Earlier text: Scripture Interpreting ScriptureTHE farmer folks of Western Onondaga, N. Y., have found that a minister can be something besides a minister and lose none of his dignity. The Rev. J. O. S. Huntington, of New York City, son of Bishop Huntington, of Syracuse, became reduced in health from overwork at the Five Points, and resolved to try the benefits of country air. Unknown as a clergyman or priest of the Episcopal Church, Father Huntington applied for work near the village of Meridian, and was hired by a farmer. He worked in the fields with the other men, and gained strength, but he did not forget his calling. In the evening he usually walked to the village and went about among the men, talking with them on religious subjects. Instead of being ridiculed, his earnestness and bearing attracted the villagers, and he preached two Sundays to them in the open air. Only a few days ago was his identity made known by a friend of his school-days who happened to be in the village, and since then he has drawn still larger audiences. This kind of an outing might not satisfy some of our ministers who are suffering for a trip to Europe, but it shows what can be done by an ardently religious man, who is not careful to let his left hand know what his right hand is doing.—Springfield (Mass.) Union. RUSSIAN "justice" is becoming pretty well understood, by the world at large, as an aggravated type of injustice. The barbarous treatment to which prisoners of state are subjected has been quite fully exposed. Little by little, the still less excusable violation of pledges made to Lutheran inhabitants of the Baltic provinces, has been made known. The bigoted and oppressive measures put in operation against these courageous Christians, under the pretense of protecting the Greek Church from proselyting influences, are matters of frequent report. But, while we hear of these evils and exclaim against them, and while formal protests and appeals for mercy are occasionally presented to Russian officials by humane organizations, there is yet another direction in which similar iniquities are allowed to go unrebuked. We refer now to the bitter and most unreasonable oppressions to which the Jews in Russia are subjected. These differ in kind, while they resemble in malignity the wrongs heaped upon the Lutherans. The Jews are practically treated as outlaws in Russia. Some surprise was expressed in our public prints when it was announced that the czar's government would not permit the use of Baron Hirsch's gift of $20,000,000 for the training of Russian Jews in agricultural and mechanical pursuits. But what need is there of surprise at that, when decrees are in force shutting the doors of the universities and the medical schools and hospitals against Jews; when they are allowed no standing in court, in case of frauds against their property rights; and when, in respect to civil and political affairs, they are held in contempt by the meanest of the native peasantry? What the influence of the United States in international affairs, if properly exerted, might accomplish in the Jews' behalf, is not at all clear. But the press of this land at least ought to inform the public, in the interest of truth, concerning the conduct of Russia towards her most helpless and unhappy subjects. Hebrew journals are earnestly demanding that something be done. Here is a sample complaint and appeal from the Jewish Messenger:— "Why is our American press silent at these repeated acts of Russian vandalism? Is not the Protestant aimed at as well as the Jew? Is not the spirit of our age openly travestied? And we cherish intercourse with such a power! Is it because the spirit of the American nation is itself changing, that such inhumanity is unrebuked? Is it because American patriotism is fast being prostituted for selfish gain, and 'business' methods are degrading all parties and sapping the national energies? We dare not, we cannot, believe it. We have faith, ardent faith, in America's mission as priest and prophet, and here is an opportunity to prove to the nations that our country will not endure the spectacle of Russian inhumanity." Someone may suggest that, if the Jews do not like the way they are treated in Russia, they can move out. And so, by parity of reason, might the Lutherans. But when the Waldenses were persecuted in the Vaudois Valleys, and the whole power of Rome was exerted to kill them off or drive them out, they strangely persisted in remaining. And when, after an enforced exile, an opportunity was offered to get back into the valleys by secret marches, they went back joyfully, knowing that more suffering was in store for them. They are now remembered as heroes, for their persistence in the face of persecution; and it is also on record that they had the sympathy of outside people, and that from the sympathy came timely intervention in their interest. Hence it scarcely will do to pass this modern injustice by with a wave of the hand, and the advice to the sufferers to run away. Least of all does it become Christian men thus to put the whole matter aside. The Jews, along with the Lutherans, merit our concern, and it is fitting to consider if haply any way may be devised to mitigate their miseries, and to bring the czar to a better mind in regard to them.—Interior. DESPISE no man and deem nothing impossible; every man hath his hour and everything its place.—Talmud. THERE is one thing worth remembering, and that is, no one will thank you for killing yourself. You may work yourself to death, and when you have done it people will call you a fool for your pains. What you are is of more importance than what you do. A strong, vigorous, courteous man or woman is esteemed and valued; but one who is helpless, feeble, fretful, and gets discouraged, gets little comfort or consideration, even if it be admitted that the feebleness and helplessness are the result of useful work, and work done on behalf of others. Bad men are ungrateful, and good men are forgetful. The providence of God makes persons responsible for careful preservation and the proper use of their powers. They have no right to needlessly throw away the energy which God has granted them. They have no right to expect others to care for them, while they neglect to take care of themselves. It is their right, their duty, to guard themselves against excess, to avoid danger, to abstain from everything which can injure or destroy them, and to maintain themselves in vigor and strength for purposes of usefulness and blessing to those around us. Take care of yourself. No one else can care for you. You must see to it that you have food, and raiment, and rest, and sleep, and protection, so that you will be fitted for the best and most lasting service, for the glory of God and the good of mankind.—Selected. CAN WE KEEP THE SABBATH? NO. 2.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
ONE of the most common objections that people urge against keeping the Sabbath is that it is peculiar, and that very few people observe it. There are two classes of people who make use of this argument. The first class attempts to make capital out of it against the Sabbath, and argue that since the Sabbath is observed by so very few people, it cannot be right, assuming that the majority must be right. The second class believe that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord, but have not the courage to live out their convictions of duty. They say, "If everybody else would keep the Sabbath, I would be glad to do so too." The first class might easily be convinced if they wished to be. Let us see to what absurdity the theory that the majority must be right will lead us. Less than four hundred years ago it was the universal belief that the earth was flat, and that it was stationary. For hundreds of years no one had thought of questioning this belief; and when, finally, a few bold spirits ventured to advance the idea that the earth is spherical, and that it moves, they were regarded as fanatics and dangerous heretics. But the proof that the earth is round was convincing, and now all enlightened nations hold to that belief. Now if it be true that the majority must be right, we must conclude that several centuries ago the earth was really flat, but that, as people advanced in knowledge, it gradually assumed its present shape. Many other conclusions equally absurd must be accepted if we hold to the theory that whatever is popularly believed is right. But the advocates of that theory rarely urge it on any subject except the Sabbath. The truth is that the opinions of men have no effect whatever on facts. Men's opinions change, but the truth is always the same. Those who dare not venture out alone to obey the truth, may have their faith strengthened by considering some cases that are on record. Paul says in Rom. 15:4, that "whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope." The eleventh chapter of Hebrews contains a list of notable men. We are referred to Noah, who "walked with God" in an age when the "wickedness of man was great in the earth," and "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." It must have been no slight effort for Noah to face the world with such an unpopular truth as that the world was to be destroyed by a flood. No doubt he was jeered at in a most unmerciful manner, and considered a fool, but the event proved the wisdom of his course. Had he waited for people enough to accept the truth for that time to make it respectable, before commencing to build the ark, he would have been drowned with the rest. Abraham is another individual who is held up as an example of faith. I think we do not generally realize the full extent of the sacrifice that he made when he obeyed the command, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee." His father's family, as we learn from Joshua 24:2, 3, were idolaters. No doubt he had to endure much opposition and ridicule from his relatives, for thus leaving them and going away with apparently no object whatever, without even knowing where he was going. No one who starts out to obey God in these times can have a darker prospect, to all outward appearances, than Abraham had. Had he drawn back, instead of becoming the father of all the faithful, his name might never have appeared among them. Other instances might be cited indefinitely. Who does not honor those moral heroes? and who has not wished that he might be even like them, and be accounted worthy to share in their reward? Well, who is there that cannot? They were men, subject to weaknesses and temptations the same as men are nowadays. They lived in the world, associated with their fellow-men, and transacted business, the same as men do now. How, then, did they become so honored of God?—Simply because they were willing to be regarded as peculiar; they thought more of God's approval than they did of the applause of men. For this we hold them in high esteem, yet we shrink from doing what we commend in them. We may, however, be like them if we will, for their cases are recorded, as Paul says, simply for our encouragement. We shall find, if we study carefully, that the Bible says much in favor of peculiar people. The Jews were brought out from Egyptian bondage that they might serve the Lord, and be a peculiar people. Paul says in Titus 2:14 that Christ "gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works." The apostle here speaks especially to those who are "looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." It seems, then, that the people of God need not hope to become popular in these days any more than in the past. Christ was very unpopular: "He came unto his own, and his own received him not." John 1:11. Very few believed on him, and they were of the most despised class, and at the last even these forsook him, while he suffered the most bitter persecution. And what does he say to his disciples?—"The servant is not greater than his Lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you." Those, then, who are waiting for truth to become popular before accepting it, will wait in vain. One thought in regard to this expression, "peculiar people." The idea is not meant to be conveyed that people are to strive to make themselves conspicuous by their peculiarity. The people of God are peculiar simply because they are "zealous of good works," in a time when men (professed Christians) are "lovers of their own selves," "despisers of those that are good," etc. 2 Tim. 3:1-5. Christ was peculiar in this respect, yet he was a pattern of humility. This people are to be like him; not despised on account of individual peculiarities, but because of their steadfast adherence to truth. "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own; but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." John 15:18, 19. Who is not willing to suffer with Christ? When he endured so much for us, can we not endure a little for him? If it were possible for us to get to heaven without any suffering, would we not feel ashamed to say that we had never suffered for him? We have also this to comfort us, that whenever we suffer for the truth, he suffers with us, and accounts all injury done to his people as done to himself. And to crown all, we are assured that "if we suffer we shall also reign with him," and that "our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." BIBLE ELECTION.
By M. C. W.
"Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure." 2 Peter 1:10. "ELECTION" comes from "elect," which signifies to choose. "Give diligence to make your calling and choosing sure," is what the text would read to substitute the definition for the word. Leaving for the present just what is the meaning of the above text, we can certainly conclude that election is a Bible doctrine. It is not proposed in these articles to enter into an exhaustive examination of the subject, nor to notice every Scripture text having a bearing upon the subject. We propose to examine in the light of Scripture the strongest and most striking passages upon the doctrine, and draw therefrom, in connection with other passages, a key to the understanding of the whole. But right here we would say that our object of inquiry does not include special election to some particular work. The election which we propose to examine is election which pertains to permanent character and eternal life. Examples of special election are frequent in both Old and New Testaments. For instance: Abraham was chosen as the one through whom the promised Seed should come. This did not mean, however, that all the rest of the world were rejected. Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac. It was necessary to choose between them as to which one should be the progenitor of Christ. Isaac was chosen. Isaac had two sons, Jacob and Esau; Jacob was chosen. Jacob had twelve sons. Judah was chosen. But this choice did not mean that the eleven unchosen ones were rejected of God, or that Judah was elected to eternal life. Judah was honored of God in the choice; he was elected for a special purpose. This election did not eternally save him and did not eternally reject others. It was a special election for a special purpose. So Jeremiah and Cyrus were chosen before they were born as instruments of God in carrying forward his work, the one chosen for a prophet (Jer. 1:5), the other as a deliverer of God's people (Isa. 45:1-4); but this election was to their work and office, not to eternal life. Many other examples might be cited, but these are sufficient. It is election to eternal life which we more especially wish to consider. The Arminians have held to conditional salvation, and have endeavored to harmonize their views of the free and resistible grace of God with those texts which speak of election. On the other hand, Calvinists have insisted on the doctrine of unconditional election, and have endeavored to harmonize their teaching with the texts which speak of God's free grace. Their theory may be given in their own words, from the Presbyterian (Westminster) "Confession of Faith," as follows:— "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and some angels are predestinated to everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. "These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished." 1. Now it is true that the Bible does teach election and predestination from the beginning. A few expressions will make this clear:— "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God" (1 Peter 1:2); "shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24); "according as he [God] hath chosen us in him [Christ] before the foundation of the world;" "having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself;" "in whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated" (Eph. 1:4, 5, 11); "because God hath from the beginning chosen you" (2 Thess. 2:13); "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 17:8). The above are the strongest expressions which can be found in the word of God. The last one implies695 that some names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. From such plain and unequivocal texts, it is certain that the Bible teaches election. One can safely take on this point as strong ground as the most ultra-Calvinist. 2. It is true that the Bible teaches the doctrine of free and universal grace, as the following passages show:— "Look unto Me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth." Isa. 45:22. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16. "And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Rev. 22:17. "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Rom. 10:13. Certainly, nothing could be more plainly and positively declared than that salvation is free to all who will accept it. God offers it to all alike; for he is "no respecter of persons." He does not offer that which is impossible; he does not tantalize his creatures by impossible invitations. His commands are to all, his promises are to all. Every command is an implied promise that God will give power to perform the duty. 3. It is true that the Bible teaches free-will, or the power of choice. One or two passages will be sufficient to show this:— "I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." Deut. 30:19. "For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the Lord." Prov. 1:29. "I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear; but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not." Isa. 66:4. God has thrown around every responsible individual on the face of the earth a circle sacred to that individual alone, which even Deity will not enter in order to compel choice or obedience. God will warn and entreat; he will surround with heavenly influences, that he may draw the soul to himself; but he will not compel; he will not destroy man's free choice, or free-will. This awful, solemn prerogative of choosing between the issues of eternity rests with man. Here, then, we have these three great truths over which there has been such conflict through the centuries past, namely, election from the beginning, free salvation freely and impartially offered to all, and man's absolute free-will. Each and all are taught in the word of God; that word is truth, and therefore is consistent with itself. These doctrines agree with each other and the other parts of the word of God, each adding strength and beauty to the others. What is the doctrine of Bible election? This we will endeavor to answer in the future. M. C. W. A MONUMENT TO THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH.
By C. P. B.
WE are sometimes challenged to prove that the day now commonly called Saturday, and which seventh-day observers keep, as they believe, in obedience to the fourth commandment, is indeed the true seventh day from creation, the original Sabbath sanctified by the Creator in Eden. We answer that there can be no doubt about it, for several reasons. First, nobody of intelligence doubts that we now have the identical seventh day which Christ and the apostles kept, and which they called the Sabbath, and which one of the evangelists tells us (Luke 23:56) certain persons rested upon according to the commandment. This ought to be sufficient; but in addition to this we have an imperishable monument to the original Sabbath, the true seventh day, created in Eden when the Sabbath was first instituted—a monument which still stands and marks the day upon which God rested beyond the possibility of mistake. This monument is the week, which has come down to us unchanged from the most remote antiquity, and through so many different channels that the possibility of mistake is entirely eliminated. Indeed, the week is at once a monument to the true Sabbath and an unanswerable testimony to the truthfulness of the Mosaic account of creation. And yet some even among professed Christians would cast it aside as worthless. For instance, some three years since the Christian at Work, referring to the origin of the week, said:— “The Chaldeans and the Egyptians got their year by observing the first rising of Sirius before the sun. In like manner we must conclude that the fact that seven days marked each changing of the moon would form the most natural division of time into weeks following the division into days covered by the rising and setting of the sun. It may be stated here that the Sabbath was known to the Egyptians, and observed before the exodus; and it was this Sabbath which was adopted by the Hebrews and given a new significance, just as were the three sacrifices, . . . and various other features which were borrowed from the Egyptian customs, and adopted under the theocracy.” Why anybody, especially a Christian writer, should say such a thing we cannot comprehend. Certainly the facts are against the theory here advanced. It is probably true that the Chaldeans and Egyptians did get their year in the manner indicated; but it is very far from the truth to say that either they or any other nation got the week from the changes of the moon. There is absolutely nothing in nature to suggest the weekly cycle; and so patent is this fact that the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” article “Calendar,” says:— “As it [the week] forms neither an aliquot part of the year nor of the lunar month, those who reject the Mosaic recital will be at a loss, as Delambre remarks, to assign to it an origin having much semblance of probability.” As intimated in the foregoing, the “Mosaic recital” does at least have “much semblance of probability;” and the truth is that, aside from the Bible account of creation, there is in history, as in nature, nothing whatever to suggest the origin of the week. We learn from secular history that the week “has been employed from time immemorial in almost all Eastern countries;” but aside from revelation we know absolutely nothing of its origin. That the weekly cycle could not have been suggested by the changes of the moon is evident from the fact that the moon does not change once in seven days, but once in seven days and nine hours, as nearly as may be; and an attempt to account for the week in that manner would, it is safe to say, never have been made had it not been that the very existence of such a cycle unaccounted for by either science or history (aside from the Mosaic record), is an unanswerable testimony to the truthfulness of the Bible account. It was for the purpose of destroying this testimony that infidel patrons of “science falsely so called” first invented and gave to the world the hypothesis that the weekly cycle had its origin in the changes of the moon. According to the book of Genesis, both the week and the weekly Sabbath had their origin in the facts of the creation; and to assign to them any other origin is to deny Genesis. But if we deny Genesis we must in like manner deny the whole Pentateuch. And where shall we stop?—Evidently just where infidelity directs us to stop,—when we have denied all inspiration. It is a fact that the Chaldeans and the Egyptians had both the week and some knowledge of the weekly Sabbath; but it is very evident that this knowledge had been handed down to them by tradition from the garden of Eden. From the “Encyclopedia Britannica,” article, “Babylonia,” we learn that the Babylonians had the Sabbath, and that they called it the “rest;” and theirs was a written language 2,000 years before Christ. But how came they to apply that title to the last day of the week? Only one answer can be given, i. e., they had a tradition of the creation, and of God’s rest upon the seventh day, just as the Scriptures teach. And as Babylon (Babel, Gen. 10:10) was, we might say, the mother of nations, it is not difficult to imagine how the Egyptians, as well as the other nations of the East, come to have a knowledge of the week and of the “rest,” which was the last day of the week. And the very fact that all nations have the same week, and that history attests that from the earliest ages the week has always and everywhere been the same, proves beyond a doubt that the day now known as Saturday is the identical seventh day of the original week, the divinely ordered Sabbath of the Lord. Seventy-one out of one hundred and seven ancient languages attest the fact of the knowledge of the Sabbath, while they all bear record to the existence of the weekly cycle. Even the Chinese, as is shown by Rev. Thomas Hamilton, A.M., of Belfast, in his prize essay, “Our Rest,” published by the Sabbath Alliance of Scotland, had not only the weekly cycle but the original seventh-day Sabbath, which they at one time observed. We know that the Hebrews had the Sabbath in Egypt, and that Moses and Aaron taught them to keep it (Ex. 5:4, 5), and that the Egyptians would not allow them to do so. But it by no means follows that they got the Sabbath from their oppressors; indeed, that seems very unlikely, even aside from the Bible narrative, which absolutely forbids it. However, there is no reason to suppose that they got the Sabbath from the Egyptians. If they had derived the Sabbath from that source they must also have obtained their ideas of its proper observance from the same source, and had they worshipped as did their masters, it is unlikely that there would have been any objection whatever to it. It is far more reasonable to suppose that they had it independent of the heathen among whom they dwelt. It is more than probable that Abraham kept the Sabbath; and we know that Jacob was familiar with the week (Gen. 29:18, 27); and, as with the Babylonians and Egyptians, to have the week was likewise to have at least some knowledge of the Sabbath. It is, then, altogether likely that the Hebrews took the knowledge of the Sabbath to Egypt with them; and the same is true of nearly all their ceremonies. But it has been argued that the religious forms of the Hebrews did resemble those of the Egyptians. Be it so; it does not follow that they borrowed them from the people among whom they sojourned. The fact of resemblance does point to a common origin, but that origin is amply accounted for in the inspired account of the common origin of the human family.696 Immediately after the fall, God ordained forms for his own worship, and he instituted sacrifices which were to point forward to the promised Saviour. It was these forms that the heathen had corrupted; it was these sacrifices that they had perverted. And when God took his people by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, it was that they might be free from such corrupting influences; that they might keep his Sabbath, a thing they were not permitted to do in Egypt; and that they might offer unto him offerings in righteousness, free from the contaminating influences of pagan worship. Certainly the idea that the Hebrews borrowed these things from the Egyptians can be received only by those who deny the divine inspiration of the Pentateuch; it certainly cannot be by those who believe, with the apostle Paul, that “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”
C. P. B. The Sunday Congress at Paris
By Editor
THE following from the London Daily Telegraph concerning the Sunday Congress at Paris, and the comments thereon, are taken from the Present Truth, of London. We commend them to our readers:— “It will, undoubtedly, be a difficult task for any congress to bring about the general cessation of Sunday labor on the Continent. Of late years, however, it must be confessed that Paris has been showing a good example to the provinces in this matter, but it is to be regretted that Sunday observance in the capital has not increased the attendances in the churches, but has rather been productive of more fun and frivolity.” “It is in this as in all matters of religious practice,—the person who can be led by the moral argument does not need a law to compel him to follow out his convictions; and he who is not influenced by moral arguments is only cursed by coercion of conscience. A Christian cause never seeks to gain its end by such means.” A BAPTIST ARGUMENT.
By M. C. W.
IN the Herald of Truth of October 16 the Rev. Eli Reese has an article on the Saturday Sabbath, containing nothing new, one or two points of which we wish to notice for the benefit of our Baptist readers. Mr. Reese says:— "To keep this [the seventh day] according to the commandments, as thus saith the Lord, involves the following: 1st, Labor was forbidden, and the perpetrators of such subjected to the death penalty, 'Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath, he shall surely be put to death,' Ex. 31:15. We have an instance of this in Num. 15:32-36." We cannot understand how intelligent men can so pervert the word of truth. The Sabbath law is not found in the texts above cited, but in Ex. 20:8-11. Neither was labor for God forbidden under the Jewish dispensation. See Num. 28:9, 10. It was lawful (or in harmony with the Sabbath law) to do works of necessity and mercy on that day. Matt. 12:1-12. This is the interpretation of the Sabbath law by the Lord Jesus Christ. Willful infractions of the Sabbath law were, it is true, under the Jewish theocracy, punishable with death. So also was transgression of the first three commandments, and the sixth and the seventh. In order to observe those moral precepts now, is it necessary to connect with them the various laws peculiar to the Jews? And if it is necessary as regards the Sabbath, it is just as necessary as regards every other precept of the decalogue. It is to this extreme that Mr. Reese's logic drives him. He then tries to bring in the Rabbinical tradition of what constituted a Sabbath-day's journey as a part of the Sabbath law. He must know that it is not; and his article is an insult to his readers to suppose that they are ignorant of the facts of Scripture on the matter. His reference to Pentecost (Acts 2:1) we have before noticed. That it occurred on Sunday, Mr. Reese doubtless believes, but his opinion is only an opinion. Equally learned first-day men place it on the Sabbath, or Saturday. Whichever day it occurred on has no bearing whatever on the day of the week. If it had been a weekly day which God designed to honor by the outpouring of his Spirit he would have said so, and would not have left us to the prejudiced opinions of fallible mortals. Later on in his article Mr. Reese refers to the claim that the laws peculiar to the Jews are done away, and says:— "Here I may be told that the points mentioned and others have been done away, as having served their purpose. This I most heartily believe. A Sabbath-day consists of such Sabbath elements as God has placed in it, or what he has commanded in reference to it. If these are taken out or away from Saturday, it is then reduced to its time element, and cannot essentially differ from other days." But the elements on which the seventh-day Sabbath was based still exist unchanged. The offerings made on that day in the Jewish age Mr. Reese knows had nothing whatever to do with the original Sabbath law. That law was given before an offering was needed, and it would have been of binding obligation on all men if man had not sinned, and offerings necessitated. These offerings had nothing to do with the Sabbath law. But as the elements and essentials of the Sabbath exist now as fully as they did at creation and Sinai, the seventh-day Sabbath is as obligatory now as then. "The New Testament contains no command to keep Saturday, because it was then about to disappear as the Sabbath. And the fact that a great religious crisis was at hand would have necessitated such, if it was to be continued. The Saturday Sabbath is directly dependent on these commands; Sunday is not, because she has that which supersedes such, and gives her sabbath visibility. When a thing is placed out in very clear light, and you can see what it is, you do not need a command to make it any more perfect." We simply reply that the New Testament contains no command against the worship of images, or taking the name of God in vain. A law is in force till it is repealed or abrogated; but not one jot or tittle of the moral law was done away. Jesus expressly says that he came not to change the law, and that it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail. Matt. 5:17-20; Luke 16:17. True, Sunday is not dependent on God's commands. It has no connection with them; it cannot be made to have. It rests on the tradition of an apostate church, and all the Scripture proof which can be adduced in its favor adds not one scintilla of evidence to its claims. Can the resurrection of Christ be seen more than his acts as Creator? All that Sunday has is the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church; but does this, in the minds of Baptists, supersede God's commands? The closing words of Mr. Reese we suppose contain his climax of argument. We give them for the benefit of our readers:— "Saturday is a cold day compared with Sunday as a sabbath. It is noticed that Saturday observers nearly always prefer Sunday for the dedication of churches, baptizing, etc., as if conscious of the weakness of Saturday." And we might reply that as people have more leisure on Sunday, they can get larger audiences; and that immersion is a pretty cold ceremony compared with sprinkling as an ordinance; but these remarks are not necessary. Indeed, Baptists are "hard up" for proof if they are forced to accept Mr. Reese's arguments as such. The word of the Lord must indeed be precious to them in these days. We do not, however, believe that all Baptists will be satisfied with man-made institutions, or with that tradition against which they have always had so much to say. A READER of the SIGNS asks us to give an explanation of John 11:25, 26, which reads thus:— "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?" The circumstances under which these words were spoken make their meaning unmistakable. Lazarus was dead, and his sisters were mourning for him. The Lord was comforting them with the only hope set forth in the Scriptures, namely, the hope of the resurrection. Jesus said to Martha, "Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life." The following excellent comment on this text by Dr. Barnes will assist in understanding it:— "I am the resurrection. I am the author or the cause of the resurrection. It so depends on my power and will, that it may be said that I am the resurrection itself. This is a most expressive way of saying that the whole doctrine of the resurrection came from him, and the whole power to effect it was his. In a similar manner he is said to be made of God unto us 'wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.' 1 Cor. 1:30. And the life. John 1:4. As the resurrection of all depends on him, he intimated that it was not indispensable that it should be deferred to the last day. He had power to do it now as well as then. Though he were dead. Faith does not save from temporal death; but, although the believer, as others, will die a temporal death, yet he will hereafter have life. Even if he dies, he shall hereafter live. Shall he live. Shall be restored to life in the resurrection." The following verse is equally plain. He that believeth in Christ though he die yet in the resurrection he shall live again; and he who is at that time alive shall never die, but shall, as we learn from 1 Cor. 15:51, 52 and 1 Thess. 4:16, 17, be changed to immortality and be caught up with those who have been raised from the dead to meet the Lord in the air, so to ever be with the Lord.