Earlier text: General ArticlesThe Great Uncertainty.
By D. E. Maxson
The careful reader of the current standard authorities for the observance of the Sunday as of divine appointment, cannot fail of surprise at the doubt and unsatisfaction these writers feel at the result of their own efforts to find the desired sanction of the Scriptures for Sunday keeping. It seems that the most thorough investigations have always led to the least satisfactory results. Let us examine some of these accepted standards. Dr. Paley, a celebrated English divine who lived in the latter part of the last century, in his "Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy," published in London in 1785, after an exhaustive attempt to find New Testament authority for the change of the day, concludes that "there was probability that the practice had originated from some precept of Christ or his apostles, though none such be now extant" (italics our own). The probability of some precept of Christ or his apostles, which the inspired writers of the New Testament did not think worth while to take note of, surely is not very formidable proof. Why he rests on this slender foundation, he informs us, by admitting that "he was not able to produce direct and positive proof that it was the practice of the Christian Church to observe the Sunday in the time of the apostles." Then he throws up the defense of an inference from an inference as the best he could do, as follows: "There is evidence that would fully justify the inference, that the practice was familiar and established, which would justify the further inference, that the practice had originated from some precept of Christ or his apostles, though none such be now extant." Take a single example of the learned Doctor's method of making up his inferences as the bases of his probabilities. Upon 1 Cor. 16:2, he comments as follows: "This text affords a probable proof that the day was distinguished by some religious application or other." Upon the texts in John 20, usually quoted to prove apostolic practice for Sunday keeping, he makes this dubious comment: "This first meeting, for anything that appears in the account, might, as to the day, have been accidental." Upon the second meeting, after eight days, he comments, "which second meeting upon the first day of the week following, looks like an appointment and design to meet on that particular day." No one of logical mind is ever satisfied with what only looks like proof. Dr. Cox, in "Literature of the Sabbath Question," Vol. ii, p. 263, justly remarks, "It would be absurd to believe that Dr. Paley himself believed he had actually proven that these two meetings were designedly held on that particular day." This vigorous author (Dr. Cox), in further strictures on "Paley's Defense of Sunday," says: "Paley was probably of opinion, that the masses of people were taught that this practice was not only useful but of divine appointment, it would be generally neglected," to which he replies, "On the contrary, I think the Sunday would be more generally and more religiously observed, were the observance of it placed on the secure ground of utility, rather than on the debatable ground of Scripture authority." He goes on to express the decided opinion that "great advantage" would accrue to Sunday observance, to consider it "an institution of human origin." Among the advantages he claims would be the giving of the "clergy and those not the least intelligent of them, free scope to advocate from their pulpits the religious observance of the day," adding "as it is, many of the clergy," not least intelligent and eloquent are silent upon this subject in their public discourses, because, being opposed in opinion to the puritanical doctrine of a Sunday-Sabbath, they prefer saying nothing to saying what they would wish to say, "lest it should create a spirit of dissension and controversy." This is indeed a candid and pregnant confession of the weakness of the Sunday claim as felt by its "most intelligent and eloquent advocates." That Dr. Paley was conscious of his failure to prove the Sunday doctrine to be true, is most evident from the language of doubt and uncertainty with which he draws all his conclusions. Of this uncertainty of Dr. Paley, Dr. Cox, Vol. ii, p. 267, remarks: "Even in his conclusion itself, we see the same manifestation of imperfect conviction which marks the whole argument, an avowal of his consciousness of the insufficiency of his premises." It is refreshing to come upon such candor among the master minds of the Sunday advocacy. Such minds have looked far enough into the claim for Sunday-keeping to see and feel its inadequacy and emptiness. Our own Dr. Wayland is just as much undecided on this question of authority for Sunday. See "Moral Science," p. 185. He says, "It seems reasonable to conclude that they (the apostles) intended to teach, that the first day was that which we, as Christians, to observe." How much strength of moral obligation there is in this "intended" apostolic teaching is seen in the same paragraph. Their example is sufficient to "teach us that the keeping of this day is acceptable to God; and we are, on this ground, at liberty to keep it (italics his own) as the Sabbath." "If, however, any other person be dissatisfied with these reasons, and feels under obligations to observe the seventh day, I see no precept in the word of God to forbid it." He goes on to say he thinks "both days allowable, and acceptable to God," and that the preference for Sunday, amounting to an "obligation," is based on the greater convenience of observance, a day in which "I can enjoy more perfect leisure, and suffer less interruption," etc. Nothing but a very weak case could involve so strong a mind in such a maze of uncertainty and accommodating indecision! If we study the standard encyclopedia treatment of this question, we shall find the same uncertainty and consciousness of lack of Bible authority for Sunday-keeping. See Kitto, article "Lord's-day." "The evidence for the actual institution, so far as the New Testament is concerned, is, in fact, very scanty. We cannot say that the evidence for any particular observance of the day (Sunday) amounts to much. We find no mention of any commemoration of the resurrection in the apostolic records," and "the earliest or apostolic fathers make no mention whatever of such an institution unless we except one passage, which is at most a mere allusion. It does not appear, at any period of the ancient church, to have assumed the form of such an observance as some modern religious communities have contended for. Nor do these writers in any instance pretend to allege any divine command, or even apostolic practice in support of it." Now, see "Smith's Dictionary of the Bible," article "Lord's-day." "Scripture says very little about it." After examining all the passages supposed to have reference to the first day of the week, the writer says: "Taken all together, these passages seem scarcely adequate to prove that the dedication of the first day of the week to religious purposes was a matter of apostolic institution, or even of apostolic practice." "It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it, so that work does not appear to have been interdicted, nor rest enjoined. Four years before the Council of Nice, it was recognized by Constantine as the 'venerable day of the sun.'" The historians of the Sunday substantially agree with these statements of the want of an apostolic authority for Sunday observance. Dr. Hessey: "It was never confounded with the Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it." Dr. Cox, before quoted, in "History Sabbath Literature," says of all the reasons anciently given for Sunday observance, that they were "fanciful in most cases, and ridiculous in some." After enumerating those reasons, he concludes, "From which the inevitable inference is, that they neither found in Scripture any commandment appointing the Lord's day to be honored or observed, nor knew from any tradition any such commandment by Jesus or his disciples." Dr. Neander, "History of Christian Church," etc., first three centuries: "The festival of Sunday was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intentions of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect; far from them and from the early Apostolic Church to transfer the laws of the Sabbath to Sunday." Sir Wm. Domville says, after a most exhaustive treatment of the early history of Sunday observance, "Centuries of the Christian era passed before the Sunday was observed by the Christian Church as a Sabbath." With this statement Dr. Kitto and others fully agree. When the standard authorities thus signally break down and despair of finding any divine authority for Sunday-keeping, there remains the alternative, to (1) Give up the claim, and go sabbathless. (2) Enforce the claim by human authority. (3) Accept God's holy Sabbath-day, and follow the example of Christ and his apostles, and the Christian Church for five centuries of the Christian era; follow the example of the dear disciples of the crucified Christ, who, after preparing the materials for love's last office, "rested the Sabbath-day according to the commandment," before going to perform the office.—Dr. D. E. Maxson, in Sabbath Recorder. NEBUCHADNEZZAR'S DREAM.-DANIEL II.
By John B. Dymot
GREAT Nebuchadnezzar, the earth's mighty king,
When musing one night what the future might bring,
Fell asleep; when the future before him drew near,
And a dream filled his lion-like spirit with fear. A towering image, transcendent and bright,
Terrific it stood, like a king in his might.
Its head was of gold, and of silver its breast,
Its arms also silver; its sides brazen-dressed;
Its legs were of iron, its feet of the same,
But mingled with clay that had ne'er seen the flame. But see; what is this that the mountain descends?
A stone that unhandled, unerringly wends
Its way to the image, and strikes at its feet.
The gold, silver, brass, and the iron now meet
With the vile miry clay; and the terrible form,
Demolished, is borne from the king by the storm. Bewildered he stands while the triumphing stone,
Having image, and valley, and mountain outgrown,
Fills all the wide earth with its glorious sway,
Which never shall tremble, remove, or decay. The monarch awoke; but the vision had passed
From his awe-stricken sight. The daybreak at last
Inviting him forth, to his magi he said,
"Restore me the vision that from me hath fled,
Tell also its meaning; or surely I'll know
That liars you are; and your life-blood shall flow." Though failure their honor and lives would involve,
Not one of the magi the problem could solve.
But Daniel, a captive, young, beautiful, good,
Before the impetuous autocrat stood. "O king," said the captive, "though falter the wise,
There's a God in the Heaven who secrets descries." He afterwards told him of all he had seen—
That wonderful image—intended to mean
That four mighty kingdoms successive should bear
Unlimited rule: that the head, rich and fair,
Was Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar's own realm,
The first of these kingdoms the earth to o'erwhelm. As iron can batter gold, silver, and brass,
The fourth should these three other kingdoms surpass,
Subduing and breaking, till, as by the clay
The iron is weakened, its strength shall decay.
Divided, the empire its life shall prolong,
Being partially broken and partially strong,
Till God in the Heaven his right shall assume,
That empires may crumble and kings meet their doom.
His kingdom to foemen shall never be given;
And whence now come curses shall praise rise to Heaven. At the recent Baptist anniversaries in New York, Mr. B. F. Jacobs, of Chicago, as reported in the Examiner, said that "it seemed to him that nothing ought to interrupt the discussion of the Bible work by the Baptists in America, unless it might be an intermission for a little time to put a few of them into circulation." As an illustration of the necessity for Bible circulation, the Examiner gives the following:— In Illinois, in one county, seven townships were found without a church or Sunday-school. In Chicago there were thousands unreached by Christian influences. In New York State 800,000 children are in no Sunday-school. So even in our most favored places there is work enough to be done. Denominational statistics were given to show how slowly was the work of salvation progressing among all the churches of the land. The Methodists last year reported an average to a church over the whole country of nine probationers, the Baptists of three members, the Presbyterians of but 3/4 of one member. He told the effective story of the General's servant Tom, who wanted to go home to cheer up the old folks a little, and said he'd be certain to say nothing disrespectful of the army; he should only tell the old folks that from the lay of the land and all the surroundings, he should judge the army was advancing backward, and the enemy was retreating on us. It sometimes looked as if the Christian army was advancing in something of this way. Lawyers and the Whole Case
Lord Justice Knight Bruce, at the conclusion of the argument of a case containing a long statement of facts, summed them up in ten lines, and concluded thus: "This is the whole case, as it appears to me, spread as it has been, and as lawyers do spread it, and as lawyers sometimes cannot help spreading it, over a multitude of sheets of paper." Did Christ Teach that the Dead are Alive?
By Uriah Smith
YES, says the immaterialist, for he taught that God, who declares himself to be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is not the God of the dead, but of the living; therefore, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, are living; but they are living as immaterial, disembodied, immortal spirits; for their bodies are in the grave. The occasion on which these words were spoken is described in Matt. 22:23-32. To understand the words of Christ, we must understand fully the point at issue, and what his words were designed to prove; and to do this, we must look carefully at the narrative:— “The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him, saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Now there were with us seven brethren; and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh. And last of all the woman died also. Therefore in the resurrection, whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in Heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” What, then, was the point at issue between Christ and the Sadducees? See verse 23: “The same day, came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,” etc. The Sadducees professed to believe the writings of Moses, but denied the resurrection. Christ also believed the writings of Moses, but taught the resurrection. Here, then, was a fair issue between them. They hear him teaching the resurrection; and to object their faith to his, they refer to the law of Moses concerning marriage, and then state a familiar fact; viz., that seven brothers, one after another, all had one woman, and all died. Now arises a problem very difficult to their minds, no doubt. How will this matter be arranged in the resurrection which you teach? Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection? Let it be noticed that the controversy between Christ and the Sadducees had no respect whatever to an intermediate state, nor does their query or Christ's answer have any reference to such a state. They do not inquire whose wife she is now, or which of the men's immortal souls claims her immortal soul in the spirit world; but, Whose wife shall she be in the resurrection (a future event)? Christ tells them that they err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. And then, to defend himself and condemn them out of their own mouth, he proceeds to prove—what? a conscious intermediate state? No; but the resurrection, from the writings of Moses. “But as touching the resurrection of the dead,” says he [as touching the dead that they rise, says Mark; and that the dead are raised, says Luke], “have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” Let us now show that this quotation did prove the resurrection, and our argument on this passage is closed. That Moses, by this language, did teach the resurrection of the dead, we think is easily evident. Thus, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were dead; but God is not the God of the dead (or those who are irrecoverably and eternally dead, as the Sadducees believed them to be), but he is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. What, therefore, shall we logically and scripturally conclude from this fact? Why, simply that they shall live again, or have a resurrection from the dead. In this view of the subject, Christ reasoned well, proved the point he aimed to prove, confounded the Sadducees, and gained the applause of the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection. But grant for a moment that the language means what is popularly claimed for it, and what becomes of Christ's reputation as a reasoner, and a teacher of wisdom sent from God? He set out to prove the resurrection; but when he closes his argument, lo, wonderful to tell! he has proved that all men are alive, and, therefore, there is no need of a resurrection! He neither meets the query of the Sadducees, nor defends himself, but quite the reverse. Believe that our Lord would reason thus, ye who can! If any should admit that a resurrection is proved by the language, but claim from it that such resurrection takes place at death, a theory not uncommon at the present time, we reply that they thereby abandon the conscious-state theory, and affirm the existence of those who have died, on another ground, viz., a resurrection. But, further, this is equally foreign from what Christ set out to prove; for he had reference to an event which was then future to the seven brethren and the woman that died. They asked him, saying, “In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them,” &c. And Jesus answered and said, “When they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of Heaven.” Mark 12:23-25. Again, in Luke’s account, Jesus says, “But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage.” Luke 20:35. Thus we see that a future event is everywhere referred to, and if he in reality proved that an event had already taken place, which he designed to show would take place in the future, it speaks no better for his reasoning or his wisdom than the former supposition. Why God calls himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, though they are yet dead, we learn from Heb. 11:16. It is not because they are now alive, but because in God’s purpose who speaks of things that are not, as though they were, they are to live, and “he hath prepared for them a city.” “Wherefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he hath prepared for them a city,” into possession of which they will of course come in the future. In view of these facts, our friends should be careful lest they expose themselves to the rebuke Christ gave to the Sadducees: “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures;” for this instance, like all others, when properly understood, so far from sustaining their position, becomes an irrefragable evidence of the resurrection of the dead, and a future life, but affirms nothing whatever for consciousness in death.—U. S., in Man’s Nature and Destiny. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellen G. White
HOPING to entrap him in his words, the chief priests and rulers sent the most malicious enemies of Jesus to him, who pretended to be interested in his teachings and desiring to be profited by his divine wisdom. They expected Jesus would be deceived by their pious pretensions, thrown off his guard and led to speak that which they could take advantage of to condemn him. They were mortified and angry that they had been compelled to endure the penetrating address of Jesus, laying bare their true condition and condemning their wickedness, yet were utterly unable to refute his words. They arranged privately with the Herodians to accompany them and hear the words of Jesus, that they might be witnesses against him when he should be arraigned on trial for his life. The Pharisees had ever fretted and chafed under the exaction of taxes or tribute by the Romans. They took the position that it was contrary to the law of God. They now laid a snare by which they thought Jesus would surely become entangled and offend either the Jewish laws or the Roman authority. The spies came to him in a most courteous manner and expressed great confidence in his teachings. After plying him with flattery as to his straightforward course, irrespective of the favor or frowns of men, they, with an assumed candor, asked as if for information, "Is it lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, or not?" But their wicked device was plain to the Saviour, and turning upon them he answered them, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the tribute money." Thrown off their guard by the unexpected manner in which Jesus met their advances, and which plainly showed that he was not deceived for a moment by their specious flattery, his questioners immediately brought him a coin bearing the image and superscription of the Roman ruler. "And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Cæsar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's." The wily spies felt themselves baffled and defeated. The summary way in which their question had been settled left nothing farther for them to say. Their plans were all disarranged. They had expected Jesus to answer their question directly in one way or the other. If he should say, It is unlawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, there were those present whose task it was to immediately bear the report to the Roman authorities, and have Jesus arrested at once, as one who was creating rebellion among the Jews. This they hoped would insure his condemnation. But in case he should say, it is lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar, they designed to call the attention of the Jewish people to his decision, and accuse him as one opposed to the divine law. Jesus read their motives, and, holding in his hand the Roman coin, upon which was stamped the name and image of Cæsar, declared that, as they were living under the protection of the Roman power, they should render to that power the support it claimed, so long as it did not conflict with their duty to God. But that they should at all times render obedience to God, answering his claims, yet peaceably subject to the laws of the land. His interrogators, unprepared for this response of Jesus, "marveled and left him, and went their way." Although the wrath of the priests and rulers knew no bounds, and they longed to seize Jesus and slay him with their own hands to avenge themselves for the mortification he had caused them, yet they dared not attack him before the crowd. With a masterly effort they maintained a fair exterior while they went about laying plans to destroy him. The Saviour knew just what answer would meet the exigencies of the case. He gave no advantage to either the Roman or Jewish power. His answer to the intriguing Jews, "Render unto God the things which are God's," was a severe rebuke to them. Had they answered the claims of God and faithfully fulfilled their obligations to him, they would not have become a broken nation, subject to a foreign power. No Roman ensign would have waved over Jerusalem, no Roman sentinel would have stood at her gates, no Roman governor ruled within her walls. The Jewish nation was then paying the penalty of its apostasy from God.—Mrs. E. G. White. OTHER people may find the advice of Daniel Webster to his grandson of value to themselves. He wrote it about four years before his death:— "Two or three things I wish now to impress on your mind. First, you cannot learn without your own efforts. All the teachers in the world can never make a scholar of you if you do not apply yourself with all your might. In the second place, be of good character and good behavior—a boy of strict truth, and honor, and conscience, in all things. Have but one rule, and let that be always to act right and fear nothing—but wrongdoing. Finally, 'Remember your Creator in the days of your youth.' You are old enough to know that God has made you and given you a mind and faculties, and will surely call you to account. Honor and obey your parents, love your sister and brother, be gentle and kind to all, avoid peevishness and fretfulness, be patient, and under restraint. Look forward constantly to your approaching manhood, and put off, every day, more and more, all that is frivolous and childish." FOR an explanation of the parable of the marriage supper, see the article entitled "The Three Messages," by "J. N. A.," on p. 295 of this number of the SIGNS. A MINE OF INFORMATION.
By John Nevins Andrews
History of the Sabbath and First Day of the Week
THE Bible record of the Sabbath; the secular history concerning it; the successive steps by which the change to the first day was made; and the work of restoration, are given in detail. Concerning the Sabbath is commented on at length; and the COMPLETE TESTIMONY OF THE FATHERS
In regard to the Sabbath and first day is given. The comparative merits of the seventh and the first day Sabbaths are fully shown. A copious index enables the reader to find the comments on any text, or the statement of any historian. ☛ Should be read by everybody. 528 pp. Price, $1.25. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. WHEN a skeptic expressed a wish to examine the evidences of the inspiration of the Bible, and asked what book on that subject he should read, his friend promptly advised him to read the Bible. He thought he was not understood; and as the Bible was the subject to be investigated, he again asked what work on the inspiration or credibility of the Bible he should read. And again he was told to read the Bible. The reason given for this advice is, that they who oppose the Bible seldom know much about the Bible. The advice was taken, and the skeptic—an able lawyer—was converted to the faith of the Holy Scriptures before he got past the twentieth chapter of Exodus. Indeed, this chapter was the turning-point; the completeness of the moral law carried conviction to his heart, thus proving the words of the psalmist, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” The method pursued with this skeptic we heartily indorse. No book of “evidences” has evidences equal to those which the Bible itself contains. The following is from the account of a Protestant laborer in Paris:— I go as often as possible to the clubs where, besides grotesque insanities, odious blasphemies are uttered. I succeed sometimes in getting the floor. I am not permitted to speak long; and what I say, I can utter only amidst a horrible din. But I thus come in contact with simple and misguided souls, and am able to do them good. I found myself in one of these meetings, by the side of an honest workman who wore the insignia of Free Thought—L. P.—Libio Pense—and who asked me whether I also was a Free Thinker. “No,” I answered him, “I am a Protestant pastor.” Oh, a Protestant pastor, he rejoined, quite astonished. “I like the Protestants; but I don't like their book, the Bible.” “No, but I know that it is an immoral book.” “If it was immoral, you would have read it.” “Ho! how do you know that?” “Because I know the human heart. I am sure you have read all the realistic novels of the day.” “Very well! take this Bible, I offer it to you gratuitously. Read some pages of it. I will meet you here again to-morrow night, and you will let me know what conclusion you have come to.” The next day my friend was there. “We must never judge of things which we don't know,” said he to me. “This book is good. I want them to read it at my house.” I asked permission to go and see him at his house, where I found his wife also very happy to possess “so good a book.” I exhorted them not merely to declare that the book was good, but to realize its contents and power in their lives, in order to exhibit its excellence to those who surrounded them. All this house now serves the Lord, and has already become the light of two neighboring families which also belonged to the society of Free-Thought, which they have hastily abandoned. We have known infidels—reading, intelligent infidels,—who had stood for years against the arguments and evidences of able authorities, yield up all their infidelity on hearing a few discourses on the fulfillment of the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation. The best antidote for infidelity that we have ever known is the preaching of the “present truth;” and this because it is the present truth, and opens the Bible more clearly to the understanding than does any other system of “divinity.” In this position we are sustained by the words of our Saviour himself. In a parable in Luke 16, a request is made to “father Abraham” to send Lazarus from the dead to convince certain ones of their errors, and to lead them to avoid the consequences thereof. Abraham is made to reply: “They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.” But another kind of evidence was still insisted on. “Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.” Then comes the important answer: “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” This is no hyperbole—no strong expression to point a moral—but a plain statement of a plain fact. In proof of this we notice two facts:— 1. Lazarus, the brother of Mary and Martha, was raised from the dead. Did this convince the enemies of Jesus of his Messiahship? Did they then yield to his claims as being sent from God? Not at all. It was not a question of proof with them; it was a question of the will. Their intellect could not yield, because their hearts would not yield. Instead of acknowledging their error, they sought to destroy the evidence which stood against them. “But the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” John 12:10, 11. Jesus had told them that they would believe him if they had had faith in the writings of Moses. John 5:46, 47. And Paul said they had condemned Christ because they knew not the voices of the prophets. Acts 13:27. The words of Christ proved to be literally and strictly true; if they would not hear Moses and the prophets, no kind of evidence would move them; they would not believe even though one rose from the dead. 2. We notice in all the New Testament that “the Scriptures,” words of Moses and the prophets, are the last and sole resort of all the writers and speakers. “It is written,” was the end of all controversy. If any rejected the teachings of the Scriptures, no effort was made to convince them by other means. They evidently had the same estimate of the power and sufficiency of the sacred writings that the Saviour presented in Luke 16. The Scriptures were recognized as the word of the Lord. To reject the Scriptures is to reject the word of the living God; and if they will not believe him, to whom will they listen? How shall the heart be reached if it turns away from the words of the Holy Spirit? In addition to the above we may cite the case of our Saviour in meeting the Sadducees when they reasoned against the resurrection. His answer was: “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” He appealed neither to philosophy nor science; nor did he reason to make it appear possible or plausible to their understanding of things. These have nothing to do with the question. It rests altogether on the divine veracity and the divine power. The Scriptures—the word of God—say the dead will rise from the dust of the earth where they are sleeping; and the power of God is sufficient to fulfill his word. If any doubt either the Scriptures or the power of God, then they may doubt the resurrection; but not otherwise. They who believe the Scriptures, they who trust the power of God, who created man of the dust of the earth, must believe that he will restore him though he is returned to the earth; they must believe that “thy dead men shall live;” that they will be redeemed from the power of the grave. Who realizes the value of that precious, heavenly gift, the Bible? “The words of the Lord are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Ps. 12:6. It may be further noticed that all these testimonies to the value of the Scriptures, are so many indorsements of the Old Testament in this dispensation. They who reject the Old Testament, as many blindly do, must reject all the testimonies of Christ and his apostles in favor of “the Scriptures,” for they referred always and only to the Old Testament when they spoke of the Scriptures. The New Testament without the Old is but a partial revelation of God's work to man. The New rests upon the Old as its strong support—its infallible witness. “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.” Prov. 30:5.