Earlier textMen and Things.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
I fully believe the sentiment of the following words to be true; and it encourages me much to hope on and trust in God that he will lead me in the right path though it be a dark and rugged one for a time. If there are any sad and sorrowing souls who read this, may it lead them to hope in God “for the bright, the better day.” NO EVIL IS WHOLLY EVIL.—No evil is wholly evil! This is one of the bright gleams of light that stream in upon all nights, even the darkest. No evil is wholly evil. Behind the blackest cloud the sun shines—or the stars. All our trials and sorrows have elements of good in them; hopeful features which smile upon us in gentle reproof of our unbelief and discouragement. Now and then, as the swift shuttle passes, we catch glimpses of bright threads weaving themselves into the dark web of our afflictions. Hidden relations of events are discovered in this or133 that direction, when we did not look for them. And, by-and-by, the future good, which at first was shut out by the present and nearer evil, begins to lift itself into the line of vision; and we feel our faith increased and confirmed at last, in the ever joint action of the infinite power and love of the Father. Long time ago I wrote this; and as the years drift by, and the sphere of observation is extended, and I discover how singularly the threads of good and evil, joy and sorrow, sickness and health, cross and recross as warp and woof in the loom of life, and intertwine and weave up into the web of destiny, the more firmly do I believe this, the greater is my confidence in that Wisdom which orders with equal mercy darkness and light, suffering and rejoicing, death and life. Who can read the following lines, and not see in them an image of his own life? Who can look over his past life without feelings of regret and remorse? Could we but go back and correct the mistakes, undo the wrongs, and wipe out the sins, who would not give much, very much, to do so? But, alas for that poor soul who cannot look back on any green spot, on any sweet moment, on any noble deed, on any good done. Old age would be intolerable without these. These lines are entitled, “Reward,” and were written by J. G. Whittier. “Who, looking backward from his manhood’s prime,
Sees not the spectre of his misspent time?
And, through the shade
Of funeral cypress planted thick behind,
Hears no reproachful whisper on the wind
From his loved dead? “Who bears no trace of passion’s evil force?
Who shuns thy sting, O terrible remorse?
Who does not cast
On the thronged pages of memory’s book,
At times, a sad and half-reluctant look,
Regretful of the past? “Alas! the evil which we fain would shun
We do, and leave the wished-for good undone;
Our strength to-day
Is but to-morrow’s weakness, prone to fail;
Poor, blind, unprofitable servants all
Are we alway. “Yet who, thus looking backward o’er his years,
Feels not his eyelids wet with grateful tears,
If he hath been
Permitted, weak and sinful as he was,
To cheer and aid in some ennobling cause,
His fellow-men? “If he had hidden the outcast, or let in
A ray of sunshine in the cell of sin—
If he hath lent
Strength to the weak, and, in an hour of need,
Over the suffering, mindless of his creed,
Or home, hath bent, “He has not lived in vain, and while he gives
The praise to Him in whom he moves and lives,
With thankful heart;
He gazes backward, and with hope before,
Knowing that from his works he nevermore
Can henceforth part.” CALL THINGS BY THEIR RIGHT NAMES.
A late writer in the Christian Union ends an article on the Sunday question thus: “Is it not time for all good Christians to quit calling Sunday the Sabbath?” Yes, indeed; and we are glad people are beginning to think so. This Sunday-Sabbath question is beginning to attract the attention of all classes. The least move in the right direction we hail with joy. When people find out that really Sunday is not the Sabbath, perhaps they will begin to inquire which day is. “That doesn’t mean me,” perhaps the reader will be inclined to say, and so pass it by. But stop a minute. What are you doing in the world? Whom are you benefitting? Whom are you making happier or better? What is your life amounting to any way? Do you begin to say that if your circumstances had been more favorable, if you had means, if you had opportunity, if you had time, &c., &c., what great things you would have done? No; you would not have done any such thing. God placed you just where you were wanted, and if you have failed there, you would have failed anywhere. Read the following, and then go to work in good earnest with the ability, means, and opportunity you have: “If I only had capital,” we heard a young man say a few days ago, as he puffed away at a ten-cent cigar, “I would do something.” “If I only had capital,” said another as he walked away from a dram-shop where he had just paid ten cents for a drink, “I would go into business.” The same remark might have been heard from the young man loafing on the street corner. Young man with the cigar, you are smoking away your capital. You from the dram-shop are drinking yours and destroying your body at the same time; and you on the street corner are wasting yours in idleness and forming bad habits. Dimes make dollars. Time is money. Don’t wait for a fortune to begin with. If you had ten thousand dollars a year and spent it all, you would be poor still. Our men of power and influence did not start with fortunes. You, too, can make your mark if you will. But you must stop spending your money for what you don’t need, and squandering your time in idleness. What is that? I mean the terrible fever for moving, so prevalent in the West. We go into a town, raise up a small, but promising, church, go back in a year or so, and frequently find a good portion of the members gone to Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, or somewhere else, and the remnant discouraged, and the church about broken up. This is occurring all the time. Indeed, it seems to be growing worse. I am satisfied that this is not right. It is a restless, uneasy, and frequently a covetous, spirit that is at the bottom of it. This is not always the case; but I fear it is largely so. The glory of God and the salvation of souls is not the object. Persons who once get in the habit of moving, never know when to stop. They never find just the place for them. And so you will find them moving every two or three years from place to place. With such, life is always sure to be a failure. But other churches are troubled in this way as well as ourselves, as may be seen from the following:— “The difficulties attending clerical work on the border is thus hinted by a Nebraska correspondent of the Christian Register: ‘There are good elements in all these western cities to work upon in a desultory way; but they are hard to organize and consolidate. The minister hardly lays hands on a parishioner and calls him his, than he (the parishioner, I mean) is off to Chicago, or St. Louis, or Indianapolis, or New York, or Salt Lake, or Kansas, or out “on the plains,” and somebody equally transient, if anybody, must fill his place. What do you think of that, you New England parsons, who have learned to love and be loved through long series of years?’” JESTING UPON THE SCRIPTURES.
How carefully should this be avoided by all pious persons, especially the ministers. There is no good in it, no excuse for it. It is evil, and only evil. A writer has well said:— “The evils arising from jesting upon Scripture are even greater than appear at first. It leads in general to irreverence for Scripture. No man would jest with the dying words of his father or mother; yet the words of God are quite as solemn. When we have heard a comic or vulgar tale connected with a text of Scripture, such is the power of association that we never hear the text afterward without thinking of the jest. The effect of this is obvious. He who is much engaged in this kind of false wit will come at length to have a large portion of holy Scripture spotted over by his unholy fancy.” “Can ye not discern the signs of the times?” SAN DOMINGO.—The commissioners appointed to visit that island and report in reference to the question of its annexation to the United States, report in favor of annexation. The President recommends that no action be taken at the present session of Congress, but only that the facts in the case be laid before the public, and the matter be carefully considered by the people in reference to future action. PARIS, April 2.—A special to the Evening Telegraph says: “There was a serious engagement this morning between the government troops and the communists. About 2,000 National Guards marched on Courbevoie and were met by gens d’armes and Gardes Forestieres. The captain of the latter galloped up, waving his cap, intending to address the Communists, when a zouave with that body shot him dead. A general action followed, in which the gens d’armes took nine prisoners (one 76 years old), who were shot at once. The guns of Fort Valerien swept the road, and the Communists fled. Twenty-five insurgents were killed and many wounded. The engagement was over at 1 o’clock. “The National Guards still hold Porte Maillot; battalions of artillery are hurrying up; the rappel is beating and the ramparts are being manned. The greatest excitement prevails.” The same correspondent telegraphs from Versailles, April 2, evening: “The crisis is at hand, two batteries are in motion on the Paris road, and ambulances are all ready. Bismarck has given permission for any number of troops to be massed near Paris, and says that if order is not restored in Paris by the 15th inst., the Germans will enter the city. VERSAILLES, April 4.—Thiers has issued a proclamation addressed to the Prefects of the departments, as follows: “On Monday, the insurgent masses attacked our forces simultaneously at Nanterre, Rueil, Bougival, Bazons, Chaton, and Croissy. Fort Mont Valerien at daybreak began to cannonade the insurgents, who were at first sheltered by the villages of Nanterre, Rueil, and Bougival. They subsequently attacked the government forces, by whom they were repulsed. Gen. Vinoy, with cavalry, was by this time in possession, threatening the outflank of the insurgents, and they fled in complete rout, leaving many dead and wounded in the hands of the government troops.” VERSAILLES, April 3.—All day a great battle has raged between the government forces under Gen. Vinoy, and 100,000 Communists under Gen. Bergeret. Everywhere the latter were defeated with terrible slaughter. Near Mendon, Bergeret, and Flourens, with 35,000 men, were cut off and surrounded, and must either surrender to-night, or be cut to pieces in the morning. Many Communists refused to fight, and are throwing down their arms, begging for mercy. PARIS, Evening, April 4, via LONDON, 6 A. M., April 5.—It is rumored that the nationals have sustained a decisive defeat. Forty thousand are massed before Issy and Clamart. The ramparts are strongly guarded. Fort Mont Valerien is silent. The artillery duel between Issy and Versailles continues. The nationals occupy the bridge of Neuilly. Government troops are invisible. The Paris deputies to the Assembly had an interview to-day with some members of the Commune. LONDON, April 5.—A Times’ special from Versailles states that 1,500 insurgents have been taken prisoners. Paris is in consternation. The people of Versailles are greatly irritated against the insurgents. The Telegraph’s correspondent says the First Prussian Army Corps has been ordered to hold itself ready to march to Paris. A reign of terror continues within the city of Paris. A Daily News’ special says the nationals attacked the government troops on Tuesday, near Mendon, and suffered a complete rout. Garibaldi declines the command of the insurgents. It is rumored that 20,000 nationals have entered Versailles. The report is considered doubtful. The effective strength of the Communists is 120,000 men and 200 guns. Gen. Endes is reported wounded. VERSAILLES, April 5.—Picard has issued the following circular to the prefects: “The insurgents have met a decisive check. Our troops have captured the redoubt at Chatillon with 2,000 prisoners. Flourens and Duval are dead, and Henry is a prisoner. Twenty-two of the Communists have resigned, and Assy has been imprisoned by his own followers. The government is happy to inform you of this condition of affairs, which it has expected.” The nationals were badly organized, and having but a limited supply, were soon out of ammunition. Many tried to return to Paris, but found the gates shut and men posted on the ramparts, who threatened to shoot them if they attempted to re-enter the city. The contest at Le Bas Mendon was exceedingly bloody. The firing of the batteries, manned by artillerymen from the Versailles army, is pronounced fully equal in spirit and effect to the German bombardment of Paris. A dispatch from Versailles says: The government is disposed to show the greatest kindness and humanity to the insurgents. The Red Republican proclamation, dated at the Tuileries, strongly condemns the conduct of the Versailles government in attacking Paris. A dispatch from Paris says fighting continued until after 6 o’clock on the evening of the 4th. It is said that the nationals have fortified Moulin and St. Pierre. Gen. Lullier, it is reported, has escaped from the custody of the Central Committee. The Paris boulevards are crowded with people, and present an animated appearance. The cafes are open and omnibuses running, though the shops are all closed. The excitement is intense, but the city remains quiet. All foreigners have hoisted the flags of their respective countries. A dispatch from Marseilles, 5th inst., says the insurgents in that city are mainly Garibaldians, and have nearly all been arrested. The Archbishop of Paris has been arrested by the Commune on a charge of conspiracy against the safety of the State. At last advices from Paris, cannonading continued. VERSAILLES, April 5.—Notwithstanding their defeats, the Communists have rallied all their forces in Paris, and a desperate conflict will take place before the government troops enter the capital. The Commune has ordered all citizens between 17 and 35 years of age to enter the ranks. This decree is enforced with great rigor. M. Assy, Blanqui and Gambau, having incurred the suspicion of their colleagues, have been arrested, and are in danger of execution. Prince de Joinville has fled to London. PARIS, April 5, 11:30 A. M.—The Versailles troops still hold the heights of Chatillon, whence they are bombarding Issy, Vanvres, and Mendon. The Commune continues to send reinforcements to the nationals outside the walls. Tuesday was a more disastrous day for the Communists than Monday. The Commune this morning issued another proclamation. A speedy triumph is promised over the royalists, who have disgraced France by their savage mode of warfare. They are charged with shooting prisoners and murdering on the field of battle. Battalions of the National Guard will be reorganized and their pay increased. The proclamation concludes by ordering all unmarried men into the ranks. A grand review is announced for the 7th inst., in the Champ DeMars. NEW YORK, April 7.—A special telegram from Paris says: “The funeral of the killed yesterday was an extraordinary scene. There were three huge hearses with black velvet palls, each decorated with sixteen red flags, containing the dead. Following them were 8,000 National Guards, and double that number of citizens. Women, marching in hundreds, passed along the boulevards at a solemn pace, and many members of the Commune joined in the procession. Each hearse contained thirty-three coffins, and twenty-three other hearses were already in the cemetery, filled with dead from the various hospitals. It was an awful scene. One huge grave served for all, and the bodies were lowered, one at a time, amid the shrieks of women and the shouts of men for vengeance on the assassins of Versailles. The Pere La Chaise was one mass of people swaying with passion, and screaming, “Vive la Republique,” “Vive la Commune.” The losses of the Communists create great grief in the city, mixed with bitter animosity. What Is before Us?
By John Norton Loughborough
I would be glad to see the following in the REVIEW, as it has a bearing relative to the influences which are brought to bear in helping on a church-and-State movement in this country. “I wish to relate to you a few facts, the faithful consideration of which is pertinent to the present time,” so began a speaker in the Fulton-street Meeting. He is an old clergyman who once labored long and earnestly as a pastor in the West. “It is just thirty years ago that I was walking down Main street, in Cincinnati, Ohio, in company with a Roman Catholic priest with whom I was acquainted. He was a scholar and gentleman, in the usual acceptation of the word. Our conversation turned upon the aspirations and designs of the Roman Catholic church. He confessed that it was his great desire to see the day when their religion would have universal sway in these United States, and the Roman Catholic faith have its place as the religious faith of the country. The time must come when it must be supreme, and to its authority all hearts must bow. “‘You know,’ said he, ‘you Protestants have no religion. You have sectarisms, but you have no common faith.’ This he said good-humoredly, smiling all the time, but having a grim meaning. “‘Do you think,’ said I, ‘that yours will ever be the established religion in this country?’ “‘Certainly I do. It must be so.’ “‘No, NEVER,’ said I, with vehemence. “‘Now, now,’ said he, playfully, ‘not so fast. Don’t be so positive. Why do you think ours may not one day be the established religion?’ “‘Because our Constitution and our laws are against it.’ “‘But we will change your Constitution and your laws.’ “‘Yes, change them—amend them.’ “‘But the people will see that you shall not do that.’ “‘We will change the people too.’ “‘Not in your day, nor mine,’ said I, resolutely. “‘Perhaps not,’ he answered very coolly. ‘Perhaps not. But we have purposed it, and it will be done—if not in your day nor mine, then in the days of those who shall come after us.’ “I looked at his face with astonishment, as if I could not believe my own senses. He saw, and added quickly: “‘Oh! do not be alarmed. It will be done very quietly. It may be a long time coming—but it will come, when the Catholics will rule the nation, and the Catholic religion will be the ruling faith of the country.’ “‘Oh! you cannot believe it.’ “‘Yes, I do believe it. We are at it now. And you know what we Catholics are. When we take hold, we hold on, and never let go.’ This was said with a very solemn and determined look, and he then added: ‘We will upset your institutions, and establish our own.’ “‘We parted company at the foot of the street, I scarcely realizing the amount of meaning there was in the priest’s thrusts; for in that day we had no such apprehensions as now. “We come down thirty years. Whether this priest is alive or dead, we know not. But the work which he said was begun, of supplanting our institutions, is not dead. Quietly, persistently, encroachingly, the Catholics have gone on in their work, proselyting where they could, buying up votes where they could, till at last they fill our places of trust and office with creatures of their own. Our judges, our lawyers, our military leaders, our senators and representatives, are fast becoming Roman Catholics, and the profession of this faith which was never ‘delivered to the saints,’ is a sure passport to office or preferment. The politician has found it to his advantage to confess his sins to, and get absolution from, a priest, and be accounted a good Catholic. S. B. WHITNEY
By S. B. Whitney
THIS is a subject upon which much has been said and written, and yet its importance at this stage in the history of the church can hardly be overestimated. It is not our design in this article to dwell upon its importance nor so much to define the nature or character of the work, as to give a few words of encouragement to those who may feel that their efforts and progress are not compatible with the greatness of the work to be accomplished. This is undoubtedly true of many, and in a degree of nearly or quite all; still there are honest souls who are really striving to overcome, that are tempted to discouragement because the work appears too great for them to accomplish. Of such we would inquire whether they are not able to discover some advancement in their Christian experience. Or to test the matter more closely, would you be willing, were it possible, to have all knowledge of the truth and the experience thus gained taken from you? Would you consider you had lost nothing in practical experience by such a change? Assuming that you admit having made some advancement, we would again inquire if that fact is not good evidence of ability to make still farther advancement, and farther still. Having taken one step, can you not take the second, and the third, and so on, until Christian perfection, the goal at which you are aiming, is reached? But perhaps you reply, The goal is so far in the distance, the attainments are so high, I never can reach them. Here your difficulty lies in taking in at a glance the whole distance over which you are only required to travel step by step, one step at a time. While we should endeavor to appreciate the magnitude of the work before us, we should not allow ourselves to dwell upon it in a manner to so oppress our minds as to hinder our efforts or retard our progress in its accomplishment; but should bear in mind that the duty of the hour is required in the hour, and that a sufficiency of grace is promised; and remembering that our strength is increased and our speed accelerated in proportion to the distance we travel, we may rest assured that a faithful, persevering effort will compass the distance, be it ever so great. To illustrate: To enter upon a journey of a thousand miles on foot would seem at first almost like a hopeless undertaking, yet we can easily step over to the next neighbor's, and from there to the post office, and from there, with a little exertion, we can reach the next town; and if, instead of becoming weary, we found that we gained strength and attained a higher rate of speed the farther we traveled, the thousand miles' journey would be only a question of time and disposition, and not of ability, and would be likely to be accomplished if, at its close, we were sure of receiving a tenfold reward for our time and labor. Thus it is in the heavenly journey. No impossibilities are required, and the reward is infinite. May the Lord help us to quicken our pace, to run with patience the race set before us. Spending the Day Well Brings Evening Joy
Thou wilt always rejoice in the evening if thou spendest the day properly. Discussion on the Sabbath Question at Pilot Grove, Iowa.
This discussion, between Eld. Evans of the Methodist church and Eld. Canright of the Seventh-day Adventist, commenced March 21, and ended the 27th. The question was shaped in two propositions: 1. Resolved, That the Scriptures teach that the Sabbath made at creation is binding upon all men in all time. Eld. Canright affirmed; Eld. Evans denied. 2. Resolved, That the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the Sabbath since the resurrection of Christ. Eld. Evans affirmed, and Eld. Canright denied. Six days were consumed on these two questions, three on each. The attendance was from three to five hundred. This discussion was of more than usual interest for two reasons: the first was, it had been some months in anticipation; the second was that Eld. Evans was the acknowledged champion of his side of the question in this part of Iowa. His positions on the first question were mainly as follows: First, that creation week was seven thousand years long, and hence could not mean common days. He argued this position from 2 Pet. 3:8; showing, first, that in this chapter Peter is speaking of the creation; secondly, that the Sabbath was not made at creation, from the fact that the blessing and sanctifying did not take place for twenty-five hundred years after that. During this twenty-five hundred years there was no Sabbath. In the next place he took the position that the ten commandments with the ceremonial law passed away at the cross; that the one was only an expansion of the other; that the law had become a source of idolatry to the Jews, hence the necessity of its destruction, that the Jews might thereby be brought to Christ; and that at the present and since the cross it is idolatry to obey the ten commandments; therefore he argued that the seventh-day Sabbath was dead. Eld. Canright showed that the six days of creation were six literal days, equally divided between evening and morning, or darkness and light; that the blessing and sanctifying took place immediately after the resting, hence at creation. According to Webster, “at” means “near by,” etc.; then if Eld. Evans was correct, Adam did not live long enough to see the first Sabbath day finished. He next showed from the Scriptures that the ten commandment law and the ceremonial law were two distinct laws; that the ceremonial law, being typical, passed away; but that the ten commandments, not being typical, but of universal application, remained; that the seventh-day Sabbath was recognized by Christ and his apostles as continuous after the crucifixion as before; that the word, “Jewish,” was never used in either Testament in connection with the Sabbath; that inspiration calls the seventh day the Sabbath both before and after the crucifixion, and hence, till the same power disannuls that created, the seventh-day Sabbath must stand; that if it is never changed, it must forever remain. On the second proposition Eld. Evans founded an argument on the following scriptures: Isa. 65:17–19; Ps. 118:22–24; applying them to the resurrection day and Pentecost, both of which occurred on the first day of the week, according to his showing. He also combined with the foregoing, Acts 20 and 1 Cor. 16. By the quotation from Isaiah he endeavored to show that the new heavens and earth applied to the Christian dispensation. From Ps. 118 he showed that as the rejected stone was Christ, he became head of the corner on the resurrection day, and hence the day spoken of was the same, and became from that time forward the Christian Sabbath; that as redemption was greater than creation it required a day to commemorate it. Eld. Canright showed that Isaiah’s new heavens and earth went beyond this dispensation, and would be the everlasting home of the saints in the next, which he proved by 2 Pet. 3; that the day mentioned in Psalms was the Christian dispensation; that the day of Pentecost was necessarily, by the type, preceded by seven seventh-day Sabbaths, which would of course run six of them into the Christian dispensation; that as the type could not pass the antitype, the position of Eld. Evans failed. He showed in the next place that Christ met only once with his disciples on the first day of the week; that this was on the resurrection day, which Eld. Evans acknowledged they did not keep as a Sabbath from the fact that they did not believe he had risen till near the close of the day. He also showed from Acts 20 that Paul traveled on his journey Sunday morning, and from 1 Cor. 16, that the laying by was at home. The foregoing are but a few of the more prominent features of the discussion. No doubt it will be reported by abler hands, and more fully in detail from the notes. That which produces the greatest excitement here is the position Eld. Evans has taken with regard to the moral law. This is new ground for Methodism, and we wait with some anxiety to see how his brethren will receive it. There were some five or six of his ministerial brethren present. We didn’t hear any of them say, Amen; and from their looks we judged that they felt rather sad. But we are fully satisfied that while the truth has had a good scouring up, the seventh-day brethren are more firmly rooted and grounded, and much stronger than before, and will be better able to meet the enemies of God’s holy Sabbath and law than if the discussion had not occurred. [Since the foregoing was in type, we have received the following report of the same discussion. As each contains facts and circumstances not mentioned in the other, all of which will be of interest, we present them both in connection.—Ed.] The Discussion at Pilot Grove.
In his last report, Bro. Canright gave an account of our visit to Peru and Winterset. From the latter place we went to Monroe where we held an evening meeting with the brethren, and departed on the morning following for Washington, where we spent the Sabbath and Sunday, delivering six discourses to attentive congregations, which, through the courtesy of the people known as the church of God, were permitted to convene in their house of worship. On Monday afternoon we reached Pilot Grove. At this point our brethren have a comfortable house of worship, which, as a matter of favor, they have allowed other denominations to occupy from time to time. On one of these occasions, some months since, Eld. F. W. Evans, a presiding elder of the M. E. church, preached several discourses against the perpetuity of the Sabbath of the Lord, and in favor of the first day of the week, which he claimed had taken its place. This, of course, demanded attention, and as the friends of Eld. Evans confided in the strength of his position, matters so shaped themselves that a debate seemed necessary. Accordingly, after considerable correspondence, the time was fixed for the meeting on the 21st of March, and the following questions were agreed upon:— 1. Do the Scriptures teach that the seventh day of the week was instituted as the Sabbath of the Lord at the creation of the world, and as such, is binding on all men through all time? Eld. Canright affirms.
Eld. Evans denies. 2. Do the Scriptures teach that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath? Eld. Evans affirms.
Eld. Canright denies. At the appointed time the people assembled in large numbers to listen to the proposed argument, which it was arranged should last six days, two sessions each day, of two hours each, speakers occupying the time with alternate speeches of thirty minutes. One very gratifying feature of the matter was found in the fact that our opponents were perfectly satisfied with the ability of Eld. Evans to present their side of the question in a satisfactory manner, so that all were agreed that as he was a man of experience and unquestioned talent, should he fail to make out his case, it would be because he was not found defending the truth. All preliminaries in regard to moderators, etc., being arranged, Bro. Canright commenced his affirmative argument about 2 o’clock Tuesday. The positions taken on the first question were substantially as follows:— It was urged in favor of the seventh day of the week that God rested upon, blessed, and sanctified it at the creation; that it was given to Adam as the federal head of the race for the benefit of all his descendants; and that when Mt. Sinai was reached, God incorporated a command respecting it into his moral law, which is binding on all men through all time, and which, consequently, still requires the observance of the Sabbath which it ordains. The argument thus made was clear and forcible, and well calculated to carry conviction to the minds of the hearers. To it, Eld. Evans raised the following objections:— 1. That the blessing and sanctifying occurred after the end of the seventh day (according to Eld. C.’s position), and therefore could not be said to be at the creation, even though it had occurred but five minutes subsequent to the close of that day. This, however, bordered so nearly upon a quibble that it had no weight with the congregation. 2. He argued that the Sabbath was not given to Adam at all, and that the days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis were not literal days, but indefinite periods of time, and that the seventh day mentioned in Gen. 2:1–3 had not yet ended, and that God is still resting. 3. He insisted that the Sabbath was never instituted until the exode, and, consequently, that that was the point when God sanctified and blessed it because he had rested on it, even while in the very midst of that rest which is not yet complete. 4. That the ten commandments were only designed for the Jews, and were repealed by Christ; that they constituted a very imperfect code; that in them are no requirements to love God, and that they were even inferior to the Mosaic law since that inculcated love to God and man and provided for the education of children, etc. These were novel positions for a Methodist presiding elder to take, and afforded abundant proof that his situation was a desperate one. Therefore, after showing the terrible cost at which the elder purchased exemption from the requirement to keep the Sabbath of the Lord, viz., by giving up the literal days of creation, and first berating, and then repudiating, the law of God, he was shown to have opposed himself to the Protestant world generally, and to the M. E. church in particular, since John Wesley, Adam Clarke, an association of M. E. preachers, and the discipline of the body, recognized in unequivocal terms the continued obligation of the decalogue.135 The presentation and examination of the above positions occupied the time of the speakers nearly the whole of the first three days. At the expiration of that time, the second question was taken up, and the speakers reversing positions, it became the duty of Eld. E. to present a positive argument in favor of the first-day Sabbath. Here he found himself badly hampered by many assertions which he had made in the first part of the debate. For instance, while trying to tear down the Sabbath of the Lord he had declared with great emphasis that if the Lord should give a Sabbath, it would be his duty to make it just as plain as he (Eld. E.) could make it. It being insisted, therefore, that this rule should be made to apply to the first as well as the seventh day, he was appealed to again and again for a specific command, which he was compelled to admit was not to be found in the New Testament. Unwilling, however, to yield the point, or, rather, unable to extricate himself in any other way from the consequences of his previous concessions—which, indeed, were just and proper in themselves—he argued that circumstantial evidence is sometimes better than positive, and then presented testimony of this nature from the Bible. He labored with great energy, and at times with considerable shrewdness, to make out his case. 1. He appealed to Ps. 118:22–24; but here he was reminded that the day alluded to was not spoken of as a day of the week nor as the Sabbath, nor was it stated whether it should be observed annually, if at all, or that it would ever recur again; and in fact that it did not refer to a twenty-four-hour day at all, but to the Christian dispensation. John 8:56. 2. He then brought forward the 65th chapter of Isaiah, as finding its fulfillment in the Christian dispensation. Here again the fallacy of his argument was made manifest; and it was shown from 2 Pet. 3:5–13, which he himself had applied to the literal earth, that Isaiah 65 could only have its fulfillment in the earth made new. 3. He then passed into the New Testament and appealed successively to John 20:19, 26; 1 Cor. 16:2; Rev. 1:10; Acts 2:1; and the other texts which relate to the first day of the week, claiming that they furnish apostolic example for Sunday keeping. Here again, however, his argument was sadly defective, reminding one forcibly of the passage in Isaiah which says: “For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it; and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.” Isa. 28:20. For according to the same record which he adduced, that day which he endeavored to prove to be the first Christian Sabbath was one of the greatest confusion and excitement, since the disciples were hurrying to and fro, giving and imparting information respecting the resurrection of the Lord, which but few of them believed till a late hour in the afternoon, when he appeared unto them as they sat in their own private chamber partaking of their evening meal, while the doors were shut for fear of the Jews. Mark 16:13, 14; John 20:10, 19; Acts 1:13. Again, from Acts 20:7, etc., which he evidently relied upon as affording clear and satisfactory testimony in favor of his theory, was produced the most conclusive evidence that the apostle Paul had no idea of the sanctity of the first day of the week, since upon it he traveled on foot from Troas to Assos, a distance of nineteen miles. Having exhausted his skill in the vain effort to lay a foundation for Sunday keeping in the Scriptures, Eld. E. stepped outside of them, and introduced an argument which he was pleased to call the “Triumph of Truth,” the substance of which is this: 1. The number of those who observe the first day of the week is vastly greater than that of those who keep the seventh. 2. God has greatly blessed first-day keepers in spreading the truth. They have more churches, more schools and institutions of learning, have done more for the conversion of the heathen, etc., etc., than Sabbatarians, and therefore the latter are either men of less ability or energy, or God is not with them, but is with those who keep the first-day Sabbath and consequently approves their conduct in this respect. As the latter line of argument was entirely out of order since the question required adherence to the Scriptures, the speaker evidently damaged himself by resorting to it. The congregation were reminded that he had left the Bible altogether, evidently because he could not maintain his position there, and manifestly with a design to excite the prejudices of the congregation by resorting to a comparison of the resources, ability, and numbers, of those who keep the two days respectively. Nevertheless, as the debate drew to a close, this argument was presented again, and again, although entirely irrelevant and exactly calculated to produce personal altercation and bad feeling had it been met in the same spirit in which it was presented. This, however, was carefully avoided; and the whole object of the speaker was entirely defeated by showing that his conclusions were unsound, since, if true, the family of Noah, Elijah the Tishbite, the disciples, in the days of Christ, the Waldenses and other churches that rejected the Catholic heresies, and Luther and his followers, in the Reformation, as well as Wesley at a later period, could not have been the favorites of Heaven. Thus closed the discussion. From first to last perfect order was maintained, and the speakers, though contending earnestly for their respective positions, treated each other with Christian courtesy. So far as the results are concerned they must be eminently satisfactory to the friends of truth since the Lord rendered that assistance in its defense that its superiority over error was most forcibly demonstrated even when attacked by one who, while guilty of having made some gross blunders in his logic, nevertheless discovered a capacity for debate which would have insured success in a better cause. State Center, Iowa, March 31, 1871.