Earlier text: Personal Impressions of Mr. LincolnA New Champion with New Arguments.
By Editor
ARGUMENTS against the Sabbath are about exhausted. We expect soon a very different kind of opposition. Yet there is occasionally found one, who either from forgetfulness or ignorance of what has been written on the subject, imagines that this field is yet uncanvassed, or that he has discovered the philosopher's stone by which all the leaden and pewter theories that have so far been devised against the Sabbathic institution, are transmuted into genuine gold. And there are still found some, more conspicuous of late years on account of their scarcity, the eccentricities of whose crazy logic lead them so far from the regions of reason and common sense, that they produce something new on the subject; for it is a fact that however unbridled may be the imagination of our opponents, or wild their fancies, they rarely, now-a-days present us with anything that is new or novel. Time, past, present and future, earth and sea, near and remote, have been pretty thoroughly ransacked in search of arguments against the existence of Jehovah's rest-day. Men have explored the past dispensation and the present, they have gone to the Patriarchs, to Moses and to Christ, to Jews and Gentiles, to pope and pagan, they have called on revolution, reason and history, astronomy and philosophy; they have traversed the earth with electric speed, they have gone to the north pole and to the south, they have leaped from Jerusalem to San Francisco; they have gone around the world with the sun, and back again at the same marvelous velocity, and have performed almost every other conceivable antic in their raving search for some reason to show that the great God made a mistake in giving to the race of man, in the beginning, a hallowed rest-day, as a great memorial of himself and his glorious work. But a writer has now appeared who is not content with the limited sphere of this earth and the 6,000 years of probationary time, on this question. Bolder or more reckless than his fellows, he leaves time, heaven, earth, the sea and all that in them is, and makes a sublime and magnificent plunge into eternity there to learn that the ten commandments, the decalogue, constitute a law not adapted to this earth, or at least to the gospel dispensation. The article may be found in the Voice of the West of May 2, and the writer, W. Sheldon, appears to be well adapted to make such a perilous leap, being, if we rightly judge, seldom guilty of carrying overmuch ballast. He lays out his work in the close of his first paragraph as follows: "If the decalogue is a perpetual law, it would not only bring the Sabbath commandment into this age, but carry it into the deathless age, with the entire decalogue. Now let us by way of experiment, apply several component parts of this law on the tables of stone, to the age of immortality, and thus learn the result of this claim." He then quotes "Thou shalt not kill," and says that this could not apply in that age, as they could not kill each other if they should try it! Neither could the second commandment apply there, as there will be no iniquity to be visited upon the children, and no persons to be found there to hate God. And as in that world "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," there will be no sons and daughters upon whom to enforce the Sabbath; and he asks, "Will there be lawless strangers occasionally within our gates, in the future world, over whom we must exercise our control to prevent them from breaking the Sabbath? Will we there, as heads of families, have 'sons' and 'daughters,' under our authority, for whose encroachments upon the Sabbath we shall be held responsible?" And as there will be no stealing there, nor committing adultery, nor coveting of a neighbor's wife, so it is claimed the commands touching these points could not be applicable in that age. These, says Mr. S., "are some of the absurdities growing out of the claim that the decalogue was given as a law to be perpetuated without end, which claim is made for the purpose of making it appear that the seventh-day Sabbath is still in force, and is to be in force through eternity." Having thus laid out his premises to his own unbounded satisfaction, apparently, how does he reason from them? Thus: The ten commandments not being arranged for the eternal state, they are not a perpetual law; and if they are not a perpetual law, they become obsolete at the introduction of the deathless age; and if they could become extinct there, they could become extinct before that time, and therefore they did become extinct and cease to exist—at the cross! What marks of astonishment could be appropriately attached to such logic as this! Let us try a parallel case: The banks of the Mississippi river do not extend through the Gulf of Mexico to the West Indies, therefore there is no Mississippi river through the Gulf of Mexico; therefore the Mississippi ceases when it reaches the Gulf; and if it may cease then, it may cease further up; and hence it does cease and become dried up—at St. Louis! But if the commandments do not exist in the immortal state, because the circumstances of that state are such that they cannot apply to them, if this is the reason they do not exist there, as Mr. S.'s position assumes, then the inevitable consequence follows, that the commandments exist, so long as circumstances exist to which they can apply. This is all the eternity we want for the law. We never supposed that God spoke to dead men or to angels, "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." But the circumstances of mankind at the present time are notoriously such as would come within the application of the ten commandments, and will be, so long as this dispensation continues. Therefore the commandments now exist, and are binding, on Mr. S.'s own showing, and will exist until at least, the eternal state is ushered in. Put in another form, his argument stands thus: The commandments are not binding in the future state, because they are not applicable to the circumstances of that state; therefore they are not binding in the present state, notwithstanding they are applicable to the circumstances of this state. In other words, license is taken from the future, to which it is supposed the law will not apply, to discard it in the present, to which it does apply. We think it would be quite as wise to wait till that future state arrives. Inasmuch, therefore, as the circumstances of the present dispensation are such that the ten commandments are fully applicable to them, if they are not now binding, it must be for some other reason than the supposed fact that they will not be binding in the future. The reference, therefore, to the future state is altogether irrelevant. We are amenable to the same God, tempted by the same Devil, exposed to the same sins, and dependent on the same Saviour, as the men of the former dispensation; and if the moral principles by which we are to be governed are different from theirs, let Mr. S. show it; and when he attempts this, it will be time to follow him further on this point. There is another conclusion involved in the position under notice. If the ten commandments are not a perpetual law, continually binding upon men, because not to be binding in a future state, it follows that whatever can be shown to be binding in that state, is an eternal and perpetual law, binding continually upon men here and hereafter. Now, of the Sabbath, the Lord expressly says by the prophet, that as the new heavens and the new earth shall remain before him, the seed and name of his people shall remain, and from one Sabbath to another all flesh shall come to worship before him. Isa. lxvi, 23. The whole object of Mr. S. against the decalogue is to get rid of the Sabbath; and it is a little singular that he should go forward into eternity for an argument to prove the abolition of that very institution which God expressly declares shall exist throughout all eternity. The Sabbath there meets him, with the same seal of divinity upon its brow which it received from the hand of God at the beginning, and there it is appointed to be co-eternal with the new heavens and new earth. He asks if there will be sons and daughters, upon whom to enforce the Sabbath; if there will be strangers wandering about to come within our gates; and if we shall have men-servants and maid-servants in that future state. Such puerile questions we leave him to settle with his Bible. We prefer to believe the inspired record that the Sabbath will be there, and that all flesh will come up together to worship upon it before the Lord of hosts. Futile is any effort to overthrow the Sabbath by trying to show that the other commandments will not exist in the future state, so long as the record remains that the Sabbath itself shall be there in all its might and glory. It was a fatal oversight that concealed this point from his view. But nothing could be more appropriate than that a person entering on a blind raid into the eternal state, for the purpose of demolishing the Sabbath, should dash his own brains out, against the very institution which he sought to destroy. His efforts to show that the decalogue is not appropriate to the gospel dispensation, we defer noticing till another time. Should Christians Fight? No. 1.
By R. F. Cottrell
THE Scriptures answer this question very clearly in the negative. Our Saviour, while instructing his disciples in the principles of the gospel institution, says, "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" Matt. v, 39. This is a broad and comprehensive command. Resist not evil. This is unrestricted and universal. In no case must smiting be returned for smiting. The Christian must not smite in his own behalf; must he do it for the government under which he lives? When Jesus was about to be betrayed into the hands of sinners, in order that the prediction, "And he was reckoned among the transgressors," might be accomplished, it was necessary to have one or more swords present. Two were found and he said, "It is enough." Two were as good as a dozen. One of them Peter used in defense of his Master, by cutting off the ear of a servant of the high priest. Jesus repaired the injury that had been done, by healing the wound; and turning to Peter he said, "Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels." Matt. xxvi, 51-53, and parallels. This practical illustration was well calculated to bring to mind and enforce the precept: Resist not evil. Peter must not fight even in the defense of his sinless Master. Must he defend the government under which he lived from the Romans? No; but he might flee. "When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains." But, says the objector, it was not a Christian government under which the disciples then lived. Neither is there a Christian government in the world to-day, unless that is a Christian government which has, during its whole term of existence, tolerated "the sum of all villainies," and is now suffering the judgments of God on that account. But the Jewish nation was doomed on account of its infidelity and wickedness. So is every nation under heaven. Jer. xxv, 15-33. Prayer, and not the sword, is the Christian's defense. "Put up the sword;" "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father?" And has not the Christian the same Father to whom he may go in time of need? "The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds." 2 Cor. x, 4. But has the Christian no obligation of obedience to the civil government, the protection of which he enjoys? He has. Must he not obey magistrates? He must. How far? Just as far as his duty to the Divine law will permit; and no farther. The church and the state are two; though the distinction does not seem to be very clear in men's minds. But all admit it. Obedience, in one sense, is to be rendered to both by the Christian. In another and higher sense both cannot be served. "No man can serve two masters." This was spoken by authority from which there is no appeal, for he never spake amiss.181 Obedience can only be rendered to one as supreme, and this is the sense in which a person cannot serve two masters. The Christian chooses to serve the Lord. When he obeys parents, masters or magistrates, he does not become the servant of men; for the Lord requires it, and he does it "heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men," for he "serves the Lord Christ." Col. iii, 22-24. But in case human laws conflict with the divine law, which must be obeyed? The choice which we make will tell whose servants we are. The Lord bids us use no forcible resistance; the government requires us to defend it by force of arms. In such case we should be under the necessity of choosing our master, and, if properly enlightened, the path of duty would be clear. But thanks be to Him who heareth prayer, our civil rulers do not force us to this extremity. We can give money or other service instead of fighting. Do you say, If it is wrong to fight it is equally wrong to pay others for fighting? I reply, We need not pay others to fight for us. But our Master paid tribute and has taught us to do the same. The government can use it to pay soldiers, if it chooses to do so. The civil magistrate is the "minister of God" to us "for good." If we "do that which is evil, he beareth not the sword in vain." But Christians must be subject, "not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all, their dues: tribute to whom tribute," &c. Rom. xiii. He who has chosen Christ for his master, is a loyal subject of civil government, as far as the "higher law" will permit; but this law says, Resist not evil—put up the sword. Says the objector, If all were of your mind, our good government would have been overthrown ere this, and we should all now be at the tender mercies of slaveholders, traitors and rebels. Not so. If all were of my mind, there would be no forced service, neither traitors nor rebels to take up arms against the government. But in God's permissive providence there are oppressors, and rebels; and in his restraining and controlling providence, enough have been found, for patriotism or for pay, to overpower them. For this we give God thanks. It is the answer of our prayers; for the object of the Christian's prayers "for kings and all that are in authority," is, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty." 1 Tim. ii, 1, 2. Meetings in Eastern Mich.
By I. D. Van Horn
Bro. White: According to appointment I have visited the churches in the eastern district, and I have no discouraging report to make. The meetings have been a season of rejoicing to me, and, I trust, of profit to the brethren and sisters, and to the cause. March 24-26, I was with the church at Owasso. We had four profitable meetings with this little band in which all manifested a zeal for the truth, and seemed to take new courage to make their way through to the kingdom. While here, the Lord manifested his willingness to hear, and do for his people by restoring the sick in answer to prayer. We felt to give all the honor and glory to his holy name. March 27-30, I held meetings in Linden. The brethren and sisters in Tyrone, met with us, they having made arrangements thus, to better accommodate some of their number who do not often enjoy such privileges. Application was made for the meeting-house, which had been built by the people for the use of all denominations, but the Presbyterians who had control of it, refused to let us occupy it. The people were somewhat stirred up by this refusal, and although we were obliged to hold our meetings in a ball-room, yet it was well filled with attentive listeners to the truth. We had good freedom in trying to explain to this people the important place we now occupy in this world's history, and that we should make a wise improvement of the time given us, that we may be ready to stand before the Son of man. On the whole this was a good meeting. Cheering testimonies were borne by the brethren and sisters, and quite an earnest effort manifested to get nearer the Lord. April 1st and 2nd, I was with the brethren and sisters at Milford. This little company have been passing through severe trials, which have had a tendency to bring discouragement upon those who may have the truth at heart. The Lord gave freedom in hearing the straight testimony, his spirit rested upon us, and as it moved from heart to heart there was a breaking down before it; wrongs were confessed, and we trust a feeling of union and love once more prevailed in their midst. Oh that the sanctifying influence of the truth might pervade every heart, that our lives might be brought into subjection to the will of God, and we be prepared to act a part in the last work of the message. April 5-11, I spent in holding meetings with the Oakland church. During the time, I gave six lectures in Rochester. The interest to hear the truth was not the best, yet I trust the meetings were not in vain. The Shelby church have disbanded and united with the brethren at Oakland. We had eight interesting meetings in their house of worship, one a social, in which fifty-two testimonies were borne, in about one hour, to the encouragement of all present. This church is now in a growing condition. May the blessing of the Lord attend them that they may hold out faithful to the end. April 14-17, I enjoyed a happy season at Memphis. It is truly cheering to meet those with whom we have formed a happy acquaintance, and find them still maintaining an interest, and warm love for the truth. The cheering testimonies that the brethren and sisters gave during these meetings, showed their willingness to do all in their power to obtain a right to the tree of life, by keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. We were glad to meet our much esteemed brother in Christ, H. S. Gurney, who has lately removed to this place, from Jackson, Mich. He will be a source of strength and encouragement to the cause here, and his talents will be appreciated by all lovers of present truth. At a business meeting of the church, he was chosen by a unanimous vote to occupy the position of Elder. May the Lord give him wisdom and discretion that he may clearly discern his duty, and thus move in the fear and approbation of God. We look back upon the meetings held with the different churches with feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. We have formed many new and happy acquaintances, and we hope we may all prove faithful, that we may be brought safely through to the kingdom of God. Yours in hope of life. The Meeting at Lovett's Grove.
By J. CLARKE.
THE Ohio Conference held at Lovett's Grove, April 22, and 23, 1865, was well attended, and was by all spoken of as very profitable and interesting. As we were dependent upon brethren in Michigan for help, we feared that it might be inconvenient for them to send us aid at this time; but to our joy we were favored with the labors of Bro. Cauright, who could not have found a congregation more needy and desirous of his labor; and all felt glad and grateful to him, and to those who arranged matters for us. The social meetings were good, and much freedom was enjoyed; and they were the more interesting from the fact that delegates, and other brethren and sisters were present from nearly all parts of the State where churches exist, or where there are S. D. Adventists. Never in Ohio have we had a better Conference than this; and there was evident reason to believe that most of the brethren and sisters in Ohio are overcoming and still striving for the victory; and the assurance was renewed that the Holy Spirit's influence is not withdrawn from us. One brother and his companion, came a three days' journey to meet with us; and they departed rejoicing in the blessed hope, not regarding time or expense, that they might hear the preached word, and mingle their devotions with the people of God. With the confidence that the day of the Lord is very near, and with the consoling hope that we shall soon overcome, the brethren in Ohio have anew girded themselves for the race, and wishing to bear our own burdens, are seeking how and by what means we may sustain the cause. The Treasurer, Bro. John Mears reports over three hundred dollars s. B. funds on hand of last year's money; and a good amount pledged for the coming year; and with these encouraging tokens, we hope that laborers will be raised up, who will labor in Ohio; and the prevailing prayer and desire of the church seems to be, O Lord revive thy work and raise up laborers for us, and send them forth in power. Worse and Worse.
By M. E. Cornell
[We give the above heading to the following positions publicly taken by Eld. T. M. Preble on the Sabbath question. By comparing them with his positions as found in Both Sides, it will be seen that at least he has not materially improved in his views of this important subject.—Ed.] BRO. WHITE: Eld. T. M. Preble having become somewhat noted as a champion for Sunday, against the Bible Sabbath, I send you for the Review the following notes of his late sermons in Manchester, N. H., with my reply. The sermons were preached on Sunday, April 16th, and I had an appointment on the following Monday evening. Bro. Wm. C. Gage being present, took notes, and announced that I would review those discourses the next evening. We shall be excused for publishing these notes because Eld. P. claimed that he had new light on the question, and strove hard to make the people hope that he would confirm the word. When Bro. Gage announced our review, Eld. P. objected, that we had preached much in Manchester on our side of the question, but he had not before given a discourse upon it. Bro. Gage answered that inasmuch as the claim had been set up of a great discovery of "new light," it was best to have it fairly investigated. In the introduction of my reply, I remarked that as the notes had been taken for me by another, I should not be able to speak so understandingly as if I had heard them myself. This together with the fact that Eld. Preble requested his friends to be present at the review to see that he was not misrepresented, prompted me to read the notes, and ask for any corrections if they were not right. No objection being made I entered upon the review of the notes, of which I can only give a brief outline in dialogue form. Preble.—The Jewish dispensation was all death, but the Christian is life. REPLY.—Life and death are held out in both dispensations. It is a mistake that all was death under the first covenant. Deut. vi, 24. "And the Lord commanded us to do all these statutes, to fear the Lord our God, for our good always, that he might preserve us alive, as it is this day." Deut. vii, 15. "And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness," &c. Deut. viii, 1. "All the commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live," &c. Also in verse 3: "Man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live." This last is endorsed by our Saviour in Matt. iv, 4, and is brought over as the rule also of this dispensation. God never was the author of an "all death" dispensation. The wages of sin always was, and still is death, while in all ages those who kept God's law had the promise of life. Compare the above scriptures with Matt. xix, 17; Rom. viii, 6, 7; Rev. xxii, 14. Preble.—God never sanctified the seventh day of the week. Reads the last part of the fourth commandment. REPLY.—That God did sanctify the seventh day is certain, from the reading of the whole of the commandment. Exodus xx, 8–11. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, &c., * For in six days182 the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." If God rested on the particular seventh day, then it is certain that he blessed and hallowed the seventh day. Preble.—The question is important in view of the nearness of the judgment. If we are wrong it is high time that we know it. REPLY.—We most heartily endorse the above because it is according to the Scriptures. The commandments of God are to be the rule in the judgment. Eccl. xii, 13, 14: "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man; for God shall bring every work into judgment," &c. James ii, 11, 12. The apostle quotes two of the ten commandments, and then says, "So speak ye, and so do as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." That the law of liberty was the law binding in the former age is evident from Ps. cxix, 45: "I will walk at liberty, for I seek thy precepts." Also in verse 165, "Great peace have they which love thy law." But in the above Eld. Preble does not agree with many of his brethren; for they have decided that it is too late in the day to discuss doctrine; such as the Sabbath, non-resurrection, &c. Preble.—The Sabbath was not changed by precept, but by the Spirit. The first-day was not sanctified by Christ and the apostles, but by the Spirit. REPLY.—How could the Spirit change the Sabbath and sanctify the first-day, without expressing it in words? If it required express words to institute the Sabbath or seventh-day, it will require as much to change it to another. Would the unchangeable God leave the world to infer the change?! The spirit which now says that the Sabbath is changed, must be an evil one; for it does not agree with the word. I remember that when Luther was exposing the men-made doctrines of the papists, they appealed from the written word to the "Spirit." "The Spirit, the Spirit teaches us," was their cry. Luther was so vexed with the absurdity of their course, that he proposed that he would "Rap their spirit on the snout." Now if Eld. Preble's spirit continues to exalt itself above the written word, it may be necessary to try it by Luther's rule, and inflict upon it his penalty. Preble.—The law written with ink is done away, but the ten commands are all in the new covenant, written on the heart. REPLY.—Fatal admission. If the ten commands are all in the new covenant, of course the fourth one is there. If the fourth command is there, it is there without change. For no man can prove a change, when it is not once recorded. Preble.—The New Testament is silent about the seventh-day except in connection with Paul's labors. He observed it, as he did circumcision to get access to the Jews. REPLY.—When Paul observed an institution merely to have an influence with the Jews, he so expressed it in plain language. Acts xvi, 3: "Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters." Now where is it said, that they observed the seventh day because of the Jews in those quarters? There is not even an inference in that direction in the whole Bible. On the other hand Paul sets a clear distinction between the law of God and circumcision. 1 Cor. vii, 19: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God, is something," Whiting's translation, "or is everything," according to Wakefield. But is it true that the New Testament is silent about the Sabbath except in connection with Paul's labors? Let us see. Mark ii, 27. "And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Luke xxiii, 56. "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Is the New Testament silent about the Sabbath-day except in connection with Paul's labors?! Preble.—The reason why Christ did not change the Sabbath was because it would give offence to the Jews. REPLY.—I will apply this reason to their query. They say, If the Sabbath is binding, why did not the apostles teach it? Answer. They kept it on the sly, and said as little as possible, for fear of the Gentiles, who observed the Sunday. But is it true that our Saviour was cringing and smoothing his tongue lest he offend the Jews? Read his scorching testimony in Matt. xxiii, 23–33. "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith." He goes on to call them, "blind guides," "whited sepulchres," "full of hypocrisy and iniquity," "ye generation of vipers," &c. Who can believe that Christ kept back the truth, for fear it would give offence? Preble.—We find by church history that the change was made from the seventh to the first-day. REPLY.—The learned Roman Catholic finds by church history, that Peter was pope, that the apostles and early Christians prayed to the dead. Those who advocate sprinkling for baptism, give up that it is not expressly taught in the Bible, but they appeal to history. And what heresy, I ask cannot be proved by an appeal to the "Fathers," and to history? Preble.—God sanctifies the first-day in the place of the seventh, because that was a memorial of the old creation which was cursed, but the first-day is a memorial of Christ's new creation. REPLY.—How can there be a memorial of Christ's new creation when it does not yet exist? A new heavens and earth are to be created out of the old by taking off the curse, but it is yet future, hence the memorial is of no account. And I affirm that it will ever be out of place; for the Sabbath was instituted as a memorial of creation before it was cursed, before the fall, and will answer just as well when the curse is removed. Why not? Preble.—God has forbidden us to keep the seventh day because it was written with ink. REPLY.—The other nine precepts were also written with ink, and of course they are forbidden to be kept for the same reason. But they were also written on stone by the finger of God, and Eld. P. has said "all ten" were in the new covenant. Then why not keep them? Preble.—There never was but one kind of law. REPLY.—The ten commands were a whole and complete law set apart from all other laws, whether civil or ceremonial. Ex. xxiv, 12: "And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there, and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them." We learn from this text, 1. That the ten commands were "a law," not a small portion of a law, but a complete code of itself. 2. It was a law which God had written in distinction from the ceremonial, and civil codes which God did not write. The great Lawgiver himself has made the distinction, and we ought to recognize it. Preble.—The ten commands must be changed because there has been a change of the penalty. REPLY.—Not so. The Jews were broken off because of their unbelief and disobedience, and the Gentiles are grafted on by faith and obedience. That law which regulated the priesthood is changed of necessity, because the priesthood is changed. Heb. vii, 12. But the law of ten commands refer to moralities which do not change with the change of dispensations. The change of subjects does not necessarily change the law. To illustrate: Suppose that the Mormons, being unfaithful to the constitution, should be banished, and a German colony grafted in, to occupy the same territory. Would that change the laws of the United States? The ten commands are the constitution of God's moral government, and are therefore unchangeable. Capital punishment for murder has been abolished in many States; but the law forbidding murder remains the same. The law respecting the penalty can be changed and not affect the law in the least. Preble.—Visionary women have always dragged in the Sabbath. REPLY.—This is evidently said for effect. Falling in argument, an appeal to the hearers' prejudices is the dernier resort. The Sabbath is taught in the Bible. The true prophets were its friends. We read of "Miriam the prophetess," "Deborah the prophetess," "Huldah the prophetess," "Anna the prophetess," and the four daughters of Philip which did prophesy. Prophets have visions. Then according to Eld. P. these were "visionary women!" They kept the Sabbath no doubt. No true prophet ever "dragged in the Sabbath," but they have exalted it, as the "holy of the Lord and honorable." Isa. lviii, 13. If any have true visions of the Lord in these last days, I should expect they would harmonize with the ancient prophets, in regard to the Sabbath. Preble.—There is no commandment for the first day. But we are to be guided by the Spirit. Those who don't keep the first day are now Sabbath-breakers! REPLY.—If the first day is only commanded by the Spirit, which the wicked do not have, how can they be called Sabbath-breakers? Where there is no law there is no transgression. Eld. P. admits there is no letter for the first day, and the sensual have not the Spirit, and yet are Sabbath-breakers! How is this? Error goes crooked. I never knew a man to oppose the Sabbath without contradicting himself, and outraging reason and common sense. Preble.—Applies Isa. lviii, 12, 13, to the first day of the week. Sunday needs to be restored. The Catholics have trodden it down and made it a mere holiday, and this is a prophecy of its restoration. REPLY.—But Sunday always was a mere holiday of man. Eld. P. has twice admitted that there is no precept for the first day, and now he applies a scripture to the first day, which everybody knows had reference to the ancient Bible Sabbath. We advise the Elder to find scripture for the institution of Sunday, before he undertakes to prove its restoration. The Scriptures clearly reveal how the ancient Sabbath was divinely instituted, and enforced by the highest law ever given to man. We have also a record of its observance by the disciples, as a Sabbath. They "rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment," but there is nothing of the kind for the first day. No institution, no law enforcing it, and no record of its observance as a Sabbath-day can be found in the whole Bible. No doubt my readers will be astonished at the positions now taken by Eld. Preble. The notes were taken by one who is capable, and too conscientious to misrepresent. Still I have no doubt that Eld. P. will complain that he is misrepresented. He complained that Bro. Smith misrepresented him, when he gave every word of his (Eld. P.'s) articles, verbatim et literatim. Of course when the reader had both sides in the authors' own language he could judge of all misrepresentations. We have publicly accepted Eld. P.'s challenge for discussion of the question of the Sabbath, and shall be ready when time and place are agreed upon. Truth will bear investigation. M. E. CORNELL. Wisdom. No. 2.
By J. Clarke
By wisdom the prophets warned the people of their sins, and of their captivity in Babylon. It was through wisdom, that Mordecai overcame Haman, and Esther saved a nation from cold-blooded massacre. Wisdom also taught Daniel how to save the wise men of Babylon from the tyrannical decree of Nebuchadnezzar, and it was the friendship of wisdom which qualified him to stand in the presence of kings, pre-eminent in statesmanship. Wisdom gave to Daniel a desire to know of future events; and then she fed the flame, and satisfied his holy desire. She gave him a heart to weep for the desolation of Zion, and then she made known to him the time of her restoration. Wisdom did more than this. She told him of the end of time, and set up waymarks for inquirers. Wisdom caused Ezra's heart to glow with love for Zion, and made him a beloved prophet, and ready scribe of the law, and gave him the honor of first leading out in the return from Babylon. Wisdom filled the heart of Nehemiah with courage and devotion, and sustained him in completing the work Ezra begun. Wisdom taught the prophets to speak of a coming183 Messiah; and the wise men listened to the voice of wisdom in noticing the Star in the East, and in coming to the child of Bethlehem, and in neglecting the crafty directions of Herod. Simeon and Anna discerned the Messiah in the humble babe, and praised God; for heavenly wisdom so instructed them. By wisdom it was, the apostles obeyed the command of Jesus, and left their avocations to follow one who was despised and rejected of the only visible church of the day. By wisdom Paul became obedient to the heavenly vision, and suddenly left off persecuting the church, and became its firm and powerful friend and advocate. By wisdom John wrote the Apocalypse, and by wisdom it is now being made clear, and plain to be understood. God has given wisdom to his servants, and the vision is now explained to the satisfaction of candid minds. Why should he not do this? If he gave to the prophets wisdom to prophesy of future events, why should he not give wisdom to understand these events and the prophecies which described them? Could any one suppose he would omit to finish such a work? Would God cause his prophets to foretell events, and then allow these prophecies to expire in forgetfulness and neglect? No; and truly is that prophecy being fulfilled, “The wise shall understand.” Dan. xii, 10.