Earlier text: THE DEDICATION OF THE TABERNACLEThe Bible is all aglow with such precepts as these. Think what the condition of the world would be if these were everywhere faithfully observed. Wars, and strife, and discord of every kind and name, with the roots from which all these with their attendant evils spring,—jealousy, envy, and hatred,—would be unknown. Had these principles been observed, the curse would never have fallen on the earth; and even now could they be kept, saving only the presence of the curse, we might still have a Heaven below. Yet this book the infidel would banish from the earth, and let the darkness of a moral chaos settle down upon the world. Away with such a thought! Let us cleave to the blessed book, with its divine precepts. The question we are to answer now is whether or not we will dedicate ourselves anew to these principles. If we fail here, this house will be to us a curse and not a blessing; it will become simply the mausoleum of a dead faith, and a decayed spirituality. But if we will faithfully live them out, this will be indeed to us the house of God, a repository of light and life, the influence of which will be felt far around. All S. D. Adventists present, therefore, belonging here or elsewhere, who feel here and now to dedicate themselves anew to these principles, covenanting afresh with each other to live them out to the best of their ability, will please manifest it by rising. [The ones addressed promptly responded to this appeal, in the manner indicated.] DEDICATORY PRAYER, BY ELD. G. I. BUTLER.
O Lord God of hosts, we bow down before Thee as worshipers on this occasion. We feel that we greatly need Thy help, and we come to ask of Thee Thy blessing to enable us to call upon Thee aright, and worship Thee in Spirit and in truth. O God, Thou dwellest in the Heaven of Heavens, and they are not sufficient to contain Thee; but we come to Thee with adoration this afternoon, and we beseech Thee that Thou wilt prepare us for all that is before us in life, and that Thou wilt let Thy blessing rest down upon us. We thank Thee for the many blessings of this occasion; for the privilege of meeting here in this house which we here consecrate to Thy worship. We pray that Thou wilt draw near, and let Thy Holy Spirit rest upon us. We thank Thee here to-day that Thou hast made it possible for such poor unworthy creatures of earth to approach Thee and worship, and we thank Thee that Thou hast graciously invited us to come. We feel that it is an infinite condescension of Thy power, and we come as humble dependents on Thee, feeling our need of Thee, and striving to come with true humility and devotion. We thank Thee, Lord, that Thou hast put it into the minds of men to build a house in which to worship God, to raise our thoughts in adoration to Thee. We know that the effect of this is to purify us, to give us a clearer sense of our condition before Thee, and better to acquaint us with Thy infinite holiness and majesty. We thank Thee that the circumstances surrounding this place have made such a house as this necessary. We thank Thee for the prosperity that has attended us since we have been here. We thank Thee for the institutions which have been planted in this place. We pray that Thy blessing may rest upon all of them. We thank Thee, dear Lord, that Thou hast put it into the hearts of our brethren to build this house of worship, and to conceive the plan upon which it is built, so well calculated for the objects in view. We thank Thee that Thou hast given judgment to feeble men to perfect this plan and do this work. And now, Lord, as we are assembled on this occasion in this house, so comfortable, so well adapted for the purposes in view, we desire to dedicate it to Thee. O God, we pray that Thou wilt accept this humble offering from our hands. We know that it is not worthy of Thee. Thou hast made the gold of all mountains, the rubies, the jasper, and the precious stones, Thou hast made them all, and what is anything we can present to Thee in comparison with Thy work? We do ask Thee to accept this offering. O God, let Thy blessing rest upon those who assemble here from time to time to call upon Thy name. Let light and truth go out from this place in all directions, and may many souls be saved. Bless the pastor of this church, our dear Bro. White, who is absent from us and has not the privilege of meeting with us. Bless him wherever he is. O God, help us to really consecrate ourselves to Thee and to Thy work. Help us to be humble, and may none of the means of grace which we have in this house ever cause us to be puffed up in pride, but make us humble, and give us grateful hearts to Thee. May those who worship here ever welcome all who may come to worship with them. Help us to be an humble, godly people, to be a sacrificing people, to be a pure and holy people; help us to do Thy work here, and at last accept us all in the kingdom of God, for Christ’s sake. Amen. Eld. Canright acted as chairman on the occasion. He explained the absence of Bro. White, which was on account of the feeble state of his health, and gave appropriate expression to the regrets which we all felt that both Bro. and Sr. White were not present, that we might have enjoyed the benefit of their help, and that they might have enjoyed the exercises, which passed off so harmoniously and pleasantly. Eld. Canright pronounced the benediction, and the large audience slowly dispersed, apparently well pleased with the exercises of the day. BE NEAR ME.
By Sopha Parker
Jesus, Saviour, hear my pleadings,
Turn me not away, I pray;
Grant to guard me and protect me,
Keep me in this trying day.
See, the storm is raging round me,
Sin's wild waves are swelling high;
Take me closer, blessed Saviour,
Let me feel thy presence nigh. Earth is lashed with winds of fury,
As they sweep from pole to pole;
Sparing not the sea nor ocean,
Gathering strength, they onward roll;
They are rising higher, higher,
Swelling for one dreadful blast;
But be near me, O my Saviour,
And I'll fear not to the last. Strong men's hearts are quailing, failing,
As they faint and fearful grow;
For the omens thickly gather
Of that day of death and woe;
And they grow more wild and reckless,
Restless as the foaming sea.
Yet if thou art near, dear Saviour,
All will joyful, peaceful be. Hark the groanings of the nations,
As they totter to and fro,
On their reeling structures waiting
For their final overthrow,
Stirred as to their very center
'Mid the din and clash of arms;
Still if thou art near, dear Saviour,
I'll not start at war's alarms. Dark forebodings gather round them,
Deeds of violence, who can tell?
See them bathed in death and anguish,
Sinking, while their armies swell;
Watch them as their hopes grow fainter,
Hear that sad and mournful cry,
Then, O Saviour, be thou near me
Till the tempest has passed by! When the storms have all passed over,
When their ragings all are done,
May the ones I love so dearly
Gather in thy heavenly home;
There may we in sweet reunion
Join the songs of Heaven above,
And be near thee, blessed Saviour,
Oft to sing redeeming love. A FRIEND of Sunday, who clings to the institution with the grip of death, catches his breath again. Most of our readers have probably forgotten that in the REVIEW dated Feb. 28, 1878, we gave a letter from Eld. Geo. Thompson, of Leland, Mich., with a reply to the same. He claimed that Paul observed Sunday as the Sabbath, and referred as proof to Acts 20:7; and the reply showed that the Jews reckoned the day from sunset to sunset, and, consequently, that Paul’s meeting was held on Saturday night, and that he traveled all the next day, Sunday, which was a singular way to keep it as a Sabbath; and that Paul’s companions, “faithful ministers in the Lord,” were taking the ship around by sea, while Paul delayed, to hold his night meeting. A few weeks since we received a reply to this long-ago-published article from Eld. Thompson, and as he has written a similar article which was published in the Christian Press of February, 1879, which some of our brethren have sent in requesting that it be reviewed, we refer to the subject again. Although crowded for space, we present Eld. Thompson’s letter entire, that there may be no ground to plead misrepresentation, and that the reader may see more fully the desperate strait to which the defense of Sunday is reduced. “DEAR BRETHREN: Your answer to my article in the REVIEW of Feb. 28, 1878, is not satisfactory. A press of labor and care has prevented a reply sooner. “1. You misrepresent plain facts. You say, ‘While Paul remained behind [at Troas] to hold this evening meeting, his companions in travel were working the ship around the promontory to Assos.’ Therefore, during all that day they were sailing the ship, (i. e., during that first day). Now this statement in Acts 20:13, and this sailing, were after this midnight meeting, and not while it was in progress. Paul’s companions were with him in the meeting. And no unprejudiced person would ever think of any other meaning. “2. You quote many and high authorities to prove that the day, anciently, was reckoned from sundown to sundown. As a general fact, this is not denied; but it all goes for nothing in this argument, since a different mode of reckoning was plainly in practice. It is referred to in the New Testament. A few passages will show this. “(a) Matt. 28:1: ‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.’ This shows clearly that Saturday or the seventh day, was, in fact, reckoned far beyond sundown, even to near morning of the first day; and that it was not called first day till about sunrise or daydawn, of that day. Therefore we conclude, that the first day at Troas did not begin at sundown on Saturday night, as you try to make out so learnedly. Let the fathers say what they will, there is a plain statement, showing a different usage. “(b) John 20:19: ‘Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, came Jesus,’ etc. Now was the ‘evening’ of this first day spoken of, before sundown? No sensible man dare affirm this. Read the account, and see. It was near the close of the day, when Jesus and the two disciples reached Emmaus, seven and one-half miles from Jerusalem. And after this they prepared and ate supper; then they walked back this distance (not on the cars), and had talked some time with the ten, when Jesus entered the room. It could not have been earlier than eight or nine o’clock, at the least two hours after sundown, and yet the evangelist calls this time the ‘EVENING’ of the first day too! Now of what avail are the testimonies of the fathers, and commentators against this manifest usage in the Bible itself? Here is demonstration that it is called ‘the first day’ long after sundown. “Now in Acts 20:7, it is said, ‘And upon the first day of the week, . . . Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow.’ And in the light of the foregoing passages, I affirm, without fear of disapproval, that it CANNOT be shown that Paul met the disciples at Troas after sundown on Saturday night, and traveled the next day. But it was during some part of the following ‘first day of the week,’ and he continued his meeting till Monday morning, and then he and his companions went on their journey. This is the plain, manifest meaning, and none but those who have a case to make out would ever have thought of any other construction. “Paul DID NOT, as you affirm, hold his meeting on Saturday night, and travel all day on Sunday. The primitive Christians were in the habit of meeting for the worship of Christ and for ‘breaking of bread’ on the first day of the week. This is proven by 1 Cor. 16:2, and by the Letters of Pliny to the Emperor Trajan, and by the almost universal practice of the Christian church from those days to the present. “If this disputed question is not now settled, you have the floor. Yours for truth, “GEORGE THOMPSON.
“Leland, Mich.” The question is indeed settled; and the foregoing has done nothing whatever toward unsettling it. In his former article Mr. Thompson said: “Other writers and speakers have asserted that Paul traveled all day of the first day, and therefore it is plain he did not regard it as the Sabbath. If Paul did, as they assert, we yield the argument.” The only possible way to show that Paul did not travel on the first day of the week is to show that time was not reckoned from evening to evening, and that the meeting commenced on what would now be Sunday night, instead of Saturday night; and, consequently, that Paul’s journey was resumed on Monday, and not on Sunday. And to this task Mr. Thompson addresses himself with the desperation of a drowning man. We ask the reader’s attention particularly to his manner of doing it. We showed by the testimony of such eminent critics and Biblical scholars, as Prof. Hackett, Kitto, Prynne, Conybeare and Howson, and Robinson the lexicographer, that no other reckoning of the full day is known to the New Testament or the entire Bible but that ordained by God himself in the beginning,—from evening to evening. This is established just as fully as criticism, research, and history can establish anything. But all this he proposes to set entirely aside. As we said in our former article, a man may deny that there is such a place as England, or that any such man ever lived as George Washington; but he would only damage his own reputation for common intelligence and honesty by so doing. Just so with the point before us. Having set aside the testimony of these eminent men, what does he give as a substitute and a reason therefor? Simply an inference from two texts that the day, according to New Testament reckoning, began in the morning! This is most astonishing! No nation but the ancient Babylonians ever reckoned the day from that point; and no nation in the days of the apostles reckoned it so. Yet Mr. T. will have the disciples, contrary to the express arrangement of God, and contrary to any custom then existing, to reckon it so. Why? We can conceive of no reason, only to make a way for him out of his dilemma. He surely is not the man to charge others with perverting testimony to make out a case. What case, pray, had Mr. Hackett, and Kitto, and Prynne, and Conybeare and Howson, and Robinson, to make out, when they told us that the day, as reckoned uniformly in the Bible, begins at sunset? None, except to sustain their reputation as critics and honest men. But all these authorities with Mr. T. go for nothing. Now let us look at the inference upon which he sets them aside. Because Matt. 28:1 reads: “As it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” he infers that the day began with the dawn, or the rising of the sun. We suppose he is aware that the word day is sometimes applied to the light part of the day in contrast with the night. John 11:9: “Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world; but if a man walk in the night he stumbleth.” Here the light is contrasted with the darkness and called day. And this little fact which lies so apparent on the very surface, takes Matt. 28:1 out of Mr. T.’s hands, as completely as though that verse had never been written. This must be so; for the dawning toward the first day does not take place until after the Sabbath is past. “In the end of the Sabbath,” Greek, ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων. This expression lexicographers, whose authority it would not be becoming for even Mr. T. to question, tell us means “after the Sabbath was past,” agreeing with Mark 16:1. But at the moment when the Sabbath ended, the first day as a civil day began. But it was not till after this that it began to dawn toward the first day, which means, of course, only the light part, the natural day. Smith, in his unabridged Dictionary of the Bible, article “Day,” after saying that the Hebrews reckoned the day from sunset to sunset, adds: “Some (as in Goodwin’s Moses and Aaron) argue foolishly from Matt. 28:1 that they began their civil day in the morning; but the expression ἐπιφωσκούσῃ shows that the natural day is there intended.” On John 20:19, Mr. T. argues that it must have been late at night when the disciples again reached Jerusalem from Emmaus, and hence the first day of the week did not end at sunset. Well, suppose it was late when the disciples returned, does this fix the time when the disciples first gathered together and shut the doors? And this is all that need be marked by the expression, “The same day at evening, being the first day of the week;” and then the meeting could extend over into the second day. S. J. Andrews, in his excellent work, “The Life of our Lord,” p. 597, says, “This was probably the first evening, which began at three P. M. and ended at six, or at sunsetting.” Would it not take them some time to prepare their evening meal, as well as the disciples at Emmaus? Doubtless they were at the same time engaged in it when “the day was far spent;” and what was more natural than for them, fearing for their lives, to remain in their room, talking over the exciting events and rumors of the day, still reclining on their supper couches, till the disciples hastened back from Emmaus, and Jesus stood in their midst? No proof here that the first day had not ended, and the second commenced at this time. Still Mr. T. endeavors to cling to Acts 20:7. We have proved by evidence which no candid man can deny any more than he can deny that the sun shines; that the day begins with the evening; that Paul’s meeting was on our Saturday night; that the “morrow” means the next succeeding daylight; and that all that day, Sunday, Paul traveled. Now we will prove on Mr. T.’s own showing that if Paul did not travel on the first day, his companions, “faithful ministers of the Lord,” mark you, did travel on that day. Mr. T. would have it that Paul preached on our Sunday night, and resumed his journey Monday morning. Very well. He says the day began in the morning, and at daybreak, the record says, Paul departed. Verse 17. Then just as soon as the first day had ended and the second begun Paul departed. But his companions left before Paul did, and were sailing their ship during some portion, at least, of his meeting. They must do this; for it was twice as far around the promontory, where the ship must go, as across the base where Paul walked. But we fall back upon the testimony. It says, “We went before to ship.” Verse 13. That word to go before means to precede, to go in advance of any one. This does not mean that they went to the ship before Paul went to the ship; for he did not go to the ship at all till he reached Assos. But it means that they went to the ship before Paul started on his journey. But he started the moment the first day ended, according to Mr. T.; therefore his companions, “faithful ministers,” before the first day ended, were rowing or sailing off in their ship in a very unsabbatical manner! Here is testimony so direct and positive, and evidence so clear, that we feel fully justified in saying that he who will not admit it is entitled to no further notice whatever. As for the testimony of Pliny, it speaks only of a “stated day,” not telling which; and it proves only that the Christians had a stated day for worship, which we well know; for they all kept the Sabbath. And in regard to any history to show that it has been kept as the Sabbath by Christians from the time of the apostles down, it has yet to be manufactured. Not a scrap of genuine evidence for such a practice can be found for the first two hundred years of the Christian era. Tertullian, A. D. 200, speaks of refraining from labor on Sunday only long enough to attend a sermon. And one hundred and twenty-one years later, the first law ever enacted in its behalf, was the heathen law of Constantine, for “the venerable day of the sun.” Sunday is unfortunate in having neither precept, nor example, nor history in its favor. We can trace it back to that age of darkness and corruption in which the “mystery of iniquity” was mightily working to establish the papacy. There we lose it. The link to connect it with apostolic times and divine authority is missing. Mr. T., in his article in the Press, says, “We do not need a command for such observance.” We feel differently. We do want a command. We want to know that our service is not mere will-worship, but what God requires. But the Sunday institution is not merely a misfortune, it is a disgrace and a crime. It demoralizes its defenders, and will be not far hence the prolific source of an intolerant and persecuting spirit. We would exhort our friends to leave it, and turn to the Sabbath of the Lord. Nothing but truth will avail us at last. Cease longer to make your worship vain by “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” This is a plant not planted by the Heavenly Father; and it will be rooted up, peacefully now in the hearts of those who will receive the light, violently in all other cases by the judgments of the soon coming day of wrath. Let us be loyal to God, and prepare for a place in his kingdom. 15.—THE RIGHT EYE AND RIGHT HAND.
Please explain in the Review the meaning of the terms “right eye” and “right hand,” in Matt. 5 : 29, 30. ANS. The two subjects introduced previous to this, beginning with verse 21, are murder and adultery. It is supposed by some that verses 29 and 30 refer to these, the eye being the eye of lust, and the hand the hand of violence. If we have any besetments in either of these directions, they must be eradicated from the heart, however painful the process. While the terms would certainly cover these, we think they may have a broader application, and refer to anything which, though seeming to be as dear and useful to us as a right eye or right hand, stands in the way of our obeying the truth. We must put everything of this kind away, rather than yield the truth. Dr. Clarke says: “The right eye may be considered the darling idol, the right hand the profitable employment pursued on sinful principles; these become snares and traps to the soul, by which it falls into the pit of perdition.” “Not one moment’s truce with an evil passion or a sinful appetite. If you indulge them, they will gain strength, and you will be ruined.” 16.—THE GENEALOGY OF CHRIST.
Please harmonize the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke, in regard to the genealogy of Christ.
T. W. AND J. A. B. ANS. See this subject explained in full in Review, Vol. 51, No. 21. See also the Religious Encyclopedia, and the notes of Dr. Clarke. Please explain Mal. 4: 4. Does the law of Moses have reference to the ten commandments? What are the statutes and judgments? Is Horeb the same as Sinai?
W. S. C. AND J. A. B. ANS. We understand Mal. 4 to refer to the last days, just before the coming of “the great and dreadful day of the Lord.” We are now called upon to remember the law of Moses, the ceremonial law, to the extent that it sheds light on the closing work of our High Priest in the sanctuary above; and to remember the statutes and judgments, the ten commandments, according to other prophecies, which speak of the fact that the remnant people will be keeping all the commandments of God when Christ comes. “Elijah the prophet” we believe to be that work149 which prepares a people for Christ’s second advent, as the work of John the Baptist, “in the spirit and power of Elias,” prepared the people for the first advent. It is the work symbolized by the three messages of Rev. 14. The last clause, “Lest I come and smite the earth with a curse,” according to the Septuagint reads, “Lest I come and smite the earth with complete destruction.” That is to say, this work of Elijah the prophet will prepare a people, so that the earth, meaning the people of the earth, when Christ comes, will not be smitten with complete destruction; for a remnant will be saved. Horeb and Sinai are used interchangeably in the Scriptures. But geographers tell us that Horeb is the more comprehensive term, embracing the whole cluster or mass of mountains, of which Sinai is a notable peak. 18.—DANIEL AND REVELATION.
ANS. For an answer to all questions arising on any point in the books of Daniel or Revelation, we refer first to the published works, Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation. Any questions not answered therein, we shall be happy, as far as opportunity permits, to try to consider further. 19.—IN THE BOOK OF LIFE FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Please explain Rev. 17: 8. In what sense are names written in the book of life from the foundation of the world? Are not names entered in the book of life at conversion?
T. B. S. ANS. In chapter 13 : 8, we have the same idea in a little different form of expression: “And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Here the same papal power and the same worshipers are brought to view; but here the fact is brought out, not that names were actually written in the book from the foundation of the world, but that the Lamb was slain prospectively, and hence the book of life provided, from the foundation of the world, for names to be written in when persons should become personally interested in the Saviour. It would seem that the thought in Rev. 17: 8, considering the subject, must be the same, and that therefore the expression is elliptical, it being the book, not the writing, which dates from the foundation of the world. From an article in the Alliance of Apr. 26, we take the following:— “From the time of Addison until now, at any rate, the public press has kept up a pretty continual fire of derision at the extravagances of woman's attire. And it must be confessed that there has been abundant basis for ridicule. From the swelling hoop to the confining pull-back, from the towering bonnet to the wisp of straw, from the chignon leaping with one fell swoop from a resting place on the cerebellum to a position crowning the bump of Imitation, the changes have been so violent, the contrasts so marked, that the lightest wit has found opportunity and material for a laugh thereat.” “And while men have laughed, some sensible women have struggled hard against the dicta of fashion, have protested a little, and then bought the latest bonnet. The ridicule of man and the rebellion of woman have been alike in vain. The fashion-plate has been omnipotent in the realm of female material environment.” “Great is the power of the fashion-plate. An impossible dummy, with apparently inapproachable clothing, is depicted on the pages of the fashion magazine; and the cut of the clothing which it pictures, invented for the wealthy to wear in the glare of a full-dress evening party, is reproduced on the person of poverty in the village house of God.” “Trains like the unspread tail of the useless peacock, graceful in their proper place, at a grand reception, are used here in America to sweep the street-crossings and country roads, by city dame and village maid. We suppose we have heard hundreds of women, during the reign of the peacock-dress, long for the return of the short-skirted walking-suit; but not one of that number had the independence to order a short dress made. No woman in American ‘society’ has the small courage to be neat and comfortable in spite of the dreadful fashion-plate.” Will not every woman professing godliness make haste to free herself from this stinging charge? To the Brethren and Sisters in Ohio.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Dear Brethren and Sisters: We make an earnest appeal to you to assist us in our endeavors to bring up the work in this State. Indeed, we must depend upon you almost wholly for the advancement of the cause. There are many of you who are so situated that you seldom attend Sabbath meetings, while others do not attend at all. Many there are who have embraced the truth by reading, and hence have no church or meetings to which they can go. We include you in our address. Do you really love the Sabbath of the Lord? Do you really have faith in the third angel's message, and is your heart one with us in this work? Do you pray God daily to bless and prosper this cause? Now if you do, your heart will rejoice to know that we are making a great effort to wake up, and build up the cause of Christ in this State. We come to you for help. Let me lay before you some things which we regard as of great importance. You should all take the REVIEW, Good Health, and the Instructor, but especially the REVIEW. Unless you have the REVIEW, you cannot keep up with the spirit of this message. You have no pastor, you hear no preaching, and everything around you is dark. You need daily food, encouragement, and instruction. This is just the matter which the REVIEW will furnish. We shall have a great deal to say about the cause in Ohio, and shall make appeals to scattered brethren, and we can only reach you through the REVIEW. If you do not have it, you will lose all we say. You need it for your benefit and that of your family, and it is your duty to assist in this work. Do not say you cannot afford it. Where there is a will, there is a way. Earn a dollar somewhere, and send it on immediately for your REVIEW; or if the subscription is about out, be sure to renew before your time expires. You need Good Health. You will find many things in it just suited to your wants,—just such things as you ought to know. If you have been unable to take it before, subscribe now, and post up on these matters. Let us be whole-hearted in this work. You need the Instructor for your children. Besides, it is your duty to help support it in any way. The REVIEW will cost you two dollars, Good Health, one dollar, and the Instructor, weekly, seventy-five cents. After you have taken these periodicals, the next thing is to assist in raising means to support the cause in Ohio. There will be more than a dozen men, perhaps twenty of them, laboring in this State in 1879. We shall run five or six tents. This will take three or four thousand dollars. Our friends are few. Wealthy men among us are scarce. All must contribute something, or else we cannot do this work. My brother, my sister, you who read this, I appeal to you personally: Are you doing your duty in this matter? Can you say you love the Sabbath and love the message of God, and then neglect or refuse to contribute anything to their promulgation in your own State? Some of our brethren are giving very liberally all they can spare; but I know there are many, particularly among the scattered Sabbath-keepers, who are giving nothing at all. Now I am afraid that the Lord will curse you, at least, he will not bless you unless you do differently from this. You have means; you are able to give something if you will. If we are disposed to do so, we can feel stingy and poor, and withhold from the cause of God. Do you not pray God to convert your neighbors? Do you not want us to give a course of lectures in your town? If you do, we want you to show your interest by contributing means to help us in prosecuting this work. Our ministers must be supported. It takes money to do this. Our tents must be bought. It will take the cash to pay for them. Do not sit still, and think others will lift this burden. We must have help from every Sabbath-keeper in Ohio, man, woman, and child. The Lord requires this at your hands. The Bible plainly requires that we give one-tenth of all our increase, each week, for the support of the ministry. Please read carefully the following scriptures: Lev. 27: 30–34; Mal. 3: 8–12; 1 Cor. 16: 2. Our brethren throughout Ohio where we have been have solemnly subscribed to the following pledge: “We, the undersigned, believing that the Scriptures require us to give one-tenth of all that comes into our hands each week for the support of the ministry (1 Cor. 16: 2), do hereby solemnly pledge ourselves in the sight of God and in the presence of each other, to lay by each week one-tenth of all that the Lord shall give us, and pay this amount into the s. b. treasury at least once each quarter.” We appeal to each of you to make this covenant with God, and commence promptly to lay this amount by. Have a little box, and put into it one-tenth of what the Lord has given you that week. If you belong to a church, or are near a church so that you can conveniently do so, give this to the s. b. treasurer; but if you are not, you can send this amount each quarter to our State treasurer, J. B. Gregory, Bowling Green, Ohio. I therefore request every scattered Sabbath-keeper who does not pay his or her s. b. into some treasury, to send his or her name, attached to the above pledge, to me immediately, and I will forward it to the treasurer. The next important thing we want to urge upon your attention is that you take a deep interest in the tract and missionary work. Indeed, we are doing about as much for the cause through this society as our ministers are doing. All our organized churches are spending a large amount of money and time every year in carrying forward this work. And I am sorry to learn that very many of our lone, scattered Sabbath-keepers are doing little or nothing in this branch of the work. My brethren and sisters, these things ought not so to be. You are not doing your duty before God in this matter. Why should all the burden come upon the churches? You ought to unite with the nearest tract society in your district; then you can obtain tracts and papers from the librarian. You ought to take several copies of the Signs, and scatter them freely. You ought to distribute a great many Annuals. Particularly you ought to work in your neighborhood and among your friends with our small tracts and books. Endeavor to obtain subscribers for our periodicals. If any want information in regard to the manner of doing this, write to me at Clyde, Ohio, and I will answer you. Finally, we appeal to you to live out the truth in your families. Have family prayer, keep the Sabbath sacredly, read our books yourself, teach your children in the work of the Lord. And if there are any of you who would like meetings in your place, write to me and we will visit you as soon as possible. WHO DID IT?
By C. W. Stone
Who made the first law for the observance of the first day of the week?—A Roman emperor. His name was Constantine. He did it in A. D. 321. He did not at that time profess to believe in Christ; hence, as might be expected, his decree did not require the observance of that day in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. He was a pagan; consequently in his decree he commands the “judges, and town people, and the occupation of all trades” to “rest on the venerable day of the sun.” Soon after this, Constantine professed to become a Christian, when the same heathen law was continued as the only statute then existing as a support to that day. The council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, took steps to strengthen the Sunday festival, and prohibited the keeping of the seventh day under a curse. In the fifth century a law was made by Pope Leo that “holy orders” “should be conferred” on the first day of the week only. According to Justin Edwards, Leo also decreed that all should rest on that day. Soon after this, in A. D. 469, the Roman emperor Leo made a decree forbidding “citations, executions, pleadings, and the like avocations,” ordering the circus and theater closed, and husbandmen to rest on Sunday. Under Clodovæus, king of France, the bishops met in the first council of Orleans, A. D. 507, where they obliged themselves and their successors always to be at church on Sundays, except in case of sickness. At that time it appears that courts of law were sometimes held on Sunday by some of the bishops who acted as lawyers or judges; for about the year A. D. 518, in the reign of Theodoric, king of the Goths, it was decreed that, “no bishop or other person in holy orders should examine or pass judgment in any civil controversy on Sunday.” In A. D. 538 the third council of Orleans was held. In its twenty-ninth canon it says that “agricultural labor ought to be laid aside [on Sunday], in order that the people may not be prevented from attending church.” Notice the reason. It is not in order that people should not break the sanctity of the day, but in order that they might not be prevented from attending church. From this time onward we find very frequent acts of councils, imperial laws, and edicts from the pope himself, who had then become “corrector of heretics and head of all the churches,” all tending to restrict Sunday labor and make it a day of religious service. Now whose institution is this so-called Christian Sabbath, the Sunday? The Bible contains no precept for its observance. All history attests that the first law relating to the institution sprang from Rome. For many centuries none other than Romish ecclesiastical and civil laws for its support were in existence. It matters not that a part of a backsliding church had come to pay some regard to this as a festival day before any law for it existed—it was Rome that first gave that practice the support of law, and it was the Romish Church that made the fundamental decrees on which the Sunday Sabbath rests. All history testifies to the truthfulness of these charges. In doing this, the Roman Church has thought to change the fourth commandment, and so amend it as to require the observance of the first day of the week. The spirit of prophecy pointed to this by the prophet Daniel: “He shall think to change times and laws.” Dan. 7:25. In thus tampering with God’s law, removing God’s Sabbath, and erecting an institution to please himself, the papacy has “exalted himself above all that is called God.” See 2 Thess. 2:3, 4. The case stands like this: 1. The finger of prophecy points to the papacy as the power that should presume to change God’s law; 2. The voice of history is heard boldly accusing the papacy of having thought to change God’s law in relation to the Sabbath day; 3. Like a certain boy, who, when his father raised the question, “Who cut down my cherry tree?” replied, “I cannot tell a lie; I did it with my little hatchet,” so the papacy, when asked the question, “Who changed the Sabbath?” replies, “Sundays and holy days [such as Christmas, New Year’s, St. Patrick’s day, etc.] all stand upon the same foundation, viz., the ordinance of the church.”—Cath. Chris. Instructed, pp. 209-211. Prophecy said the papacy would do it. History says the papacy has done it. The papacy takes the stand, and says, I did it. Religion: Best Armor, Worst Cloak
RELIGION is the best armor a man can have, but the worst cloak.