Earlier text: General ArticlesAt the Episcopalian convention in Chicago recently a resolution was offered with the design of changing the name of that sect from Protestant Episcopal to American Catholic. The majority of votes were for it—134 to 94—but, failing to obtain the necessary two-thirds, it did not pass. Its advocates argued that the term Protestant was narrow and inconsistent, and some of them actually spoke of it with loathing. This may not indicate a revolution, but it is certainly the sign of a great change in public sentiment. People nowadays hardly realize it. You could more easily insult an Episcopalian fifty years ago by calling him a Catholic than by applying the most opprobrious epithet of billingsgate to him. Since then the Puseyite movement has taken place. The poet Coleridge was the first, we believe, who dared to use the name Catholic without any purpose of abuse. Now Protestants are in love with it; they use it with tiresome iteration; and some of them want to exchange their right name for it. But, after having trampled it in the dust for three centuries, is it not unfair, is it not scandalous, is it not, in short, ridiculous, that they should desire to appropriate the Catholic name? What folly! They Catholics? Why, the boot-blacks on the street will laugh at them. Let them try. Let them use the test which Tertullian challenged the heretics of his day to, and ask the first indifferent man they meet on the public highway where there is a Catholic church. Will he point out the way to an Episcopalian meeting-house? Not much. No! our esteemed friends of “the Church” cannot rob us of our jewel of a good name. It is ours, and we have worn it so long that all the world concedes our title to it.—Catholic Mirror. "PRAYING always." Eph. 6: 18. The soul of man is like a kindled brand—so long as the air breathes on it, it will retain to the last its genial warmth and crimson glow; but let the air stagnate around it, and flake on flake the white ashes will gather over it, and the fire will die away within it, and under those ashes it will be left black and charred, a cold and useless log. What the breath of wind is to the glowing brand, that prayer is to the soul.—Archdeacon Farrar. How the Sabbath Was Changed.
VERY early in the history of the Christian church, those who were converts from among the Gentiles, sought to put down all Jewish rites and customs, including the Sabbath. A letter, written A. D. 325, by Constantine, Emperor of Rome, to the bishops and churches of the world, speaking of the celebration of the Passover, or Easter festival, says:— "It seemed very unsuitable in the celebration of this sacred feast that we should follow the customs of the Jews. . . . Let us have nothing in common with that most hostile people, the Jews. . . . Let us, most honored brethren, withdraw ourselves from that detestable association. . . . It becomes your prudence at all times to take heed, both by diligence and prayer, that the purity of your souls should have nothing in communion, or seem to have accordance with men so utterly depraved."—Socrates, Eccl. Hist., Bohn's edition, pages 37, 38. A hundred years or so before the Christian era, many Jews went into Spain, where they found a home and became prosperous. When James, the son of Zebedee, or some other of the apostles, went there to preach, many of these Jews accepted the gospel. Two or three centuries later, when the Pope of Rome claimed authority over all the churches, and many of the pagans had been brought under her influence, these Jewish converts to Christianity were severely censured for still holding to some of the Jewish customs; and those who continued in them were pronounced heretics and excommunicated from the church. The Jews and Jewish Christians continued to increase in wealth and power till many of the Castilians deemed it a noble alliance to enter into marriage relation with them. This was distasteful to the Church of Rome. The greater the alliance between the Spaniards and Jews, the less the revenues of the Church of Rome. So great did this apostasy from Rome become, and thereby the adoption of Jewish rites and the observance of the Sabbath, that in 1481 she established that terrible organization, the "Inquisition," to compel these people, by the severity of its tortures, to give up those customs and to conform to the Church of Rome. In the "History of the Progress and Suppression of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century," by Thomas M'Crie, Edinburgh and London, 1856, page 203, may be found the following:— "The tribunal of the Inquisition was first established in the Castle of Triana, at Seville, in 1481. This was commemorated by an inscription over the principal entrance of the castle, which is to be found in Llorente. Another inscription in Spanish records the number of prosecutions which followed, stating that from their commencement against 'Judaizing heretics,' down to the year 1524, more than two thousand had abjured 'the nefarious crime of heresy,' and of the whole more than one thousand had been 'devoted to the fire and burnt.'"—Relacion Historica de Sevilla, Por. D. J. M. M. de E., p. 37. Yes, for the "heresy of Judaizing," keeping the Sabbath instead of Sunday, rejecting from the church all images, and for the simplicity of the apostolic practices; for "this nefarious crime" they were devoted to the fire and death. That we may fully understand what is meant by the term "Judaizing," as used by these inquisitors, we refer to another book, called "Dillon's Account of the Inquisition at Goa," translated from the French; Hull, England, 1812. In seeking to obtain evidence of guilt the Inquisitors by degrees began to urge the victim in this way:— "If thou hast observed the law of Moses, and assembled on the Sabbath day as thou sayest, and thine accusers have seen thee there, as appears to have been the case; to convince us of the sincerity of thy repentance, tell us who are thine accusers, and those who have been with thee at these assemblies."—Page 58. Speaking of one who is condemned to be burned at the Auto da Fe for Judaizing, it is said: . . . "The judges of the holy office might readily ascertain the truth or falsehood of the charge of Judaism, would they take the trouble to investigate the matter without prejudice, and to consider that of an hundred persons condemned to be burnt as Jews there are scarcely four who profess that faith at their death, the rest exclaiming and protesting to their last gasp that they are Christians, and have been so during their whole lives; that they worship our Saviour as their only true God, and that on his mercy and the mercy of his adorable sacrifice alone they repose their hope."—Page 64. Thus we see that the Church of Rome was as much opposed to Sabbath-keeping Christians in the fifteenth century as it was in the time of Constantine, and that it adopted all possible means, even burning at the stake, to get rid of them. No species of heresy was so odious to them as that of Sabbath-keeping.—Light of Home. Opposing Error.
By Baptist Weekly
THERE is no task less welcome to the average Christian man than warfare with error. It demands personal sacrifice. It is often wearing on the mind, and it is hard sometimes to restrain one's emotions within the bounds of a rightful indignation. To be "angry and sin not" is a precept not a few stumble against when they "contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." Nevertheless, error must be constantly and earnestly opposed. There is a relation between doctrines and doings and creed and conduct, which it is impossible to ignore. False views of truth in the mind lead to evil in the life. We see this to-day in its vulgar manifestations among Mormons and Anarchists, but we may also find it operating among people of refinement. Much of the crime of the day in defalcations and other immoralities may be ascribed to erroneous ideas of sin, both as to its guilt and penalty. We are not to act doubtfully when we encounter error. Our Lord praised the church at Ephesus, amid its faults, "This thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." And the command is laid on us to "abhor that which is evil." It is a serious question for many Christian people whether they have that deep-seated emotion of hatred for errors which dishonor God and his revelation which ought to possess them. There are those from whom an apostle tells us to "turn away." This, surely, would signify that they are to be left in no uncertainty as to our repulsion from their sentiments. But sometimes we are called to controvert error. To do this wisely and well our arguments must be founded on divine truth. "The sword of the Spirit is the word of God." The great danger is in our accepting teachings which are not really tenable, and which an enlightened interpretation would lead us to reject. To meet error in this day the Bible is still as efficient as ever, but never was it so important that it should not be handled "deceitfully" nor blunderingly.—Baptist Weekly. "I HAVE FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT."
By W. A. Blakely
"I have fought a good fight," a brave warrior once said,
When his armor he came to lay down,
I have kept the true faith and henceforth there is laid
Up above, and for me, a bright crown. In that glorious day when our Lord shall appear
In the clouds, from the Heaven above,
I may then be at rest; but his voice I shall hear,
For his coming and kingdom I love. And then not to me only a crown will he give,
But to all who will watch for their Lord;
a rich crown of rejoicing each one shall receive
For believing and trusting his word. O, most glorious hope! that the Lord will soon come
For the saints that his coming do love;
That our Lord will then crown us and take us all home
To bright mansions in Heaven above. The Minimum Christian.
By John W. Dulles
THE minimum Christian! And who is he? The Christian who is going to Heaven at the cheapest and easiest rate possible. The Christian who purposes to get all out of the world that he can and not meet the worldling's doom. The Christian who aims to have as little religion as he can without being destitute of it altogether. The minimum Christian generally goes to church in the morning, unless he is too tired with his week-day labors and has lain in bed too late Sabbath morning to get ready for the morning service; in that case he will attend in the afternoon or evening, unless it is likely to rain, or is too warm or too cold, he feels too sleepy or has the headache. He listens respectfully to the minister, and joins in prayer and praise. He applies the truth often to his neighbor, rarely to himself. If there is a lecture in the week he goes if quite convenient, but rarely attends the prayer-meeting, as the latter is apt to be uninteresting. He feels it his duty to be present on communion Sabbath, and has family prayer at least once a day, unless business presses him too urgently. The minimum Christian is friendly to all good works; he wishes them well, but it is not in his power to do much for them. The Sabbath-school he looks upon as an admirable institution, especially for the young, the neglected, and the ignorant. It is not convenient, however, for him to take a class or attend very regularly. His business engagements are so pressing during the week that he needs Sabbath as a day of rest; nor does he think himself qualified to be a teacher. There are so many persons better qualified for this important duty that he must beg to be excused. He is in favor of the visitation of the poor, but he has no time to take part in these labors of love. He thinks it is a good thing for laymen to take part in the prayer-meetings of the church, but he has no gift for public prayers or for making addresses (unless the subject be business or politics), and he must leave it to others. He is friendly to home and foreign missions, and gives his "mite," but he thinks there are too many appeals; still he gives or he will lose his reputation. The minimum Christian is not clear on some points relating to Christian conduct. The circus and dancing, the theater and card-playing give him considerable trouble. He cannot see the harm in this, or that, or other popular amusements. He says there is nothing in the Bible directly against it. He does not see but that a man may be a Christian and go to the theater or to the ball-room. He knows several people who do go, and members of the church, too. Why should not he? In short, the minimum Christian knows that he cannot serve God and mammon; he would if he could, and he will come just as near to doing so as he can, for he thinks it best not to be "righteous overmuch." He will give to himself and the world all that he may, and to God and his cause as little as he can, and yet not lose his soul. He stands so close to the dividing line between the people of God and the people of the world that it is hard to say on which side of it he actually is. Ah! my brother, are you making this attempt? Beware, lest you find at last, in trying to get to Heaven with as little religion as possible, that you have missed it altogether—lest, without gaining the whole world, you have lost your own soul. Would it not be wise and better and happier to make sure of Heaven by being a maximum rather than a minimum Christian?—Rev. John W. Dulles. At the Seat of Mormondom.
By W.
HAVING time on our way East to spend two days at Salt Lake City, we improved the opportunity, and made the most of our time in viewing the city and learning the peculiarities of its peculiar people. We are not of the class who can generalize with an air of authority about a place after two days' stay in it, and shall therefore confine ourself to what we saw and heard, especially the latter, for as an old Mormon official said to us, "It isn't what ye see, but what ye hear, that's going to benefit ye." As one of the days of our stay was Sunday, we attended the general service at the tabernacle. Here we may remark that only one service a week is held in the tabernacle,—at 2 P. M. Sunday afternoons. The city is divided into twenty-one wards, each presided over by a bishop, and in each of which there is a meeting-house. On Sunday mornings there is a Sunday-school and perhaps a short service in each of these ward meeting-houses, and another short service at 6 o'clock each Sunday evening. Once a week, as before stated, there is a general meeting in the tabernacle. Of this tabernacle, as well as of the other noted places in the city, but little need be said, simply because they are noted. The structure is exceedingly plain both within and without. It is oval in shape, being 250 feet long, 150 feet wide, and 70 feet high. The dome rests on low but massive brick columns, which, with the intervening windows, form the wall of the building. Besides these outer columns, the roof has no support. The building has the appearance of a huge dish-cover resting upon blocks. But although it is ungainly, its acoustic properties are wonderful. The dropping of a pin at one extremity can be heard at the other extremity as distinctly as though it were a nail dropped close by. And there is no echo. When the building is filled to its utmost capacity,—13,000,—a person in any part of it can hear the speaker without difficulty, provided the remainder of the people keep still; we doubt if they ever do. The organ in the tabernacle is said to be the second largest in the world, and the music and singing were really fine. The singing was done by a large choir of trained singers, and the congregation did not join. The services themselves struck us as being exceedingly formal. Everything was done in a sort of matter-of-course way, much as a railroad employe performs his routine labor. There was nothing in any of the services that would tend to impress one with a sense of sacredness,—at least so it seemed to us; and we noticed that but few of the congregation acted as though they had come there to worship. There was a great lack of interest on the part of the people. Women and girls played with the babies, of which there were more present than we ever before saw in any assembly, and there was constant moving about. We are sorry to be obliged to say that this spirit of inattention is not confined to the Mormons; but we never before saw a congregation that was not quiet a part of the time. For this lack of interest on the part of the people, we think we can see ample reason. Mormonism is, on a small scale, a State religion. Church membership is a necessary qualification for public office. Church officers are ex officio government officers, because the church is the government. Under such circumstances, church services must soon become a mere matter of form, just as the routine duties of a State official are performed mechanically. And when the services are performed mechanically the people will listen mechanically, when they listen at all. Mormonism is a perfect model (except, of course, as to belief) of what the whole country will be when the National Reformers shall have accomplished their design. In time past, when the fear of the United States Government did not stand before the eyes of the Mormons, and the guns of a United States fort did not command the town, a non-Mormon did not have any rights in Salt Lake City, and it was at the risk of his life that one ventured there, especially if he dropped a word against Mormonism; and when the proposed religious amendment to the Constitution is adopted, no one who does not profess the State religion will have any rights in the United States, and one who ventures to talk, and especially to act, contrary to the established religion, will do so at his own peril. Church officers will then be Government officers as well, and the gospel will, so far as "the church" is concerned, be dead. Then Rev. 18:2 will meet its complete fulfillment: "Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." No National Reformer has any right to cast a stone at the Mormons. On the day that we were at the tabernacle, there was a short address by a "converted" Jew, and a sermon by Bishop Whitney. The Jew applied all the prophecies to literal Israel, predicting the return of all the Jews to Jerusalem, there to rule over their enemies, with Christ as their king. One peculiar thing in the services was that the sacrament was administered while the other services were going on. After the Jew's address, one of the elders asked a blessing on the bread, which was then carried around through the congregation by several men, while the bishop began his discourse. After the bishop had spoken about twenty minutes, he stopped very abruptly, and sat down. Then the same elder as before asked a blessing on the water, that being used instead of the fruit of the vine. The men then began to pass the water, and the bishop resumed his discourse. The sermon was a history of the rise of Mormonism, and a representation of its doctrines. Probably this subject was taken because there were many strangers present. It interested us only because it was a summary of Mormonism, by the best authority, and because it contained some egregious errors of which we had never before heard. Otherwise it was somewhat tedious; if we had been as familiar with the subject as the greater part of his auditors doubtless were, we should probably have been about as much bored as they seemed to be. Following are some of the points of the discourse: Referring to the Jew's address, he said that as the Jews were building up Jerusalem, so the Mormons were building up Zion. Isa. 2:2-5 was applied to the Mormons. "Because we believe in the literal fulfillment of this prophecy, and look for the literal return of Christ to reign over us," said the speaker, "we are stigmatized as traitors." He did not deny that they are in opposition to the Government; the only ground on which they could deny that they are essentially traitors to this Government, is that they do not acknowledge its authority in any particular. Joseph Smith was declared to be the "stick of Ephraim" (Eze. 37:16), and later the Book of Mormon was declared to be the "stick of Ephraim," and the Bible the "stick of Judah." He said that the Mormons do not deny the divinity of the Bible; they hold it as equal to the Book of Mormon. But as the Mormons are all Ephraimites, and the Book of Mormon is the "stick of Ephraim," while the Bible is the "stick of Judah," the inference seemed to be that even though they joined the two sticks together, the Ephraimites would regard their own stick with the greater favor. The speaker said that when the plates of the Book of Mormon were given to Smith by the angel he (Smith) was able to interpret and translate them because he had the Urim and the Thummim. Then followed a long account of the Nephites (the aborigines of this country) and their wars with the Lamanites. This country is considered to be the land promised to Joseph, and the Rocky Mountains are "the everlasting hills." Gen. 49:26. Jacob's blessing was not fulfilled to Joseph in Palestine, since that tribe was not very powerful in that land; hence it must be fulfilled here. The Nephites came to this country ages ago. When Christ ascended from the disciples upon the Mount of Olives he was wafted across the ocean to this country, where he chose twelve apostles. These were the "other sheep not of this fold" (John 10:16), and to them he spoke the many things which the disciples could not bear. John 16:12. The "lost tribes" of Israel are now somewhere in the frozen North, whence they will some day be led to "Zion" (Salt Lake City) by a prophet who will smite the icebergs so that they will melt before them. In bringing those lost tribes to "Zion," a miracle will be wrought, "beside which the passage of the Red Sea will pale into insignificance." The prophet who is to conduct these tribes is John, who remains "superior to death" until the Lord shall come to reign over "Zion." In the meantime he is probably up North among the "lost tribes." Their claim is that John the Baptist came to anoint Joe Smith to the Aaronic priesthood, and that Peter, James, and John came to bestow upon him the apostleship, and to anoint him to the Melchizedek priesthood. Thus it will be seen that they have every office that the Jews ever had, and many that they never had, and all in greater abundance; for they have many "high priests." But time would fail us to recount all the absurdities that were dealt out with all seriousness. The next morning, while viewing the tabernacle, and the Assembly Hall, the old Mormon who thought we could be benefited only by what we might hear, gave us many additional ideas. In obedience, no doubt, to the command to "be instant in season, out of season," he preached us a sermon nearly an hour in length, interrupted only by an occasional question from us. The main thing of interest to us in this discourse was that part which related to polygamy. Many very specious arguments were adduced in its favor, but they all seemed to be summed up in the one statement that it is "according to nature." We mentally agreed that it might be compatible with a depraved human nature, but utterly inconsistent with the divine nature of which true saints must be partakers. But the most fanatical Mormon will hardly assert that polygamy is in accordance with the nature of woman. To be sure the women talk in favor of it, and many no doubt think that it is of divine appointment; but we are inclined to think that most of them are at heart like the one whom we met, who thought it all right for a man to have more than one wife, but upon being pressed, admitted that she wouldn't like to have her husband do so. Before we heard the particulars of Mormonism from the mouths of its advocates, we thought that Spiritualism was the only form of religion which has not some truth in it, but we shall have to make another exception for Mormonism. It is true that they professedly accept the Bible, as do the Spiritualists, and they have "baptism for the remission of sins," and profess to believe some other Bible doctrines; but everything is so distorted as to bear scarcely any semblance to Bible truth. Like Spiritualism, it is a gigantic695 delusion, wholly of the devil. It is admirably calculated to catch those who are ignorant of the Bible, and are in a condition to be imposed upon by the hierarchy, and also those who are sensually inclined. It will eventually culminate in Spiritualism pure and simple. Those with whom we talked seemed to be really sincere and we believe they were. The one who discoursed for our benefit had been a Mormon for over thirty years, is a 'high priest,' and has shown his faith in polygamy by taking four wives. He is doubtless as sincere in his belief as the Hindoo is in his. The originators of Mormonism were beyond question intentional deceivers, but in process of time no doubt came to believe their own lies. The Mormons exhibit every evidence of temporal prosperity, and, like the ancient Pharisees, they accept this as evidence of the favor of God. If numbers or temporal prosperity, however, are evidence of the favor of God, the Catholic Church would have to be accepted as the true church. But there is just one standard of truth, and that is the Bible, and the Bible alone. Tried by this standard, Mormonism is seen to be a fatal delusion. Yet we doubt not but that there are many deceived ones even among the Mormons, to whom God will yet grant repentance, 'to the acknowledging of the truth.' As we passed by the magnificent structures built for 'worship,' for business, or as residences for members of the hierarchy, and saw the evidences of the sagacity of the founders of that city, and then thought of the murderous 'Danites,' the Mountain Meadow massacre, and the 'blood atonement' which is a thing of the past only because of the fear of the hated United States laws, one text continually forced itself upon our mind. It was this:— 'Woe to him that coveteth an evil covetousness to his house, that he may set his nest on high, that he may be delivered from the power of evil! Thou hast consulted shame to thy house by cutting off many people, and hast sinned against thy soul. For the stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it. Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and establisheth a city by iniquity.' Hab. 2:9-12. W. Why Should Sunday Be Kept?
WHAT reason does the Scripture present for the keeping of the first day of the week? Does the word of God present any reason at all for so doing? Does the Scripture say that anybody should keep it holy? Does the Scripture say that it ought to be so kept? Does the word of the Lord say of this thing, "Happy are ye if ye do it"? Does the Bible say any one of these things in regard to the first day of the week? Is there in the word of God a command or any direction that anybody should keep the first day of the week for any cause whatever? If there is any such command, it ought to be easy enough to point it out. If there be any reason given, it ought to be readily referred to. For keeping the seventh day, there is a plain, direct commandment from the Creator of all,—a commandment spoken with his own voice and written with his own finger. To that commandment the Lord attached a reason why the seventh day should be kept,—a reason that sanctions the obligation to keep the seventh day, and cannot be made to sanction the observance of any other day. The fourth commandment says, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy." If any one should ask which day is the Sabbath, the commandment plainly answers the question: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The commandment also says, "In it [the seventh day] thou shalt not do any work." If any one should ask why, the commandment again gives a complete answer: "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore [for this reason] the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." For the keeping of the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord, therefore, the Lord has not only given a plain, direct commandment, but he has also given a reason why the seventh day is the Sabbath, how it became the Sabbath, and why it should be kept so. That is, the Lord has not only given a reason for keeping the commandment, but he has given a reason for the existence of the commandment. Now can the first day of the week show any one of these things in behalf of the claim that it should be kept holy? Is there a commandment to keep it holy? Is it holy at all? If it is where is the record that God hallowed it? what reason has he given for hallowing it? Most assuredly, if the first day of the week lacks these things it lacks every element essential to its obligation, and there rests upon men no moral nor religious duty whatever to keep it. A proper question therefore is, What saith the Scripture about the first day of the week? 1. "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." Matt. 28:1. Here all that is said is, that two women went to the sepulchre, on the first day of the week. Well, what reason for keeping the first day of the week lies in that fact? None at all. 2. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning, the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. Can anybody tell what there is about this text that shows that the first day of the week is the Sabbath? How can the first day of the week be the Sabbath, and yet the Sabbath be past before the first day of the week begins? For it matters not how early the first day of the week may begin, even "very early," yet the Sabbath is past. 3. "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they [the women who came from Galilee] came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 24:1. 4. "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre." John 20:1. Notice that these four statements—one by each of the Gospel writers—are not four records of four distinct things, but four distinct records of the same thing, and of the same time, even the same hour. Each one tells what occurred in the morning of a certain first day of the week, and the only fact stated in all four of the records, about the first day of the week, is that certain women came to the sepulchre very early in the morning. Then what is there in all this upon which to base any reason for keeping the first day of the week? Just nothing at all. In the Gospels there is mention made of the first day of the week, only twice more. These are in Mark and John. And the record in John and the close of the record in Mark again speak of the same time precisely, only it is in the evening, whereas the other was in the morning of that same first day of the week. 5. Here is Mark's record: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. After that he appeared in another form unto two of them [Luke 24:13-48], as they walked, and went into the country. And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen." Mark 16:9-14. 6. Of this same time John says: "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. And when he had so said, he showed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord." John 20:19, 20. Here, then, are all the instances in which the term "first day of the week" is used in the Gospels, and the manifest story is simply this: When the Sabbath was past, the women came to the sepulchre very early in the morning on the first day of the week, and found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre, and Jesus risen. Then Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, and she went and told the disciples that Jesus was risen, and they "believed not." Then Jesus appeared to two of the disciples themselves as they went into the country, and they went and told it to the others, who yet believed not. Then Jesus appeared to all the company together and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed them which had seen him after he was risen, then showed them his hands and his side, and said, "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me, and see. . . . Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:39-43. Now take this whole narrative from beginning to end and where is there a word in it that conveys any idea that anybody ever kept the first day of the week, or that it ever should be kept as the Sabbath or for any other sacred or religious purpose whatever? Just nowhere at all. The Scriptures throughout show that the purpose of the repeated appearances of Jesus was not to institute a new Sabbath, for there is nothing at all said about it, but to convince his disciples that he really was risen, and was alive again, that they might be witnesses to the fact. The words above quoted show this, but Thomas was not there with the others, and he still did not believe, and so at another time, "after eight days," Thomas was with them, and Jesus came again for the express purpose of convincing him, for he simply said to the company, "Peace unto you," and then spoke directly to Thomas, saying: "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing." John 20:24-27. This is made positive by the words of Peter: "Him God raised up the third day, and showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead." Acts 10:40, 41. "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses." Acts 2:32. And that evening of the day of his resurrection, when he said to the eleven to handle him and see that it was he, and when he ate the piece of broiled fish and of an honeycomb, he said to them, "Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: . . . and ye are witnesses of these things." Luke 24:46-48. Once more, Peter said, Ye "killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses." Acts 3:15. They were witnesses that Christ was risen from the dead because a living Saviour, and faith in a living Saviour alone, could be preached. How did they become such witnesses? Christ showed himself to them, and "did eat and drink with them after he696 rose from the dead." Then what was the purpose of his appearances on this first day of the week mentioned in the four Gospels, and his appearance to Thomas afterward? To give them "infallible proofs" that he was "alive after his passion." Acts 1:3. Then where does the first-day-of-the-week Sabbath come in? Nowhere. In these texts, in the four Gospels, which speak of the first day of the week, where is there conveyed any idea that that day shall be kept as the Sabbath? Nowhere. The other two places where the first day of the week is mentioned, will be noticed next week. J.