Earlier text: The Alleged Discrepancies of ScriptureAs the man sees truths that are hidden from the child, so great doctrines concerning the nature of God and of man, and their mutual relations, of which the race in its childhood had but a shadowy apprehension, are revealed to the mature man. Yet these great truths are outlined in the earliest revelations. The finished picture of the gospel but completes the sketch of the patriarchal age. Those wandering shepherds of Syria, those Egyptian slaves of the age of the Pharaohs, who believed that their ancestor Enoch “walked with God, and was not, because God took him,” had views of immortality far more clear to the intellect and comforting to the heart than Plato taught, a thousand years later, in the groves of the Academy. Yet the splendor that Christ has shed upon immortal life makes the patriarchal faith appear as a twilight gleam. Creation by the divine word, as revealed on the first page of the Scripture, corresponds mysteriously with the profound utterance on the first page of John’s gospel: “The word was God;” “all things were made by him.” The Jehovah angel who hears and answers the prayers of the patriarchs, identifying himself with the one only God in whom they so firmly believed, was the Morning Star before the Sun of Righteousness, or rather that Sun himself shining through the mists of the morning. In the blood-besprinkled altars of patriarch and Levite were given the preparatory instructions for the profoundly mysterious lessons of Calvary, which concentrate in one dazzling focus all the manifold rays of revelation. When will our advancing race, in its spiritual development, outgrow the Hebrew psalms? The most advanced Christian of to-day finds these ancient songs and prayers, which burst from the hearts of Hebrew minstrels, prophets, priests, and kings, twenty centuries ago, voicing more perfectly than any other language his profoundest meditations, his sternest struggles, his sublimest joys and aspirations. It is not mere traditional reverence that has bound the Hebrew psalter on the heart of the Christian church. The eternal glow of the wondrous book draws humanity of all ages to its quenchless warmth. Some of these strains drop like angels down to the darkest depths of human agony; and there are others that blow the hurricanes from their trumpets, and clash the thunders from their cymbals, to pour forth the grandest joys a mortal heart can know. It is significant and instructive that the fierce conflicts and triumphant victories of New Testament saints find adequate utterance only in Old Testament songs. Even the Saviour, at the midnight moment of his mysterious agony, gave vent to his soul in a line of an ancient psalm. Paul, as he finished his survey of the resurrection, the distinctive doctrine of the New Testament, which lay at the core of every apostolic sermon, can close only in the triumphant strain of Isaiah: “Death shall be swallowed up in victory.” John who had leaned on Jesus’ breast, and whose very soul was steeped in the essence of the New Testament revelations, yet as he paints the final visions of the prophetic gospel, this John of Tabor, and Gethsemane, and Calvary, used the brush, and canvas, and colors, of Daniel and Ezekiel, leads us back to the very spot whence we started with Moses on this wondrous circuit of revelation, and leaves us at last under the branches of that same tree of life where stood Adam and Eve to hear the first whispers of revelation. Is this discrepancy between the New Testament and the Old? Is it not rather a profound, worldwide and age-long harmony? Recapitulating now these six causes of apparent discrepancy, and analyzing more closely, they fall naturally into two general classes, resulting (1.) from difference in form, while yet there is identity in matter; and (2.) from difference in the point of sight. Under the second class, we include five kinds of apparent discrepancy: - That arising from difference in the author’s point of sight.
- Difference in the hearer’s or reader’s points of sight.
- Difference between the whole and the part.
- Difference between subjective and objective.
- Difference arising from progress.
These classes are not rigidly distinct, but blend into each other; yet by one or more of these formulas we are confident that any problem of Scripture discrepancy can be solved. Theology, like physical science, changes; but the Bible, like nature, endures. Our scientific classifications of natural facts, and the hypotheses drawn from them, satisfy for a year or a generation, and then vanish, after giving birth to new classifications and hypotheses; but the facts themselves abide forever. Pythagoras vanishes before Copernicus, and Copernicus before Newton; but the stars shine on the same. So the facts of revelation, with all their contrasts and irregularities, give rise to theological systems which oppose, supplement, and succeed each other, age after age, while the facts themselves abide forever. The great theologians, the Augustines and Chrysostoms, vanish; but the great gospel facts are constellated in eternal beauty. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but these words shall not pass away. When human science shall all be forgotten, as it will be when that which is perfect is come, when the stars shall fall, and the heavens vanish, these truths will still shine on glorious and mighty as the eternal Sun from which they beam.—The Methodist. PRESENT, PAST, AND FUTURE.
By Emily L. Canright
Away in the eastern horizon,
The pale moon rises in sight,
Casting o'er forest and meadow
A flood of silvery light.
I sit by my window dreaming;
Of the past and the future I dream;
The future no prophet revealing,
The past, oh! the past I have seen. Deep down in my heart is a sadness,
For the long, golden days that are fled,
For the time I have foolishly wasted,
For the fond cherished hopes that are dead.
For the harsh words hastily spoken,
(Oh! would they were only a few!)
For the promises made to be broken,
And the duties neglected to do. The future, the dim, distant future,
Its workings I cannot foresee,
Then help me, my Father in Heaven,
That I may trust wholly in thee.
Henceforth let me be but a pilgrim,
A stranger indeed while below,
And lay up my treasure in Heaven;
And there let me finally go. Duty to Children.
By Ellen G. White
I HAVE been shown that parents generally have not taken a proper course with their children. They are not restrained as they should be. They are left to indulge in pride, and follow their own inclinations. Anciently, parental authority was regarded, and children were in subjection to their parents. They feared and reverenced them; but the order in these last days is reversed. Some parents are in subjection to their children. They fear their children, and yield to them. They fear to cross the will of their children. But just as long as children are under the roof of their parents, dependent upon them, they should be subject to them. Parents should move with decision, requiring the following out of their views of right. Eli might have restrained his wicked sons, but he feared their displeasure. He suffered them to go on in their rebellion, until they were a curse to Israel. Parents are required to restrain their children. The salvation of children depends very much upon the course pursued by their parents. In their mistaken love and fondness for their children, they indulge them to their hurt, nourish their pride, and put upon them trimmings and fixings which make them vain, and lead them to think that dress makes the lady or gentleman. But a short acquaintance convinces those with whom they associate that an outside appearance is not sufficient to hide the deformity of a heart void of the Christian graces, but filled with self-love, haughtiness, and uncontrolled passion. Those who love meekness, humility, and virtue, should shun such society, even if it be Sabbath-keepers’ children. Their company is poisonous; their influence leads to death. Parents realize not the destructive influence of the seed which they are sowing. It will spring up, and bear fruit which will make their children despise parental authority. Children, even after they are of age, are required to respect and look after the comforts of their parents. They should listen to the counsel of godly parents, and not feel that, because a few years are added to their life, they have grown out of their duty to them. There is a commandment with promise to those who honor their father and their mother. Children in these last days are so noted for their disobedience and disrespect that God has especially noticed it, and it constitutes a sign that the end is near. It shows the power of Satan upon minds, and the almost complete control he has of the minds of the young. By many, age is no more respected. It is considered too old-fashioned to respect the aged, for it dates back as far as the days of Abraham. Says God, “I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him.” Anciently, children were not permitted to marry without the consent of their parents. Parents chose for their children. It was considered a crime for children to contract marriage upon their own responsibility. The matter was first laid before the parents and they were to consider whether the person to be brought into a close relation to them was worthy, and whether the parties could provide for a family. It was considered by them of the greatest importance that they, the worshipers of the true God, should not intermarry with an idolatrous people, lest they lead their families away from God. Even after their children were married, the most solemn obligation rested upon them. Their judgment then was not considered sufficient without the counsel of their parents; and they were required to respect and obey their wishes, unless they should conflict with their duty to God. Again I was directed to the condition of children in these last days. Children are not controlled. Parents should commence their first lesson of discipline when their children are babes in their arms. Teach them to yield their will to yours. This can be done by bearing an even hand, and manifesting firmness. Parents should have perfect control over their own spirits, and with mildness, and yet firmness, bend the will of the child until it shall expect nothing else but to yield to their wishes. Parents do not commence in season. The first manifestation of temper is not subdued, and the children grow stubborn, which increases with their growth, and strengthens with their strength. Some children, as they grow older, think it a matter of course that they must have their own way, and that their parents must submit to their wishes. They expect their parents to wait upon them. They are impatient of restraint, and when old enough to be a help to their parents, they do not bear the burdens they should. They have been released from responsibilities, and grow up worthless at home and worthless abroad. They have no power of endurance. The parents have borne the burden, and have suffered them to grow up in idleness, without habits of order, industry, and economy. They have not been taught habits of self-denial, but have been petted and indulged, their appetites gratified, and they come up with enfeebled health. Their manners and deportment are not agreeable. They are unhappy themselves, and make those around them unhappy. And when the children are but children still, and while they need to be disciplined, they are allowed to go out in company, mingle with the society of the young, and one has a corrupting influence over the other. The curse of God will surely rest upon unfaithful parents. Not only are they planting thorns which will wound them here, but they must meet their own unfaithfulness when the Judgment shall sit. Many children will rise up in the Judgment and condemn their parents for not restraining them, and charge upon them their destruction. The false sympathy and blind love of parents cause them to excuse the faults of their children, and pass them by without correction, and their children are lost in consequence, and the blood of their souls will rest upon unfaithful parents. Children who are thus brought up undisciplined, when they profess to be Christ’s followers, have everything to learn. Their whole religious experience is affected by their bringing up in childhood. The same self-will often appears; the same lack of self-denial; the same impatience manifested under reproof; the same love of self and unwillingness to seek counsel of others, or to be influenced by others’ judgment; the same indolence, shunning of burdens, lack of bearing responsibilities, are seen in their relation to the church. It is possible for such to overcome; but how hard the battle! how severe the conflict! how hard to pass through a course of thorough discipline, which is necessary for them to reach the elevation of Christian character! Yet if they overcome at last, they will be permitted to see before they are translated how near the precipice of eternal destruction they came, caused by the lack of right training in youth, and by not learning submission in childhood. THE PERIL OF THE HOUR.
By Editor
The letter of William Sturgis, expelled mayor of Meridian, Miss., which we print this week, fully supplements the report of the Senate's Committee of Investigation, and proves the rebel spirit still rampant and murderous. Mississippi is a strongly Republican State; Meridian is a Republican city; and yet her Republican mayor is hunted out like a wolf, though he is neither charged with any offense nor suspected of any wrong. Remember that we had the rebel bulletin of this atrocity by telegraph several days since, and, while it stated the fact that he had been driven away, it did not even intimate any other reason for this than his northern birth and Republican politics. Mr. Sturgis' own account of the matter elucidates it, but is not in conflict with that telegraphed by the confederated murderers. They indeed assert that a negro shot Judge Bramlette, and would fain create the impression that this was the beginning of the fray; to which Mayor Sturgis responds as follows:— “The Ku Klux will endeavor to make the people of the North believe that Judge Bramlette was killed by a negro. They may make some believe it; but I do not believe that any of the arrested negroes had any weapon other than a pocket-knife, as I was present at the trial for some time, and sat close to the accused, and saw none. But in a direct line from the sheriff's office door to the main hall there sat one of those negroes; and I believe, although I saw not the shooting, that one or many of the Ku Klux, in carrying out their design, shot Judge Bramlette. After the negro was shot, he jumped out of the two-story window, after which he was killed. Gen. Dennis, colored, was shot in the Court-room, after which he was thrown from the two-story window on to the brick pavement below, and as that did not kill him, they cut his throat. After they had killed J. A. Moore, they went and burned his house; and so they continued their hellish barbarities. They surrounded my brother's house. They were all armed with double-barreled shot-guns, and as I was told were 200 in number. Many good citizens of Meridian pleaded for me, as well as many in the Ku-Klux columns, who were in them, not from choice, but from necessity. They appointed committee after committee to wait upon me, and to inform me that I must leave by 10 o'clock next day. Their principal commanders visited me. I wanted to know the whys and wherefores, but they said they came not to argue any question of right—the verdict had been rendered. They treated me respectfully, but said that their ultimatum was, that I must take a northern-bound train. I yielded. At about 12½ o'clock at night, perhaps 300 came and escorted me to the cars.” We are sure that no impartial judge can doubt that this is the truth, and that the pretense that a negro shot Judge Bramlette—for which no pretext is alleged, and no conceivable motive is even suggested—is a naked lie, invented to screen the Ku-Klux murderers from general execration. It might as plausibly be contended that the negroes ran off Mayor Sturgis. Account of the Meridian Court-room riot, by the Hon. J. Aaron Moore, a colored victim—The shooting of Judge Bramlette.
All the accounts of the recent riots and murders at Meridian, Mississippi, thus far received, both by telegraph and mail, have been from rebel and Ku-Klux sources only, except the letter of Mayor Sturgis. The Jackson Pilot publishes a statement from the Hon. J. Aaron Moore, a colored member of the Mississippi Legislature, who resides near Meridian, and who arrived at Jackson after a flight on foot. The reporter took down his words as he lay in bed, prostrated by fatigue. It was Mr. Moore's house which was burned on Monday evening after the first riots, and concerning which a “Citizen's Committee” made a report intimating that it was burned for the insurance, the furniture being previously removed. The truth appears to be, that the house was threatened by the whites, and that if it had not been deserted there would have been greater loss of property, if not, indeed, loss of life. A meeting of colored people was the immediate cause of trouble. Moore and several other colored men were arrested for making “incendiary speeches,” and it was at their examination on Monday that the shooting of Judge Bramlette and the subsequent general slaughter of colored men occurred. The account given below of the shooting contrasts strangely with that given by the first telegrams. No hint was given in those of the threatened attack on a negro by a witness which preceded the shooting. Mr. Moore was among those arrested and examined. He says:— “At the examination, where I arrived about 3 P. M., Judge Bramlette was presiding. The charge of making speeches on Saturday was being examined. The defendants were Warren Tyler, Wm. Clopton, alias Dennis, and myself, all colored. Mr. Ford, the prosecuting attorney, asked what I had to say. I said I was not guilty, and did not know anything of it. I needed no attorney, for I had done nothing. The witnesses were then examined. They seemed to agree that Tyler and Clopton had made flaming speeches, but that mine was on the side of peace and good order. Mr. Brantly, a white man, gave his testimony. At this time all the colored policemen were called in. The mayor had been in the room, but only remained a few minutes. The prosecuting attorney asked Brantly what he had heard Tyler say on the street that (Monday) morning. He answered that he was passing along the street when he heard “this boy here” (he did not know his name) say that “the Democrats were getting frightened.” Brantly testified that he called Tyler a d—d liar, and that he had a great mind to shoot him down or blow his brains out on the spot. At this, Tyler said he desired Brantly to keep the floor for a moment, until he could go out and get two men who would impeach his (Brantly's) testimony. Brantly replied, “What did you say?” Tyler repeated his remark, when Brantly caught up the hickory stick of the city marshal, from a table near, and with it started for Tyler. The last I remember of it, Tyler was retreating backward toward the sheriff's room. I heard several say, “Shoot him! shoot him!” I had just got behind Judge Bramlette when I heard the shot, and the judge fell to the floor. I fell with him, he falling directly upon my left shoulder. I was not hit, but the blood from Judge Bramlette covered my clothing and arm. The firing became general. I cannot say who fired the shot at Judge Bramlette. I was at the time of the mind that it had been aimed at me and hit him. There was soon firing all over the room. I heard the marshal shout out for the firing to cease, as the magistrate was killed. I saw that he was dead and remained quiet. When the crowd was dispersed I looked up and saw Clopton also dead. Deputy Sheriff Belt was nigh with a pistol in his hand, and I sought his protection. He averred that he could not protect anybody.” “Soon thereafter I picked up my hat and walked away covered with blood, and everybody supposed that I was mortally wounded. I only told one person that I was not hurt. I reached home, told my wife she must take care of the children and herself, gave her what money I had, and left. I only went about three-quarters of a mile when I sent a friend back. He soon returned to tell me that 100 men were at my house looking for me. I traveled all that night and until 2 o'clock Tuesday morning, when I reached a friend's house. I staid there all that day. Another friend came there and told me that my home and all I had in it, with the church, were burned up. Then I left that place and traveled on foot day and night, and got here this morning at 9 o'clock.” Patience Is Bitter, but Its Fruit Is Sweet
PATIENCE is bitter, but the fruit is sweet. “The Perils of the Hour.”
By J. Hare
I CLIP the following from the N. Y. Tribune under date of March 21, 1871. Other articles in the same issue show South Carolina and Florida, as well as Mississippi, to be under the same reign of terror. These things show that 2 Tim. 3:1, is now being fulfilled, which says, “In the last days perilous times shall come,” &c. The question put by the Lord to Job, whether he knew the paths that led to the house of darkness, or the query by Jeremiah respecting the deceitful heart, “who can know it,” may well be asked respecting the position assumed by No-Sabbath Sunday-keepers. As we witness their gyrations, the queries will involuntarily arise, Do they really know, themselves, what position they want to take? Or, when trying to describe it, Do they say what they mean? Or, having said it, Do they mean what they say? An article on the Sabbath question appears in the Advent Christian Times of March 28, which affords a curious subject of study. It commences: “A friend says, ‘I wish you could see that your position, that the first day of the week is the Sabbath, is untenable.’” To which the editor responds: “In reply I would say that I hold the Sabbath as the apostles and early Christians did.” This sentence deserves to be set off with a score or two of exclamation points; but we will restrain our feelings, only remarking that to those who understand the Sabbath question, and Eld. Himes’ practice, this declaration will sound remarkably cool. For instance, whenever in his “journal,” published from week to week in the Times, he comes to the first day of the week, he calls it the Sabbath. But did the apostles ever call the first day by that name? When they say, Sabbath, anywhere in the New Testament, do they mean the first day of the week? Never. They always mean the seventh day; and this Eld. H. will acknowledge. Yet this day, which the apostles never called the Sabbath, and never observed as such, he persists in calling the Sabbath and devoting to Sabbatical duties, and then has, we had almost said the effrontery, to affirm, “I hold the Sabbath as the apostles and early Christians did.” He continues: “The first day is called Sabbatos in Acts 20:7, or Sabbaths. A day of rest and sacred worship.” In what language the first day is called Sabbatos in Acts, whether Fejee or Choctaw, he does not tell us. Groping about, like a blind Cyclops, in his Sunday cave, he perhaps imagines he has here found some Greek; but he hasn’t. The word in that form cannot be found in the Greek. The construction of the Greek in the passage in question, “Ἐν δὲ τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων,” is exactly parallel to that of Matt. 28:1, which is fully explained in the recent tract on Sabbaton. But what shall we understand by the first day being called “Sabbaths,” plural. The burden of one Sabbath, we had supposed, was all it could well sustain; what can be done with it, if it means more than one, we leave those who have a lively imagination to try to conjecture. Immediately following the remarkable declaration last quoted, comes this sentence: “I do not associate it with the seventh day, with its rigors of the law.” Why does he not associate the term Sabbath, and the idea of rest and worship, with the seventh day? Does it not all come from the institution of the seventh day in the beginning? Is there any other law enforcing such an institution, but that which enjoins the seventh day? Yet he coolly says, “I do not associate it with the seventh day.” Has a person a right to thus tamper with the institutions of God? Has he a right thus to tear them away at pleasure from their original associations? He objects to the rigors of the law, meaning, as of course he must, the Sabbath law. But what are the rigors of that law? It requires that we should remember the day to keep it holy, refraining from our own work, keeping the day as a memorial of God’s rest at the close of creation week. That is all; but if this is too rigorous, how would he have us keep a Sabbath? Would he have us keep a Sabbath not entirely holy? and not altogether exempt from our own work? We quote again: “But still with the practice of the early church I feel a sympathy, and cling to the Christian Sabbath, ‘Lord’s day,’ or first day of the week, as a day that should be observed by the church.” If he feels a sympathy for the practice of the early church, he feels a sympathy for seventh-day keeping; for it can be indisputably proved that the early church kept that day. When he clings to the “Christian Sabbath,” he clings to an imaginary institution. The name is unscriptural, and the idea of a distinctive Christian institution cannot be found in the entire Bible. The Sabbath is one from Genesis to Revelation, not the Sabbath of Jews or Christians as such, but the Sabbath of the Lord, and binding on all who worship the true God. And when he applies the term “Lord’s day” to the first day of the week, he makes an application which is an entire perversion. Why will men persist in calling that the Lord’s day, which, so far as we have any record, the Lord never even took into his lips, a day which he never claimed as his, which neither he nor his apostles ever honored in the least degree, but which they devoted to the secular duties of life, the same as all the other working days. Do we ask why they do it? It is because they are fast bound to the blind chariot of tradition, and are led in disgraceful captivity in her triumphal procession. And when he says that it, the first day, “should be observed by the church,” in the name of reason and revelation, we would like to know why. What law is there for such observance either human or divine? Perhaps, however, we should not have said, human; for there is Constantine’s heathen Sunday edict; while any number of papal “bulls” have thrust their horns under to uphold the baseless fabric. Once more we quote: “As it is a day of rest [italics his], I know of no more appropriate name for it than the Sabbath.” When those who make this claim will produce some proof that the first day is a day of rest, they may perhaps do something toward justifying the double theft of appropriating the Lord’s day to their own use, and stealing the name of the Lord’s institution to grace their own. Of course if the day is a Sabbath it must be called so; but they know, as well as we, that nothing is so named in the Bible except the seventh day, upon which God rested in the beginning; still they know of nothing more “appropriate” (!) than to call the first day the Sabbath, or the rest-day. This is changing the truth of God into a falsehood. What being, whose example we are bound to follow, ever rested on the first day of the week to make it a rest-day? Where is it enjoined as such? We deny that there is the least particle of proof that that day should be called a rest-day or be so observed. The article continues: “As to the change of the day, we remark that none claim direct, express legislation on the subject. Br. Preble takes the ground that it was changed, but does not claim special legislation by either Christ or the apostles; but sustains his views by an array of circumstances and facts, if we rightly understand him.” No language was ever more aptly put than the last clause of the foregoing quotation: “If we rightly understand him;” that is, if the facts are facts, and if the circumstances have anything to do with the question, and if we can tell for what purpose they are presented. And thus must every intelligent person rise from a perusal of his works with a heavy burden of doubt and uncertainty resting on his spirit: “If we understand him.” Notice also the sophistry of this effort. He “does not claim special legislation” on this subject. What is that word, “special” put in for? Was there any legislation on the subject? If there was, why do they not produce it? If there was not, why do they not own that fact? The way in which it is put, is simply a barefaced attempt to gloss the matter over, and give the reader an impression that they have what they do not possess. But to come to the claim itself, we wonder how the law of God could be changed without any legislation. Suppose we should claim that a law of Michigan had been changed, and, being asked to state how or when, should reply, “Oh, there has been no legislation on the subject, but the law has been changed!” We should be charged, and justly too, with insulting common sense. The next paragraph is more self-contradictory than usual even on that side of the question. It reads: “By all means let us have a day of rest. Let us keep it as such, and let us keep it in accordance with apostolic usage, and in the spirit of the gospel. Neither Christ or the apostles enjoined Sabbath-keeping under the gospel.” Yes, by all means. God once enjoined a Sabbath upon his people. It proved a good thing. But he was so unwise as to abolish it; and now we must by all means take hold to make up the lack! And let us keep it in accordance with apostolic usage. They didn’t enjoin it and consequently did not use it. And let us keep it in the spirit of the gospel; for it is not enjoined under the gospel. That is, let us have a Sabbath, and let us not; let us keep it, and let us not! The remarks which we have thus far noticed from the Times, are simply introductory to an article which it quotes from the Advance—an article called out by a correspondent who objected to the use of the word “Sunday” rather than “Sabbath” to designate the first day of the week. To this the Advance replies that Sabbath is not the proper name for the first day of the week. Its first direct proposition reads: “1. No direct scriptural authority can be given for calling the first day of the week Sabbath. That name is ALWAYS confined in the Bible to the seventh day or the Jewish Sabbath. This holds as true in the New Testament as it does in the Old.” We give the emphasis as we find it. It then argues that to use the term “Lord’s day,” although it regards it as applying to the first day of the week, would be objectionable, as it is not convenient and would savor of cant; that to say “First-day,” as the Quakers do, would be “unusual, stiff and unnatural;” that to call the first day “Sabbath” would make confusion in many countries, where the term is still applied to the seventh day of the week or Saturday. In proof of this last proposition, it presents the following fact: “There lies before us, as we write, a Protestant religious newspaper, in the Greek language, published at Athens, each ‘Sabbato,’ or Sabbath, which means Saturday. There also lies before us a similar Spanish newspaper, published at Seville every ‘Sabado,’ or Sabbath; that again is every Saturday. The same holds true in Italian. What confusion would arise should evangelical Christians in Spain, Italy and Greece, and in the adjoining lands, undertake to call the first day of the week ‘Sabbath,’ when all their neighbors give that name to the seventh day.” This is an important fact. Let all Sabbath-keepers make a permanent note of it. On this point the Advance has the following additional significant remarks: “This linguistic fact, by the way, incidentally but clearly shows, by evidence from each branch of the Christian church, the Greek and the Latin, that the Christian ‘Lord’s day’ was not thought in early times to be ‘the Sabbath,’ with only a change of the day of observance; it was regarded rather as its successor, a separate though kindred institution, resting on distinct Christian grounds.” It further argues that Sunday, its “heathen origin” being now generally forgotten, has in it something even of “Christian propriety,” because the “Sun of Righteousness” arose on that day, and that, as Paul speaks of the “Sabbath day” as done away along with “new moons” and other Jewish “holy days,” it would seem wise to distinguish the weekly Christian worship day from the Jewish, by a separate name. Thus Sunday-keepers are driven to take the ground that the Sabbath of the Lord has been abolished, and to introduce this namby-pamby makeshift of first-day into the place of the sacred institution. But what shall be thought of the Times, when it quotes an article from the Advance, claiming that Sunday should never be called “Sabbath,” and introduces it with remarks, which, “if we understand” them, go to show that Sunday is named “Sabbatos, Sabbaths” in the New Testament, and since neither Christ nor his apostles ever enjoined Sabbath-keeping under the gospel, we should by all means make the first day into a Sabbath, and call it and keep it as such! J. McMILLAN: In answer to the objection raised by your friend, that the signs mentioned in Mark 16: 17, 18, are not manifested among professed believers, we would say that we do not suppose the power of God proposes to put itself on exhibition simply to satisfy the curiosity, or to arouse the wonder, of the beholder. The language cannot be taken to mean that all Christians would go about casting out devils, speaking in unknown tongues, handling serpents, drinking poison, and healing all the sick with whom they might come in contact. Suppose a person should not chance to meet with any one who was possessed of a devil. He could not then cast out a devil, and this sign would be lacking in his experience; but it would be nothing against his Christianity, because the opportunity, or the necessity, for such a manifestation did not present itself. And suppose the person lived in Ireland, where serpents are not found, and should not be compelled to drink, and should not by accident happen to drink any deadly thing; then the signs of resisting the venom of the reptile, and suffering no evil effects from the poisonous draught, would not occur in his experience: for, according to the principle already stated, it would not be considered either reasonable or scriptural for a person to seek danger in order to make an uncalled-for exhibition of deliverance therefrom. What then shall we understand by the promise? Answer: That these signs should appear among believers in the gospel of Christ just as necessity should require. The person who first used the expression that “man's necessity is God's opportunity,” stated the case in a very concise form. And the necessities of God's cause, are opportunities in which he equally delights to work. In this we are not taking the popular ground that the age of miracles is past, and that now no necessity can arise for such displays of God's power. We believe the whole gospel dispensation is a dispensation of the Spirit, as much so in one portion as another, and that God is just as ready to work now to meet the wants of his cause and his people as at any time in the past, the requisite degree of faith on their part being always understood; yet we believe that a person may be a Christian in the gospel sense through his whole life, and never witness in others or experience in himself, any of these special manifestations, if no occasion exists requiring their presence. In accordance with this view we are able to show even from the meager records we have of the spiritual experience of true Christians in different ages in the gospel dispensation, that these signs have been manifested from time to time, sufficiently to show that, though the promise may not have been enjoyed to its fullest extent on account of a lack of faith and devotion, yet it has not failed. These signs have from time to time been seen in the church of God. We see, then, that two conditions must exist before we can expect the manifestation of these signs: first, necessity; the wants of God's people, or the honor of his cause, requiring some manifestation of this kind; second, faith on the part of the people. But the condition of necessity must first exist; for no amount of faith would produce the sign of resisting the deadly potion if it had not been taken into the system, or of surviving the serpent bite if the person had not been bitten, or of healing the sick, if there were no sick present to be healed. Those, therefore, who object to the present work of truth in the earth because they do not see all the gospel signs now manifested, must be able to point to some occasion where such signs were demanded. They must show that a necessity existed, and how and where. If they cannot do this, their objection is of no force; and until they do it, we are not called upon to assume the lack of the other condition, namely, a want of faith. Should a person say to a believer, “You must work some miracles to attest the truthfulness of your doctrines; if you will work a miracle, I will believe that the seventh day is the Sabbath;” it would be sufficient to reply, You believe that the Bible is the word of God, or if not, you have sufficient evidence to believe it; you believe that all the wonderful scenes recorded in the New Testament, showing the divine mission of Christ, actually transpired, and that of the truthfulness of the Christian religion there is no doubt. Now what we teach is simply what is enjoined in that inspired record; and it could not reasonably be required that God should work a miracle through us to prove the truthfulness of that which you already acknowledge to be his word, or that it is your duty to obey what you admit to be his command. Thus saith the Lord, “The seventh day is the Sabbath; remember it to keep it holy;” and no signs manifested in the church at the present day, could make that command plainer or more obligatory upon the world. We believe that God will give special manifestations of his power, as it shall please him; but whether we shall see them or not, does not affect our duty to obey the plain requirements of his word.