarchs understood that as well as we do. Forgiveness of sins has always been granted immediately upon repentance; and Christ's blood was of just as much efficacy four thousand years ago as it is to-day. "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12. THE Christian at Work (New York) of Feb. 18, 1886, contains the following item:— “A requiem high mass for the repose of the soul of the late Father McWalter Bernard Noyes was celebrated at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin, this city, on Saturday before last. He was formerly its assistant pastor, and died in Rome on December 6. The church was thronged. In the center of the chancel there was a dais covered with purple drapery on which there was a scarlet cross. On either side of the dais were four lighted candles. The altar was brilliantly lighted with many candles. Verdi’s mass was selected for the occasion. During the recitation of the Confiteor, the altar was incensed. The choir consisted of thirty voices in addition to the twenty choristers, and was assisted by a string band and the organ. Father Marlow read the gospel for the day. The ante-communion prayers were then said, followed by the oblation, consecration, and elevation, the bell in the belfry being tolled. The celebrant, Father Brown, partook of the sacraments, neither the assisting priests nor congregation being asked to join in the communion. Lest some of our readers may be misled into thinking this occurred in a Roman Catholic church, we will add that this was in a Protestant Episcopal church in this city, and that though previous notice of this Romish ceremony had been given, there was no interference in its celebration on the part of Assistant-Bishop Potter.” It will evidently not be long before the Catholic church regains all that it lost by the Reformation. That church can well afford to wait, knowing that there is a rapidly growing tendency to grant all that it claims. But its triumphing will be short; for the time when “that Wicked” shall be consumed is fast approaching. Keep It before the People.
By Uriah Smith
IN a ponderous volume of twelve pamphlet pages, a certain writer essayed to settle the great question of the Sabbath; and some of the assertions which he summoned to his aid in the effort were truly astonishing. He said:— "So much has been written and said about the seventh day of the week that one would naturally suppose the Bible to be full of lessons about it; and yet there is not a word said in the Scriptures about the seventh day of the week."
Because those particular words, "of the week," do not occur, to deny that the week is meant, is to show one's self ready to resort to tricks in argument of which a third-rate pettifogger would be ashamed. A moment's thought shows that the week must be intended. Thus, when God set apart the seventh day, he did not set it apart for himself, but for man, for whom the Sabbath was made. And he did not set apart that first seventh day which was past, but his blessing and sanctification pertained to the seventh day for time to come. Thus, then, it was ordained that men should devote to religious uses every seventh day from that time forward. No one can fail to see that as soon as this arrangement was entered into, the week was an established fact, and followed as inevitably as day and night follow the revolution of the earth upon its axis. All coming days were at once set apart in divisions of sevens; for when the next seventh day arrived after the one upon which God rested, it was to be observed in rest. Then the count must begin again; for the next seventh day was to be kept in like manner; and that being past, a new week must begin with a new count. And so on to the end. Thus the week of necessity existed as soon as the Sabbath was instituted and as evidently it owes its existence to that institution. And the seventh day of each of these weekly periods was the Sabbath; and when the word of God says the seventh day, without qualification, it means, and can mean, nothing else but this. "We find no command for, or example of, the observance of any day recorded in the Bible, prior to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt."
This man has been told better than this, and has no excuse for such an assertion. For any man of honest mind and sincere spirit, it is enough to find plain evidence that a command was given, though the express words of the command are not recorded. And it is positively stated in the record that such command was given to Adam. This is what we want kept before the people: There was a Sabbath commanded in the world, from the lips of God himself, binding upon all his people, for more than twenty-five hundred years before Sinai. People may dispute this point as much as they please, and170 ministers may profess a sanctimonious ignorance of it, but there is the record in unequivocal terms. It says that in the beginning God sanctified the day. To sanctify, means to set apart to a religious use. Now will some of those who deny that there was any command for the Sabbath before the exode, tell us how this was done? How was the Sabbath set apart in the beginning to a religious use? They know that this involves a command for its observance; that the sanctification of it was a command for the keeping of it, nothing more nor less. It could not possibly have been anything else. Whoever denies this, takes upon himself the disgrace of insulting truth and common sense. Here while yet the whole race stood in their representatives, Adam and Eve, and sin had not entered the world, the Sabbath was given to man, and with the institution a command to enforce and regulate its observance, in all places, through all time. Yet ministers, without trembling at their own dishonesty, or blushing at their ignorance, will deliberately affirm that there was no command for the Sabbath till it was given from Sinai. Keep it before the people. Let them become so fully informed in regard to this matter that all attempts to use this old misrepresentation will be nullified and spoiled. U. S. At Carthage, Mo., Bro. J. W. Watt reports that five have just covenanted to keep all the commandments of God. FROM Beloit, Kansas, Bro. N. J. Bowers makes the following report:— "I came to this place during the holidays, and have been trying to help here as best I could. I came on invitation of the leader of the little company, and we have been trying to encourage and strengthen the new brethren and sisters at this place. The camp-meeting, and tent services held after it, resulted in bringing over twenty into the faith. Nearly all are doing well, and some are making real progress. We have re-organized the Sabbath-school, and started monthly children's meetings and Bible-readings. We have weekly prayer and Sabbath-school teachers' meetings, which are of interest. Our little meeting room is more than comfortably filled on the Sabbath. The tract and missionary interests receive a share of attention. The truth has found a foot-hold here, and if all are faithful, others will rally to its standard." ELDER O. A. JOHNSON reports as follows from Decatur, Nebraska:— "I commenced meetings with the brethren near this place November 27, intending to continue only a few days; but the interest kept on increasing and deepening to such an extent that I felt it duty to remain several weeks. When171 the weather was pleasant the school-house was crowded with interested listeners. When I first began the work here, I held Bible-readings for about half an hour, after which I spoke for half or three-quarters of an hour; but the interest in the Bible-readings increased till we spent all the time in that manner. As the result of these meetings, about twenty have accepted the truth. Some who had been much prejudiced became interested and embraced the truth. Storms and cold weather somewhat hindered our meetings. "I laid before the brethren the wants of the cause, and one brother paid about $400 to the different missions, while others pledged to the amount of nearly $500 more to the home and foreign missions. At the last meeting the older brethren and those who had just accepted the truth pledged nearly $800 toward a house of worship, which they expect to erect the coming spring. The Sabbath-school attendance was about doubled. From seventy-five to ninety attend at present." C. M. CHAFFEE writes from Brandon, Minnesota, as follows:— "After my last report, I was invited to change the place of meeting from the school-house to a church near by, which offer was gladly accepted, and up to the present, forty meetings have been held. Have organized a Sabbath-school, making use of a club of ten Instructors and other supplies. I have sold them $11 worth of books. The work is only just begun here. Eight persons have commenced the observance of the Sabbath, and we believe there are more to follow." BESIDES the above reports there are in the Review from which they are taken, many other reports of people in various localities who have accepted the truth of the Bible, that "the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord." Delaying Obedience.
By Editor
To HAVE the understanding enlightened in regard to duty, and the conscience so thoroughly awake as to make one feel uneasy in the neglect of it, and yet to be surrounded with advisers wearing the name and title of Christians, who are continually urging further delay, is about as uncomfortable a position as a person of fervent piety needs to be placed in. To rebuke such advisers in the faithfulness of the gospel, and yet, at the same time, to behave toward them with becoming meekness, is not the easiest thing in the world. Nevertheless, the idea that we may postpone our obedience to God for a little season, notwithstanding our convictions, is not to be tolerated. Suppose, for example, that a person becomes convinced that it is his duty to observe the Sabbath of the Bible—the seventh day of the week. Forthwith he is assailed by his associates with the suggestion that he ought not to be in a hurry—that he ought to take plenty of time for consideration, at least a year. Plausible as such advise is, we offset it with a single passage of Scripture: "I thought on my ways, and turned my feet unto thy testimonies. I made haste, and delayed not to keep thy commandments." Ps. 119:59, 60. Here the psalmist testifies that he turned his feet to obedience, so soon as, by thinking on his ways, he found that he was walking astray. He made no delay about it; he did not go about to consult the wise men of the nation; he did not examine the writings of the rabbis and doctors to see if there was not some way of getting round the duty; he made haste to render obedience. But, nowadays, as soon as a person's conscience begins to lash him for neglect of duty, he is advised to be very careful about running too hastily. Well, we would not wish one to be too hasty; but, on the other hand, it may be well to consider whether there is not such a thing as being too tardy. Conviction of duty is not to be trifled with. When any one does violence to his conviction, he feels that he disobeys God; and such disobedience is sure to be followed by disastrous results. The voice of conscience grows more feeble, and, if the disobedience be persisted in, becomes, at length, hushed in silence. It may continue to reprove with regard to other duties, but with regard to that particular one which has been made the object of willful neglect, it reproves no more. As a necessary consequence, the soul suffers the loss of all those blessings which obedience in that one thing would bring. Nor is this all. Conscience, having yielded to corruption in one instance, becomes ready to yield in another. Its sternness has been overcome, and it no longer guards the soul with that security which it had been wont to do. It is to the soul what the sense of modesty is to the female; and, as the female cannot allow her sense of delicacy to be trifled with without incurring the risk of a total loss of virtue, so the conscience cannot, in a single instance, be abused without incurring the danger of becoming "seared with a hot iron." We will not undertake to say that this is, in every case, the result; but we do say that there is great danger of it. We insist, therefore, that when one understands what is duty, he ought to lose no time in putting it in practice. Let him remember, too, that the wrath of God is revealed against those "who hold the truth in unrighteousness." Rom. 1:18. But the possibility that one may be mistaken as to his duty, is often urged as a reason for delay. There may be something in this, at least it seems plausible. Generally, however, this objection is more specious than solid. At all events, it is so with regard to those things which are the subject of direct and unequivocal command. With regard to the Sabbath we have no hesitation in saying that it "savors of the wisdom that is earthly." The object of those who urge it is to induce a deference to the views of those who have acquired great skill in explaining away the divine law. But we hold that, however doubtful may be the teachings of Scripture with regard to such questions as are purely doctrinal, or however obscure the language in which its prophecies foretell coming events, with regard to the common practical duties of life the word of God is so plain that there is no need for a child to be mistaken. Were it otherwise, it would be unsuited to the wants of mankind; for, inasmuch as every one must give an account for himself, and not another for him, it is necessary that each one should be able to decide his duty for himself. People of small intellectual capacity must be able to make this decision, as well as those of more expanded powers; and children, as well as those of mature age. Hence duty must be revealed in very simple language. And how simple the language in which our duty to keep the holy Sabbath day is revealed: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. The seventh day is the Sabbath." Who can fail to understand it? What untutored peasant cannot comprehend it? What child does not perceive its meaning? The command to refrain from the adoration of images is not more plain. Yet, when a person of ordinary mental powers is convinced by it, and begins to think about rendering obedience, straightway he is admonished that he does not understand it, and that he would do well to consult some learned men, some spiritual rabbis or doctors of divinity, before taking any decided steps! And what do the learned doctors say, upon being consulted? Why, that it is the duty of men to keep holy the first day of the week. But how do they make it appear? Do they produce any precept from the Scripture, plain and unequivocal, like the fourth commandment? Not by any means. They can present nothing which is level to the comprehension of a child. Whatever they say on the subject, is entirely above the understanding of children, and entirely above the understanding of ignorant people. They talk about the magnitude of redemption as compared with the work of creation; they have something to say about redemption being finished on the first day of the week by the resurrection of Christ from the dead; they lay a few such theological propositions together, and finally draw out the inference that the first day of the week is a holy day. But the plain, ordinary mind does not understand this. The child fails to comprehend it. It is true, he hardly dares to indulge the thought that learned men may be mistaken; nevertheless, he is puzzled, extremely puzzled, to understand it. Is not this conclusive proof that no such duty is enjoined in the book of God? We cannot, therefore, subscribe to the idea that a person must, in reference to the Sabbath, or in reference to any other plain command of Heaven, wait to consult friends and learned teachers, and the writings of fallible men, before rendering obedience. If God has spoken, "see that ye refuse not him that speaketh." We do not believe that any one can begin to obey God too soon.—American Sabbath Tract, No. 14. The Missionary.
By George B. Starr
SINCE our last report our work here has been steadily progressing. There are now over sixty persons who have commenced to observe the Sabbath. During the winter our class of Bible workers has numbered from twenty-four to thirty. Some of these have returned to their own States to commence work in other cities. Two have gone to Washington, D. C., two to Indianapolis, Ind., two to St. Louis, two to Kansas City, and one to Cleveland, Ohio. We greatly feel the loss of some of these persons in our work here, but we rejoice to see the missions opening in these other cities. Our book sales of late have been very encouraging, especially of our larger books, "Thoughts on Daniel," and "Great Controversy" Vol. 4. One of our lady workers sold three copies of "Thoughts" at one reading. At another reading a copy of this book was sold to a lady who took it with her to London, England. Thus the truth spreads, and we feel like taking courage and working on. We have all been made sad at the loss of our dear Brother James Sawyer, who was laboring mostly among the Swedes; but he died in such good hope, seeming to simply fall asleep, that we could hardly feel it was right to say aught more than the revelator, "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth." He expressed himself shortly before his death as having no doubt of God's love toward him. We expect soon to meet him again. Chicago, March 5, 1886. GEO. B. STARR.