Earlier text: Temporal MillenniumAddress to the Republican State Convention.
By Editor
LAST week we briefly noticed that we went to the Convention at Sacramento. Fully assured that the Republicans would indorse the Sunday Law, a consultation of our brethren was held, and it was decided to make an effort to induce them to recommend in their platform such exemption from the penalties of the law as is granted in most other States to those who keep the seventh day. As this is now the most exciting issue of the present political campaign, the only real issue between the two parties, and as the Sunday question is coming up in other States, and will soon become the question of the nation, we publish in full an address which we had prepared, and which was presented to the Committee on Resolutions, that our readers everywhere may understand our positions in regard to this religio-political crisis:— To the Republican State Convention of California, Sacramento, 1882: In addressing this Convention, the representatives of a great political party, I feel that my position is somewhat anomalous, in that I do not come as a politician, but to speak in behalf of a body of Christians, your fellow-citizens of this Commonwealth. It is something new in American politics that the subject of religion, or a question purely religious, has become the most exciting issue of a political campaign. It is not a new idea to any of you that there are honest differences of opinion upon every point of religious faith and practice. I represent a body of Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists. The distinctive feature of our faith to which I respectfully ask your attention, is our observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and not the first day. We freely admit that we are not numerous as some other religious bodies. But we need not say to you, Republicans, that questions of either civil or religious rights do not rest on the numbers of those whose rights may be infringed. Right is right, even with the few; and wrong is wrong, though multitudes may favor it. We do not make this our appeal to you because we think you have any intention to infringe on our rights. We have too much respect for the history of the great Republican party to harbor the suspicion that you would intentionally injure any in his rights, either civil or religious. But we do think that many who have entered into this Sunday-Law discussion are laboring under some misapprehensions concerning some phases of the issue. We do not wonder at this, seeing that hitherto questions of the policy of the State have been kept separate from those of the church. It is altogether a new thing for politicians, as such, to engage in the discussion of questions entirely religious. We believe that our position, when fully understood, will commend itself to your candid consideration, and we hope it will receive your entire approval. And, 1. We do not ask the destruction of Sunday as a legal holiday. We concede that it is well to have a weekly rest secured by law to the workingman. And we have no objections to having Sunday adopted as that day. But we hold, 2. That the present Sunday Law, so-called, is not at all necessary to secure a weekly rest to the laboring men of this State. The Civil Code of California makes every Sunday a legal holiday, and expressly declares that any labor or business appointed by law or contract to be done, if the obligation falls upon a holiday—upon any Sunday—such labor or business may be done upon the next succeeding business day. Thus the Civil Code furnishes ample protection against the exactions of employers, to all who will avail themselves of its provisions. 3. That, while we are constantly informed by advocates of the present Sunday Law, in the arena of both politics and religion, that if this law be not sustained, the workingmen will have no weekly rest guaranteed to them by law, we think they entirely misapprehend the facts in the case; that the Law of the Penal Code, known as the Sunday Law, is partial and inefficient, referring to certain kinds of labor which it prohibits, and not referring at all to other kinds of labor embraced in vast industries of our great State. In contrast with it, the Civil Code embraces labor of all kinds, and every industry, affording a day of rest to all classes. If any take issue on this statement, we invite them to point out to you some privilege which is secured to the laborer, in regard to a day of rest, by the Penal Code, or Sunday Law, which is not guaranteed by the Civil Code. We can point you to guarantees in the Civil Code, which are not furnished in the Penal Code. 4. This being so, beyond all dispute, we ask: What is the necessity for this great effort to maintain the Sunday Law? What does it grant which is not granted in the Civil Code, and which would not be guaranteed by the Civil Code if the Sunday Law were abolished? We firmly believe that any one who carefully examines this point, will admit our claim, that the Sunday Law is not only inefficient, but entirely unnecessary, to secure to all the laborers of our State their legal right to a day of weekly rest. For the laborers on the farms, and in the mines, and in other industries, have no right whatever to a day of rest secured to them by the Sunday Law. For this they are dependent on the Civil Code, where the guarantees are ample.415 5. Our conclusion from these undeniable premises is the only conclusion left to any, namely: that the present Sunday agitation is not to secure a rest day to the workingman, as has been so often affirmed; it is not to support a mere "police regulation," or "sanitary measure." But the true reason is found in the fact that, in the Penal Code, laboring on Sunday is declared to be an "offense against religion." The present agitation is in behalf of the Sunday, not as a civil, but as a religious institution. It is in regard to its religious aspect, solely, that it is now thrown into the field of politics. For the question of Sunday as a legal day of rest for all, according to the Civil Code, is not in dispute. 6. Now, I wish briefly to call your attention to what we consider our rights as Christians, and as citizens of the Commonwealth. We do not believe that the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, is taught in the Bible. Webster's Dictionary expresses the recognized conviction of Christendom when it says the ten commandments are a summary of moral law. And we read in express terms in that only instrument which was ever spoken and written by the Creator himself to and for man—the Decalogue—"The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Having never found in the Scriptures any repeal or amendment of this law, we feel bound by our respect for the authority of God, and as our fear of the consequences of the coming Judgment day, to keep this law exactly as Jehovah delivered it. This is our most solemn and conscientious convictions of duty. 7. In thus avowing our position, we feel that it is our right to protest against the injustice which is done to us by those who have classed us with those who deny the authority of the Scriptures, and with those who, think, are perverting the Scriptures to uphold that which is offensive to morality. We rest upon the plain reading of God's commandment, the authority of which is undisputed. And we further object to the injustice done to us by those who say we are joining hands with the whisky interest. It is true that we would separate the questions of Sunday and of temperance, and let each stand upon its own merits. But we are known to be radical temperance reformers; most of our people would vote without any hesitation for a law prohibiting the sale of liquor seven days in the week. 8. We declare that the present Sunday Law, as a religious law, is unjust, inasmuch as its intent is to compel us to observe the practices of somebody else's religion which are inconsistent with our religion. If we can prove that our religious practice is based upon the plainly-expressed commandment of God, and that we are conscientious in its observance, we deny the right of any man, or of all men, of the church or the State, or of the church and State united, to compel us to act contrary thereto; to yield our conscientious convictions to please other whose convictions cannot be more sacred than ours, and whose claim for Sunday as a "Christian Sabbath" is not beyond reasonable dispute. If we are wrong in this position, then Luther and his associates were wrong, and the martyrs were no better than fanatics. 9. We claim that it is only an evasion on the part of any to say that this law is not unjust—that it will not interfere with our religion, because it leaves us free to abstain from labor on the seventh day. Which is to say that it will permit us to act out our own religion provided that we will conform to theirs also! But that is impossible, for the commandment gives us six days for labor, as plainly as it prohibits labor on the seventh day. 10. It is unjust, because, in compelling us to observe a day which our consciences cannot accept, it denies us the right to observe the God-given seventh day, or, otherwise, it deprives us of one-sixth of our right of subsistence, by declaring that we shall not keep the seventh day and labor six days. 11. We do not hesitate to say—can any deny?—that the law discriminates against our religion, which we think is in strict conformity to the Bible, and in favor of the religion of some other religious bodies. For they are left free to carry out their religion and labor six days, a privilege which it denies to us. But such discrimination is exactly what our Constitution expressly says shall not be made in this State. It is, therefore—it must be—unconstitutional. We do not deny that it is the law of the land, because a majority of the Court has so decided. Still, I do not consider that there is any presumption in my statement. For very able jurists, both in and out of the Court, entirely disagree with that decision. And it appears evident to me, and to many others, that that decision, though no doubt arrived at from data which appeared sufficient to justify it, is nevertheless inconsistent with the known difference between a mere "police regulation" and a law which plainly discriminates in matters of religion; and inconsistent with the sacred principles of human rights as I have endeavored to present to you. 12. But we institute no warfare against the law. We are liberal in our views and in our feelings. While the Constitution guarantees to us equal rights with others, we ask for something at least looking toward equality in religious rights and privileges. In behalf of our churches I have expressed our full consent to Sunday as a legal day of rest. I believe that that is as far as the State should go; that it should leave all questions of religion to each individual's conscience. But if you, as a political party, shall consider it wise to indorse the religious aspect of the question, then we ask you to give your influence in favor of having bestowed upon us the same privilege which is bestowed upon those of our faith and practice by most other States, namely, that we be exempted from the penalties of the law which may be meted to those who labor on Sunday, and who do not religiously observe any other day. We highly commend the spirit of a resolution lately passed by a Republican Convention in this city, which declared in favor of "such amendment as will more fully equalize the rights and privileges of our citizens thereunder." I am happy to appeal to you, because this question has already become prominent in the Conventions of this party. And the Republican party is at present the dominant party of the State. Although your action can represent no finality, as it has yet to go before the whole people for consideration and review, your action here may go far toward shaping the election, and perhaps giving character to the Legislature, which will, no doubt, be called upon to act further in reference to this matter. It has largely in your power to secure to us the rights which constitutionally belongs to us. I am making no plea in behalf of our religion as such, further than is necessary to present the justice of our claim. I ask your favorable consideration of our request, because it is based on principles of right; it is in perfect accordance with the spirit of equality, which is the spirit of all our republican institutions. Thanking you for your kindness in hearing this plea, I will express my sincere desire that the God of all nations will grant to you harmony in your counsels, and will guide you to right conclusions in all your deliberations. The Memorial of the Resurrection of Christ.
By John Nevins Andrews
MANY persons think that they honor God by uniting together to change the memorial of the creation of the heavens and of the earth into a memorial of the resurrection of Christ. So they remove the sanctification from the seventh day and place it upon the first day. Thus the first day becomes a sacred day, and the seventh day is devoted to ordinary business. Then the fourth commandment is taken away from the seventh day and given to the first day, and all men are required to observe this day on the authority of this commandment. Those who do this justify themselves by saying that the resurrection of Christ ought to be commemorated, and that it is pleasing to God that we should change the memorial of the creation of the heavens and of the earth into a memorial of Christ's resurrection. Thus they dare to sanctify a day which God has not sanctified, and to profane the day which he has sanctified, and to change the commandment from the day which God has chosen to one which he has not mentioned in the commandment. God requires obedience, and will not tolerate rebellion. He has never authorized us to create religious institutions, and he will not permit us to destroy those which he has created. If we observe a day in obedience to the fourth commandment, we must observe the rest-day of the Creator and not the day on which he commenced his work. The fourth commandment makes no reference to the resurrection of Christ. Those who use this commandment to enforce the observance of the day of the resurrection of Christ, might with equal propriety use it to enforce the observance of the day of his crucifixion. But ought not the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ to be commemorated? The New Testament must answer that question. No one will say that the fourth commandment requires us to celebrate the day of the crucifixion of Christ. But why should we not use this commandment to make the day of the crucifixion a memorial of the death of Christ? There are four excellent reasons for not doing this: 1. The commandment was given nearly 1500 years before the crucifixion of Christ. 2. The commandment makes no reference to the crucifixion. 3. The commandment has direct reference to the rest-day of the Creator, and to no other day. 4. The New Testament teaches us to commemorate the crucifixion by an ordinance which was instituted for that very purpose. These are conclusive reasons as all will admit for denying that the fourth commandment can be honestly and truthfully used to enforce the celebration of the day of the crucifixion of Christ. But it is no more absurd to enforce the celebration of the day of the crucifixion by the fourth commandment, than it is to enforce the celebration of the day of the resurrection by that commandment. The commandment has no reference to either of those days, but does refer directly and definitely to the rest-day of the Creator. The crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ are events in the history of the New Testament. It is the New Testament, therefore, which must teach us our duty with respect to the commemoration of these two events. If we study this book we shall find our duty in this respect made very clear. The Saviour did not command us to celebrate the day of his crucifixion in memory of his death. He commanded us to celebrate the event and not the day. Thus it is written; "The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said: Take, eat; this is my body, which is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. 11 : 23-26. According to St. Paul the holy supper is the true memorial of the crucifixion of Christ. The breaking of the bread represents the fact that the body of Christ was broken for us, and the wine poured out in the cup represents the shedding of his blood. Now hear what the same apostle has said concerning the memorial of the burial and resurrection of Christ: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." Rom. 6 : 3-5. "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Col. 2 : 12. "If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God." Col. 3 : 1. Here we have the divine memorial of the resurrection of Christ, for when ever any person is baptized in the likeness of the burial and resurrection of the Saviour, it is a most impressive commemoration of that resurrection, not by that person only, but by the pastor and the entire church who co-operate in the act. We need not therefore destroy the Sabbath of the fourth commandment in order to commemorate the crucifixion or the resurrection of Christ. The crucifixion is commemorated by the Lord's supper, and the burial and resurrection of Christ by the institution of baptism. But some will say, "We have witnessed the celebration of baptism many times, and were never once reminded of the burial and resurrection of Christ. We saw no one buried, and we saw no one raised again, and nothing was said concerning the burial and resurrection of Christ. We saw only a little water sprinkled on the faces of babes or of young persons. How could this commemorate the burial and resurrection of the Saviour?" We answer frankly to these friends: What you have witnessed is not the ordinance of baptism which St. Paul describes in Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12, and which was practiced in the case of the Saviour by John (Matt. 3:13-16; Mark 1:9, 10) and in the case of the eunuch by Philip. Acts 8:38, 39. The ordinance of baptism has been changed by the same authority that has changed the fourth commandment. The true memorial of the resurrection of Christ has been destroyed, and the memorial of the creation of the heavens and of the earth has been changed into a memorial of the resurrection of Christ. It gives us pain to speak of these things, but we do it in behalf of the truth. God invites us to return to the old paths. Jer. 6:16. What response shall we make?
J. N. A. The Coming of Christ.
By Uriah Smith
"Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation." Such are the words of Paul to the Hebrews; and he assures Timothy that for all such as "love his appearing" there are crowns of righteousness laid up, which will be given to them in that day. There is importance therefore attached to an understanding of this matter. He will appear to all; for every eye shall see him; but only to those who are looking for him will he bring salvation. He will appear to all; but only upon those who have loved his appearing, will he bestow the crown.416 That Christ, having once come to this earth to perform the humble and suffering part connected with the plan of redemption, should come again in high honor and ineffable glory as the climax and completion of his glorious work, is so necessary and consistent an idea as to be almost sufficient to establish itself independently of the express declarations of the Scriptures on this point. But with these declarations in addition, how faith glows afresh in the heart, and expectation plumes itself to joyful flights in view of the coming of that day. That Christ is not only to come the second time, but that his coming is now at the doors, is a truth which should thrill every heart as nothing else can do. And the nearer all signs and indications and fulfillments of prophecy show it to be, the more should our minds and affections become absorbed therein. For many years, or what has seemed so to the waiting ones, though but comparatively few after all, we have been looking for the coming of the Lord. As time has continued, opportunity has been given for a re-examination, many times repeated, of the evidences of our faith and expectations. With every examination the proof has seemed more clear and conclusive. We have seen many new fields opening, and much new and unexpected work to be done. But agencies and means have providentially appeared to occupy largely the new openings, and the work has moved forward. Meanwhile prophecies have been fulfilling before our eyes. The condition of the world, the condition of the church, the movements of the nations, disturbances in the physical world, the progress of our own work, have all conspired to weave a network of evidence with meshes too fine for unbelief to get through, and of too strong a fiber for the sophistries of men to break. We have reached a time when to faith the outlook is clear and assuring. Where do we stand relatively to the mass of evidence—the fulfillments of prophecy, the signs of the times, the condition and movements of men—which was to appear to indicate the approach and usher in the coming of the day of the Lord, and be to the saints so many messengers of glad tidings, saying to them, Thy Redeemer cometh? How much has already been fulfilled, and how much remains yet to be accomplished, before all will be done that we are warranted to look for before the parting heavens shall reveal the mighty procession of Christ and his holy angels, on his second personal advent to this earth? In the prophecy of Daniel 2, all that remains is for the God of Heaven to set up his kingdom. In Dan. 7, all that remains is that the beast and little horn should be destroyed and given to the burning flame, which will be at the second coming of Christ. 2 Thess. 2:8. In Dan. 8, the symbols have all been completed (the little horn simply waits to be broken without hand); the days have been ended long in the past; and the cleansing of the sanctuary—the investigative Judgment, the finishing of the mystery of God—has been for years going forward, and so far as we have any data by which to judge, may be finished immediately. In the prophecy of Matt. 24, we have reached the generation which is not to pass till all is fulfilled; and the fulfillment may therefore come at any moment, so far as this prophecy is concerned. In the line of prophecy presented in Rev. 12 and 13, the symbols are all developed; two of them have fulfilled all the part assigned them; and only a little work remains to be done by the last one, the two-horned beast. In Rev. 14, two of the three closing messages of that chapter have already been given as leading messages. The third has been already for many years before the world. So far as its matter is concerned, that also is fully developed; and so far as the extent of its proclamation is concerned, we know not how soon it may be fulfilled. In the line of the seven churches, we have reached the last one, the Laodicean, which bring us to the Judgment. Rev. 2 and 3. In the line of the seven seals, we are in the time of the sixth, which reaches to the end of probation; and we are past all the specifications of that seal except the last, the departing of the heavens as a scroll when it is rolled together, which is therefore the next event before us in this series. In the line of the seven trumpets, we are already under the sounding of the seventh, the early days of which are to witness the finishing of the mystery of God, and the transference of all earthly kingdoms to the direct sovereignty of our Lord Jesus Christ. Nothing in this line of prophecy intervenes between us and that event. In the prophecy of Dan. 11, everything is fulfilled down to the last verse of that chapter. And this brings to view only two more events in the history of the "king of the north," the Turkish power—moving the seat of government, and coming to his end—before the standing of Michael, who is Christ, the prince of glory. Now, looking the ground all over, what is the answer to the question asked above, How much remains to be done before the Lord can come? The answer is startling in its brevity: 1. Only a little more history to be made by Turkey, which statesmen and political observers everywhere are expecting will be developed almost any month, history which may be made in the immediate future, but which is inevitable at no distant day. 2. A new attitude to be assumed by our own government, as symbolized by the two-horned beast of Rev. 13, in reference to religion, the initial movements of which we already see. A few months, comparatively, may, and a few years at most, inevitably must witness the accomplishment of all. There is nothing, nothing, here which should lead us to say, "My Lord delayeth his coming." But has not our message a work to do in bringing out the 144,000, which it will take many years to accomplish? Answer: Elijah was a prophet in Israel. He walked and talked with God. A miraculous providence was ever over him. And so perfect was he that a chariot of fire at last bore him, unscathed of death, into the heavenly world. We would suppose that such a man would have known every saint in Israel. Yet he thought he was the one solitary servant of God in all Israel; and they were after him to kill him. Thus he told the Lord. But scattered among the hills and valleys of Israel, in hidden places, there were seven thousand jewels upon whom the Lord had his eye, but of whom Elijah knew nothing. How many thousands, then, may there be in the land, of true servants of God, preparing for translation, of whom we as yet have no knowledge. May not the number be much more nearly made up than we have been wont to suppose? No food for the evil servant here. All things testify with one voice that the great day of the Lord is at the door. Put it not off, but prepare for its coming. "Occupy Till I Come."
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IT is the especial work of scoffers to point out the inconsistencies of professors of religion. Although this custom is by no means a benefit to the fault-finder, it is not on the whole a very bad thing for the church, as it operates to some extent as a check. And it is well for the professed Christians to heed criticisms of non-professors, for the latter are usually very good judges of what constitutes Christianity, thus standing self-condemned. There is perhaps no body of Christians that is the target for more criticism, both just and unjust, than the Seventh-day Adventists. The reason for this is plain. They lay more stress on the commandments of God than almost any other people, and teach as a fundamental doctrine of their faith that the coming of the Lord is very near. The world recognizes the truth of John's statement that, "Every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself even as He is pure." 1 John 3:3. Inconsistencies in a people holding such a high profession cannot fail to be noted. But there is one charge brought against Seventh-day Adventists that is not well founded. It is something like this: "You profess to believe that the Lord will come very soon—in a few years; that men now living will see him. And yet you show the greatest activity in erecting publishing houses, and in building and equipping colleges for the thorough education of children. If what you profess to believe is really true, then the Lord will come before many of these children are old enough to use their education. Where, then, is the consistency?" It is not scoffers alone who talk thus, but honest, worthy brethren are sometimes troubled over the matter. Such persons do not fully understand the spirit of the work. We think it can be easily shown that the more zeal we exhibit in every laudable undertaking, the more nearly do we fulfill the commands of our Saviour. The two parables of our Lord, one in the 25th of Matthew and the other in the 19th of Luke, fully set forth the duty of the Christian while waiting for the return of Christ. Christ is represented as a nobleman going into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return. He called his servants and delivered unto them his goods. We are not to suppose that this refers to any one particular thing, but that it embraces everything with which we are endowed. There are various kinds of talents. They comprise the intellect, health, strength, influence, ability to gain property, etc.; everything the possession of which is counted as a benefit to mankind. Some have more than others. To every one is given "according to his several ability." The parable in Luke represents each one as receiving the same amount. This may represent the truth of God, which is given to all. There are some who have not health and strength; some have not the faculty that others have to acquire property; and there are varying degrees of intellectual strength; but to all the word of God is given, and his Spirit is free to the poorest and weakest who will ask in faith. All the temporal and spiritual blessings which we receive are the talents which God has bestowed upon us. Now to the servants it is said, "Occupy till I come." The word "occupy" does not mean possession merely. It does not mean that each individual should simply hold that which is committed to him. It means this and more. It has the sense of trading, negotiating, of doing business, of increasing by use. We may learn this from the sequel. Those whose talents had increased on their hands, who had added to that which they had received, were praised and rewarded by their lord when he returned. But there was one who had simply that which had been given him. None of it was missing; it had been carefully preserved, but it had been allowed to lie idle. To this one it was said, "Thou wicked and slothful servant;" and he was rebuked for not putting the talent to the exchangers so that his lord could have received his own with increase. From this we learn that God expects us to constantly improve all our gifts, however small, always, of course, to his glory. If we have property, we are to remember that it is God that gives us power to get wealth. Deut. 8:18. Whatever strength we may possess, we must remember that we are to glorify God in our bodies. God has endowed us all with reasoning faculties, and he expects us to use them. If our talents do not increase, then we are of no more value than the beasts, for they answer the end of their existence. And it is not enough that we gain something, but we must gain all that is possible. And then again we have the command, "Occupy till I come." We are to be active in using the talents which God has given us, till the coming of Christ. It is he that endureth unto the end that shall be saved. But if we quit working before the end comes, how can it be said that we have endured unto the end? The idea that activity in our every-day work is incompatible with true godliness is a remnant of the popish custom of going into utter seclusion in order to serve God fully. Daniel was a most upright and godly man, and yet he was prime minister of a vast empire, and had all the affairs of State on his hands. The wise man says, "Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might." In this we glorify God. Of course it is understood that we are to consider all we gain, whatever it may be, as belonging to God. And when we are engaged directly in the work of God, or in fitting ourselves for a place in that work, we have special need of diligence. God desires all who would work for him to have the necessary preparation. And if we are diligent in this preparation, it matters not if the Master comes before it is completed. If we have been obeying orders,—doing his will—it is well. Activity in the work that is given us is not inconsistent with a belief in the near coming of our Lord, but idleness and negligence are inconsistent with such belief. Whatever our position, whether it is ours to labor with our hands, to study, to teach, to preach, or whether we are waiting further orders, let us be faithful in the discharge of our duty. "Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing." Where the Authority Comes From.
By Editor
WE have no sympathy with Catholic doctrines and traditions, or with their perversion of Scripture, but they are far more consistent in their error than the majority of Protestants. The former teach error, and boldly claim it as of their own devising; the latter take up the same errors second hand, and try to make the Bible responsible for them. The San Francisco Monitor (Catholic), in reply to an article arguing against the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because the doctrine is not to be found in Scripture, turns the tables on the Protestant writer and asks him where in the Scripture he got his doctrine of a Sunday Sabbath. "Almighty God said, 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy;' but the Catholic Church, the seat of God's wisdom on earth, defined that the first day of the week, and not the seventh, should be observed as the Lord's day, and the majority of the Protestant world meekly acquiesces in this purely popish festival." Hence it argues that "even from a Protestant standpoint, other doctrines of the church may be just as binding upon Christians, although not specifically set forth in the sacred Scriptures." Can any Sunday-keeping Protestant prove the Monitor's charge to be untrue? “REMEMBER the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the Seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in IT thou shalt not do any work.”—Exodus 20:8–10.