Earlier text: General ArticlesJudgment of Works.
By B. R. Nordyke
BY B. R. NORDYKE.
WE are judged according to our works, according to the deeds done while in this body, according to the life we lead here on earth. Dear reader, do not misunderstand me now; I do not say we will be saved by our deeds. We are saved by faith. "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Gal. 2: 16. Please get your Bible now and we will see what our creed says. The inspired word of God is the only authority that we will quote from. It is our guide and rule of faith; "to the law and to the testimony." Turn to Rev. 20: 12, 13: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell (the grave, marginal note) delivered up the dead which were in them; and they were judged every man according to their works." Rev. 2: 23: "I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts; and I will give unto every one of you according to your works." Matt. 26: 27: "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works." Rev. 22: 12: "And behold I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be." Rom. 2: 6, 7: "Who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life." Jer. 17: 10: "I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Jer. 32: 19: "Great in counsel, and mighty in work (Heb. doing); for thine eyes are open upon all the ways of the sons of men; to give every one according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings." Rom. 14: 12: "So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Matt. 12: 36, 37: "But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of Judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." Gal. 6: 5: "For every man shall bear his own burden." 1 Cor. 3: 8: "And every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor." Ps. 62: 12: "Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy, for thou renderest to every man according to his work." 2 Cor. 5: 10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Eph. 6: 8: "Knowing that whatsoever good thing a man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord." Col. 3: 24, 25: "Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance; for ye serve the Lord Christ. But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done; and there is no respect of persons." Eccl. 12: 14: "For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Eccl. 11: 9, 10: "Let thy heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and walk in the ways of thine heart, and in the sight of thine eyes; but know thou, that for all these things God will bring thee into judgment. Therefore remove sorrow (anger, marginal note) from thy heart, and put away evil from thy flesh; for childhood and youth are vanity." 1 Cor. 4: 5: "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." Chap. 3: 13: "Every man's work will be made manifest; for the day shall declare it." Job 34: 11: "For the work of a man shall be rendered unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways." Prov. 24: 12: "If thou sayest, Behold we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?" Ezek. 7: 27: "I will do unto them after their way, and according to their deserts will I judge them; and they shall know that I am the Lord." See also 1 Peter 1: 17-25. Dear reader, ponder these things carefully; make a daily study of the word of God. See James first chapter and fifth verse: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." Another Destructive Engine
Another Destructive Engine. The S. F. Chronicle contains the following in regard to the “submarine monitor,” a recent invention by one J. H. L. Tuck, an old Californian. Is it by means of such engines of war as this, that the millennium will be brought about? Who can tell? “It is designed for use in naval warfare and harbor defense. It is a cigar-shaped steel boat, thirty feet long, with six feet breadth of beam and six feet depth of hold, and is propelled by electric motors. The monitor is manned by a captain and a crew of two men. The captain, equipped in a suit of submarine armor, is stationed on deck. He has the free use of his hands and arms, and, although invisible himself, can see distinctly any objects around and above him and can communicate with his men by telephone. Seated in the stern of the boat is the helmsman, who, by means of a horizontal fish-tailed rudder, controls the course of the monitor, and by observing an indicator, which is in front of him, can tell her exact depth under the water. The third man is stationed at the pumps. He regulates the ballast of the boat and sees that the captain is properly supplied with air. At any time that it is required he can raise the monitor to within fifteen feet of the surface and take in a stock of fresh air without making any surface demonstration. It is claimed for the boat that it can thus remain under water for an indefinite time, sail wherever it wills and rise to the surface or sink to any depth at the pleasure of its captain. In the event of war the invisible little monitor would, after sailing about and taking observations, rise under the keel of a vessel, noiselessly attach its explosives, fire them by electricity and then, guided by the indicator, retire to a safe distance until the hostile ship was blown out of the water. The plan of the monitor has been highly commended by naval officers and engineers, and it is claimed that, with the services of two of these boats, an attack on our harbor by any naval fleet in the world could be successfully resisted.” MISSIONARIES in heathen lands have many things to contend with of which we know comparatively little. The following statement in regard to Chinese pauperism, which was made recently at the Methodist preachers' meeting at Chicago, by Rev. Victor Hart, for seventeen years a missionary to China, is a good partial commentary on Rom. 1. The same condition of things would erelong exist in this country, if the teachings of Ingersoll and others of his class were to be generally adopted:— While many writers depict the celestial empire as a land of wonderful beauty, wealth, and prosperity, it is true that objects of charity are more plentiful there than in any other country on the globe. Beggars there are of two kinds, those who are organized into bands and thrive under governmental protection, and the transients, who are in really destitute circumstances, but equally unscrupulous and undeserving with their more fortunate brethren. A resident of China is unable to escape from the former class, for if he does not accede to their demands, an army of several hundreds, and not infrequently several thousands, will make a descent upon his habitation, and cause him to rue the hour of his birth. The transient beggars are equally successful by their dogged importunity, and escape is out of the question. One cause of so much pauperism is the lack of public improvement—all public walls, canals, and buildings being allowed to go to ruin. Another cause is the prevalence of the opium habit. It is shown by the official record that the imports of opium from India exceed the exports of tea, and in addition an immense acreage is devoted to the cultivation of the poppy, from which the drug is manufactured, about six-tenths of the entire consumption being grown in China. Mr. Hart stated that fully eight-tenths of the entire male population of the empire are addicted to the habitual use of opium, and crowds issue from the opium dens in China, as the denizens of the "Five Points" in New York do from saloons. Among them are also found many women. Where Buddhism flourishes, pauperism is at its zenith, and in sections where the higher civilization of Christianity has obtained a foothold, beggars are rarely seen. Mr. Hart spoke of some of the discouraging features of missionary work among the Celestials, growing out of the unscrupulous trickery of the majority of the population, whereby they endeavor to secure the influence and money of missionaries to further their various political and other schemes. For this purpose they will frequently profess to be converted to the Christian faith, and when their end is accomplished, or their deception discovered, they will unceremoniously cut the acquaintance of the missionary and throw up their prayer-books. “I Should Like Something Bright.”
REV. J. W. HASLAM, an Episcopal clergyman of England, says: “I remember meeting an officer from Dover, at the Hanover-square Rooms in London, where I had been giving some addresses. He came up to me with a cheery countenance and said: ‘You Christians are such a gloomy lot; you do not recommend your religion at all; I am jolly, I should like something bright.’ “I said, ‘I agree with you, I like something bright too, and do not approve of a gloomy religion; for I think that we Christians have more right to be happy, and have more cause for happiness, than any other people in the world. But,’ I added, ‘I cannot help thinking, that even if it were otherwise, I would far rather have my gloom in this world than in the next. You would rather have it all bright and jolly now; that is a very poor choice.’ “He made no reply; but a fortnight afterwards he met me and said, ‘I do not want my gloom in the next world.’ “I was thankful to hear him say so, and pointed him to the One who alone could change his heart, and make him truly happy in this world, and happier still hereafter. “Surely it is not too much to expect that God can make his children more joyful than the devil can; and that Christ has pleasures at his right hand such as the world can never give. It is a great mistake for men to refuse salvation, and the service of the blessed Lord Jesus, because they desire happiness.” No words can express how much the world owes to sorrow. Most of the psalms were born in a wilderness. Most of the epistles were written in a prison. The greatest thoughts of the greatest thinkers have passed through fire. The greatest poets have "learned in suffering what they taught in song." In bonds Bunyan lived the allegory that he afterwards indited, and we may thank Bedford jail for the "Pilgrim's Progress." All the foremost worthies of our world, all the spiritual heroes of our race, have been men of sorrow and acquainted with grief. Take comfort afflicted Christian! You have often prayed to be made of some use in the world before you die, and now the answer to that prayer has come. God tries you because in some way he is about to use you; for your history will furnish no exception to the rule that when God is about to make preeminent use of a man, he puts him in the fire.—Home Journal. The Club and the Stability of Home
The Rev. C. H. Parkhurst, D. D., thinks that the club, as ordinarily constituted, is a device of the devil for undermining the stability of the home, chilling the temperature and breaking its power. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Lesson for the Pacific Coast---July 21.
There is, in the minds of many, a strange misapprehension of the meaning of the vision which was given to Peter, Acts 10:9-16. They imagine that it meant that the distinction between clean and unclean beasts was henceforth to be abolished, and that there is therefore nothing which it is not lawful to eat. Even so renowned a commentator as Dr. Barnes fell into this error, although he taught that this was only the secondary meaning. He says:--- "In the Old Testament God made a distinction between clean and unclean animals. See Lev. 11:2-27; Deut. 14:3-20. This law remained in the Scriptures, and Peter plead that he had never violated it, implying that he could not now violate it. . . . Between that law and the command which he now received in the vision, there was an apparent variation, and Peter naturally referred to the well-known and admitted written law. One design of the vision was to show him that that law was now to pass away. . . . It was also true that the ceremonial laws of the Jews in regard to clean and unclean beasts was to pass away, though this was not directly taught in the vision." This matter may be settled very easily, by finding out what idea the vision conveyed to Peter. He undoubtedly had the full understanding of it, because he received his instruction from the Lord. Two days after the vision, when, in obedience to the divine command, Peter had gone to the house of Cornelius, he said to the company there assembled: "Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." The above statement is clear enough, but some may claim, as Barnes does, that it means this and more. It may not be amiss to enter into a brief argument to show that the vision had not the slightest reference to the distinction between clean and unclean beasts. In the first place, this distinction was not an arbitrary one, made at the time of the giving of the law, in order to separate between the Jews and the Gentiles. The distinction existed from the beginning, in the nature of the animals. We find that beasts and fowls, both clean and unclean, went into the ark with Noah. This was several hundred years before the Jews existed as a nation. God had not yet called out any one to be specially separate. There was nothing of a ceremonial nature in the distinction between clean and unclean animals. Afterward, when the children of Israel were brought out of Egypt, where every wrong practice prevailed, God told them what beasts and fowls were clean and what unclean, not as bringing about a new order of things, but as stating what already existed. There is not the slightest evidence to show that God intended that this distinction should pass away. Indeed, it could not pass away unless a change were made in the nature of animals. Few would dare claim that this change has been effected. The voice said to Peter, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." It remains for those who believe that men are at full liberty to eat everything, to show that this means that God had cleansed all unclean animals, so that they were free from all that would defile. There is still one more thought which shows the absurdity of the idea that we are combating. In the vessel that appeared to Peter there were "all manner of four-footed beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air." Then it must have contained toads, lizards, owls, bats, vultures, ravens, and many offensive animals. Who believes that these are fit for food? But if the distinction between clean and unclean beasts was done away, they must be. It is belittling the work of Christ to make such claims as that which we have been considering. The plan of salvation takes in only the human race. The blood of Christ cleanses every one who will accept it. There is no distinction of race or condition; all are invited to come. The grace of God extends to every human being, but not to the brute creation. Christ's sacrifice leaves them just where they were. But to mankind, the cry is, "Whosoever will, let him come." This truth was taught to Peter by the vision on the housetop. The matter was presented in the manner that it was because it would make the most vivid impression upon him in his famished condition. "God is no respecter of persons." That is what Peter had learned by the vision which had been given to him. It was a great step in advance for Peter. Brought up to look upon all but the Jewish nation as outcasts whom God despised, and with whom it was a disgrace to associate, he now learns what Paul says, that "the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men." God does not think any more highly of a man that has great mental endowments, or abundant wealth, than he does of his more humble neighbor. Both are dependent on him for what they possess. Neither does God esteem or despise any man because of his race or color. He "hath made of one blood all nations of men;" they are all his creatures, the objects of his care and grace. A question that is quite a favorite with a certain class of theologians at the present day is, "What will be done with the heathen, who have not had a fair chance in this life?" They think this can be answered only in one way, viz., "They will be granted a probation after death." But we do not believe that the question is a proper one to ask. It implies that God is so partial and unjust as to place some men on probation, and then not give them a probation. According to Paul, Rom. 2:18-32, there are none who have not a fair chance in this life. He says that the heathen who know not God are without excuse, because "the invisible things of him," i. e., "his eternal power and Godhead," are plainly manifest from the creation; that they may be learned from the things which he has made. And those who do not recognize their Creator, have become so because they "did not like to retain God in their knowledge," but chose to follow their own lewd desires. It is evident, then, that it would be a lowering of the dignity of God's government, a compromising with sin, if such persons were allowed a second probation. Neither is there any probability that they would profit by such leniency. "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Eccl. 8:11. If men harden their hearts in this probation, a second probation would make them still more obdurate. But there are those in heathen lands who do not give themselves up to sin. The law written in the heart may be in their cases very much mutilated, yet they conscientiously live up to its teachings. Like Cornelius, they are conscious that their lives are imperfect, and they long for more light. Then, according to the promise of Christ, John 7:17, they will receive the light. Every soul who has a heart to do right, will be given the opportunity to learn what is right. We may not be able to trace the providence of God, as in the case of Cornelius, yet God will not suffer any honest soul to perish for lack of knowledge. The Judge of all the earth will do right. "And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." "They of the circumcision" were Jewish converts to Christianity; these of course constituted the bulk of the Christian church at that time, since the gospel had not before been preached to the Gentiles. With this explanation we can appreciate the force of the following comment by Dr. Barnes:--- "This is one of the circumstances which show conclusively that the apostles and early Christians did not regard Peter as having any particular supremacy over the church, or as being in any peculiar sense the vicar of Christ upon earth. If he had been regarded as having the authority which the Roman Catholics claim for him, they would have submitted at once to what he had thought proper to do. But the primitive Christians had no such idea of his authority. This claim for Peter is not only opposed to this place, but to every part of the New Testament."
E. J. W. Shunning Responsibility.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WHAT would be thought of the pastor of a church who would occasionally be absent from service on Sabbath morning without sending any excuse, or even letting the congregation know that he intended to be absent? Or, if a minister should make an appointment to preach on a certain evening, and then should stay away without informing any one of his intended absence, how would he be regarded? The reply is at once that a man who would do such a thing, and repeat the offense, could not expect to retain the confidence of the people. They would justly feel that he had no appreciation of the responsibility resting upon him. His course would show that he was not a true minister—a servant of the church—but a server of self. But how much worse would that be than for a Sabbath-school teacher to absent himself from his class, without any real excuse, or without notifying anybody of his intended absence? The cases are exactly parallel. When the teacher consents to take charge of a class, he virtually pledges himself to be present every Sabbath and do his duty by it. He has no more right to be absent from the Sabbath-school than the pastor has to be away from church. The teacher who does so shows his unfitness for the work in which he is engaged, and should he reform, ought not to be retained in his position. Some teacher of this sort may say: "Well, I am willing to give up my class; let them fill my place with some one who can do better." What an admission! Willing to give up all responsibility, because it interferes with your convenience. Willing to do nothing, when you ought to, and by the practice of a little self-denial could, do a great deal. How much better it would be to say, "I am willing to do all I can; if I fail, it shall not be on account of lack of effort." You who are so humble that you don't want to occupy any position of responsibility; who are willing to let others do all the work, do you imagine that you will take things so calmly when you see another coming forward to take your crown? Think of this. It is well to consider consequences. The Children in the Congregation.
THERE is no more beautiful sight than a congregation assembled in families—father, mother and children seated together in pews, and together united in divine worship. That this is a sight less common than it used to be or than it ought to be, few persons will deny. It is not infrequently the case that the young people of a household attend one sanctuary, while the older members of the same group go by themselves to another. The fervor of an eloquent minister attracts a grown-up son; the artistic perfection of the music in a certain church pleases a grown-up daughter; or there are social considerations which weave their spells around the young lady or gentleman; and so they cease to go with their parents to the old church, which they vote to be old-fashioned and slow. As to the little ones in the nursery, many parents think it hardly less than cruel to take them to church where they will be obliged to sit still, where they can understand only a small portion of the sermon, and where they shall be wearied by the irksome confinement. It is urged, too, that if children are compelled while little to go to church, they will acquire for it so great a dislike (not to say hatred) that as soon as they reach maturity they will cease to go at all, and, rushing to the opposite extreme, will spend the Sabbath in rioting, feasting and unhallowed pleasures. We question very much whether the children, and even the very little ones, have the disagreeable associations with church-going which are ascribed to them. Probably they enjoy it more than their mistaken elders suppose. At least, that is the uniform testimony to be obtained from tripping feet and beaming eyes and merry looks as they run to get ready. Very few children are not glad, and do not feel honored, when taken to the house of God.—Christian Intelligencer. Blakeslee in "The Pacific" on the Sabbath.
By Editor
IT is impossible to give our readers a just idea of the true spirit of the Pacific's correspondent, or of his singular method of reasoning, without giving quite a lengthy extract from his article. We therefore quote as follows:— "Another falsehood is that the Bible commands us to keep Saturday (he calls it the seventh day) as the Sabbath. Now in the whole Bible there is not a single command to us to keep the Saturday, or the seventh day of the week. This is a sectarian addition to the words of the Bible, and is a direct violation of three different passages in the word of God, which forbid any addition or taking away of the words of the Scripture. The Old Testament locates the Sabbath in only one place, Ex. 16, by saying, 'to-morrow is the Sabbath;' then in the New Testament is the statement that the Jews kept the seventh day of the week. But God tells us explicitly what day to keep though the Saturday Adventists will not take it as God gives it. "The fourth commandment says in exact words: 'Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' The Bible does not tell us on what day of the week to begin to reckon the six work days, the seventh to be the Sabbath. Since Christ's resurrection Christians have begun Monday morning, worked six days, and kept the seventh as the Lord commanded; and this seventh reckoned as God commands us is the Sunday. Thus, this editor asserts a falsehood in saving the Bible commands to keep the seventh day of the week. Again, he asserts an intellectual falsehood by saving God began creation on Sunday, or the first day of the week, meaning week as we reckon it. It is an intellectual falsehood because the Bible never says God began on the first day of the week. It only tells us what God did on the first day of his week, but on what day of our week this was is only a human and often sectarian inference. "Again he says: 'We Adventists keep the seventh day: others keep the first day.' This, in his sense of the word 'day,' is a sophistical falsehood, for Christians, not Adventists, keep the seventh day of the week, exact to the letter of the fourth commandment. In his assertion, by sophistry, he used for himself the first day of the week to deny that we keep the seventh day of command. We do keep the seventh day of the week according to the fourth commandment; and in denying this is his falsehood. Another great error is that he uses the word Sabbath in the Old Testament as the name of the seventh day of the week, the same as it is in the New Testament. This is false to the Bible." In our former article we disproved every assertion and inference of Mr. Blakeslee as far as considered. But what a medley of absurdities we have presented to us in the above extract! A constant ringing of the word "falsehood," without a truthful statement in the whole three paragraphs. The only issue contained in this quotation is in regard to this question: Is our Saturday the seventh day of the week, and the day enjoined in the fourth commandment? Mr. Blakeslee says it is not—that Sunday is the real seventh day of the commandment. To prove this he says that the Old Testament does not designate the day of the week for the Sabbath. He thus intimates that the seventh day of the commandment is not the seventh day of the week. Now we have against this, 1. The fact that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment was instituted when God created the heavens and the earth, and was the seventh or last day of the first week of time. No other reckoning but that of the week could there be given, for no other cycle had yet elapsed. Reference to this same cycle and these same facts is made in Ex. 16 and 20. The seventh day of the commandment is not that of an indefinite cycle of seven without regard to its place in the week, even as the sixth day of Ex. 16 is not that of an indefinite cycle of six without regard to the day of the week. According to his method, "the seventh day" is any day after six days preceding, falling anywhere in the week. If that is so, then "the sixth day" in the same scripture must be any day after five days preceding, without regard to its place in the week. This must be so, or his method of counting is false. But if that were so, the sixth day would come every six days even as the seventh day came every seven days, and without regard to their relation to each other. But let it be remembered that at the time when the commandment was given the days of the week had no names; they were known only by numbering. Therefore in speaking of the sixth day and the seventh day, the sixth and seventh days of the week were always understood unless explanation was made, as was always the case when the days of the month were meant. 2. All authorities recognize the well-known fact that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seventh day of the week. Thus Gesenius, the first of Hebrew lexicographers, says, under the Hebrew word Shab-bath: "A Sabbath, a day of rest; the seventh day of each week." Perhaps Mr. B. would designate this a lexicographical falsehood! Chamber's Encyclopedia says: "Sabbath, Heb. Shabbath, from Shaboth, to rest, designates the seventh day of the week, set aside in the Old Testament as a period of cessation from work." And this, according to Mr. Blakeslee, must be an encyclopedian falsehood! Webster says of Sabbath, a day of rest the observance of which was enjoined upon the Jews in the decalogue, "and has been continued by the Christian church with a transference of the day observed from the last to the first day of the week." Thus, according to Webster, it was given to the Jews in the decalogue on the last day of the week—not the first. And Worcester is still more explicit. He says it was "enjoined upon, and observed by, the Jews on the seventh day of the week, because in six days God created the heavens and the earth, and rested on the seventh day, . . . but among Christians observed on the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ." But the resurrection of Christ is not referred to in the commandment. That refers to God's rest-day, and was so given to the Jews, on the seventh day of the week. What appellation would Mr. Blakeslee give to these "falsehoods" of Webster and Worcester? McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia says: "This was the seventh day of the Hebrew week, extending from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday." Dr. Wm. Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says on the Sabbath: "The seventh day of the week, the strict observance of which is enforced, not merely in the general Mosaic code, but in the decalogue itself." Horne's Introduction says: "Seven nights and days constituted a week; six of these were appropriated to labor and the ordinary purposes of life, and the seventh day or Sabbath was appointed by God to be observed as a day of rest, because that on it he rested from all his work which God created and made." And Dr. Barnes says: "The Jews observed the seventh day of the week." The Sunday-school Union Bible Dictionary says: "Sunday was a name given by the heathen to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the sun." Like evidence can be given to any extent, but more is not needed. Nor is this much needed to intelligent and reasonable people. We give it, however, hoping that it may possibly open the eyes of Mr. Blakeslee to a well-known truth. But if he is not able to appreciate these evidences, then we advise him to get an Almanac and begin his studies there to find out where the week commences. 3. The New Testament explicitly proves the same thing. In Luke 23:56 it is said they rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment; and the next verse says that early on the first day of the week they came to the sepulcher. The Sabbath of the commandment was passed when the first day of the week commenced. And other evangelists verify this statement. Mark says: "And when the Sabbath was past, . . . very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher." The commandment says "the seventh day is the Sabbath;" and this seventh day is the seventh day of the week, because it is immediately followed by the first day of the week following. But is there no evidence on the other side? Yes; the assertion of the very celebrated and very reliable Mr. Blakeslee in the Pacific! And he over and over accuses us of "falsehood" because we say what all these authorities—all authorities—and the Scriptures also plainly declare. We repeat, that we do not ask Mr. B. to excuse us on the score of ignorance. We know whereof we speak on the question of the Sabbath and the Sunday. His assertion that they who keep Sunday keep the seventh day of the week, and that Adventists do not, is not worthy of notice. All who keep Sunday profess to keep it in honor of the resurrection of Christ (for which they have no Scripture requirement), as Worcester says in his Dictionary: "Among Christians observed on the first day of the week, in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ." We might fill our columns with evidences from every source proving that Sunday is the first day of the week. And everybody—except Mr. Blakeslee—knows it. We must except him, as we have already cleared him of "intellectual falsehood!" We ask pardon of our readers for noticing one more point. Mr. Blakeslee turns critic and gives us his rendering of the terms of the fourth commandment. He says:— "The word Sabbath is an adjective meaning rest, quiet, relief from labor, etc. Hence, by translating the word, the fourth command reads: Remember the resting day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, but the seventh is the resting day." This last "revised version" contains nothing material to the issue, for it still leaves the seventh day in the commandment, and Sunday is the first day. But as Mr. Blakeslee is supposed to be perfectly honest in all his statements, and as he professes to be competent to decide questions involving Hebrew criticism, we must at least catechise him a little. Are you sure, Mr. B., that the word Sabbath in the commandment is an adjective? Are you certain that the Hebrew word yôm is not in "the construct," and that the word Sabbath is not therefore a substantive? Can you give a reason why the following—Remember the day of the rest—is not a literal and allowable rendering of the Hebrew expression Zah-cor eth-yom hash-shab-bath? Were we to grant your assertion thus far, we ask, Is "resting" the form of the adjective in your grammar or lexicon? Will you tell us why you consider "resting" an adjective and not a participle? Can the Hebrew word Shabbath be translated into an English participle? Do you know that the participial form of this word (Sho-vvith) is not in the commandment? And finally, can you give us any evidence that you know anything about it? You certainly have not given any evidence to that effect yet, but quite the reverse. Every one, after reading the quotation first herein given, and marking the uncourteous, un-Christian, and ungentlemanly language of Mr. Blakeslee, will admit that we have not treated him with severity in this article. He really placed himself outside the pale of a courteous and considerate reply. But we notice him. (1) Because his article appeared in a respectable religious paper of San Francisco. Though we must confess that it will show itself more worthy of this designation if it refuses to publish articles which accuse a brother editor of falsehood a half a score of times, without the shadow of a reason for the accusation. (2) We have been requested to notice the article for the benefit of some who had not had the opportunity of instruction on this question, and who supposed that there was some ground for Mr. Blakeslee's assertions. We have seldom seen an article so unworthy of notice, in every respect. But as "the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus," are the burden of our message, "the present truth" for this time, we are always willing to do anything which will expose error and advance the truth in regard to God's commandments and his down-trodden Sabbath. Our prayer to the Lord of the Sabbath is,— "May sinners be again made thine,
Though once with vengeance curst;
And may the holy Sabbath shine,
As glorious as at first."