Earlier text: General ArticlesWorldly Wisdom on the Sabbath.
The opinions and practices of learned men are often presented as an argument in favor of anything popular, and especially Sunday-keeping. But they should certainly never be urged upon a point where the testimony of the Bible is so direct and explicit as it is upon the subject of the Sabbath; nor indeed, upon any point, as the word is directly opposed to any human dependence. God has chosen the weak to confound the mighty, and the foolish to confound the wise. That which is hidden from the wise is revealed unto babes. The Lord says, "Ye have ploughed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies; because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men." Hosea 10: 13. It is perfectly safe to follow only that which is certainly right. But the great and wise of earth are not certainly right, inasmuch as there is no agreement among them. On examining their positions, we are struck with their contradictions and confusion. Were the subject really intricate, we should look for much light to be elicited by so great efforts of so much learning; but where so much confusion exists, while the truth itself is clear and plain, it is to be feared that the effort with many is to evade, rather than to learn, the truth. WM. TYNDALE.—"We be the lords of the Sabbath, and may change it into Monday, or any other day, as we see need; or, we may make every tenth day holy day, only if we see cause why; we may make two every week if it were expedient, or one not enough to teach the people. Neither was there any cause to change it from the Saturday, other than to put a difference between us and the Jews, and lest we should become servants to the day, after their superstition." BISHOP CRANMER.—"The Jews were commanded in the Old Testament to keep the Sabbath-day, and they observed it every seventh day, called the Sabbath, or Saturday; but we Christian men are not bound to such commandments in Moses' law, and therefore we now keep no more the Sabbath or Saturday, as the Jews did, but we observe the Sunday, and some other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient."—Catechism. JOHN BROWN, in his Bible Dictionary, contradicts the above, as follows:— "In honor of his own resurrection, Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week. The first day was observed by Christians, as their Sabbath, for almost sixteen hundred years without having their practice so much questioned; nor have any arguments against its observance been since adduced which are worthy of notice." That the following is reasonable and just, all will admit:— W. NEVINS, D. D.—"It is very true that the Sabbath is done away in the practice of many, but I know of no precept doing it away. The subject may have done it away, but the Lawgiver has not. Now I very much question the right of a subject to do away a law. I can show any one who wishes to see it the enactment of the law of the Sabbath. I can tell him when it was enacted, under what circumstances, and in what language. But can any point to the repeal of the law? When was it repealed? Where is the account of it?" Now for repeal, let us substitute change, and apply the above test of a "D. D." to the following from a "LL. D." THOS. DICK, LL. D.—"The celebration of the work of creation is not the only, nor the principal, exercise to which we are called on the Christian Sabbath. Had man continued in primeval innocence, this would probably have constituted his chief employment. But he is now called to celebrate, in conjunction with this exercise, a most glorious deliverance from sin and misery effected by the Redeemer of mankind. And, for this reason, the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week." DR. DWIGHT, who advocated a change, wrote as follows:— "It could be altered only by divine appointment. The same authority which instituted the Sabbath, appointed, also, the day on which it was to be holden; and no other authority is competent to change either in any degree. If, then, we cannot find in the Scriptures plain and ample proof of the abrogation of the original day, or the substitution of a new one, the day undoubtedly remains in full force and obligation; and is now religiously to be observed by all the race of Adam." Compare this with the following admission:— PROT. EPIS. CHURCH.—"The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day, in commemoration of our Lord's resurrection; but as we meet with no Scriptural direction for the change, we may conclude it was done by the authority of the church, under the guidance of the apostles."—Explanation of Catechism. Another D. D. writes as follows:— DAVID BOGUE, D. D.—"The fourth commandment does not determine the particular day. That was determined, under the law, by another precept." But a Bishop meets him with the following contradiction:— BISHOP HOPKINS.—"On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made, and God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." Now, that there cannot, in these words, be understood any prolepsis, or anticipation, declaring that as done then which was done many ages after, appears plainly, because God is said to sanctify the Sabbath then when he rested; but he rested precisely on the seventh day after the creation; therefore, that very seventh day did God sanctify, and so made it the beginning of all ensuing Sabbaths. No one, who reads the commandment with any care, and respects its authority, can make the following statement:— ENCYCLOPEDIA OF REL. KNOWLEDGE.—"It cannot reasonably be disputed that the command is truly obeyed by the separation of every seventh day from common to sacred purposes, at whatever given time the cycle may commence. The first Sabbath kept in the wilderness was calculated from the first day in which the manna fell, and with no apparent reference to the creation of the world." The following is from equally high authority; and as the Israelites were not required to keep two weekly Sabbaths, and therefore the Sabbath pointed out by the falling of the manna was the same that was enforced by the commandment, the Union contradicts the Encyclopedia. AM. S. S. UNION.—"The commandment which stands fourth in the order of the decalogue is founded on the fact that the seventh day was blessed and hallowed by God himself, and that he requires his creatures to keep it holy to him. The commandment is of universal and perpetual obligation."—Bible Dictionary. The following is an acknowledgment that there is no Scripture authority for the change. ADAM CLARKE, D. D.—"It seems to have been by an especial providence that this change has been made and acknowledged all over the Christian world."—On Matt. 12: 8. But a "Pres." meets the "Dr." with the following rebuke:— PRES. HUMPHREY.—"No human authority may expunge a single word from the statutes of Jehovah. It were infinitely less daring for the meanest subject of the mightiest earthly potentate to declare the fundamental laws of the empire null and void, than for man, a worm, to set aside the institutions of his Maker. And yet, Pres. H. dared to expunge the "seventh day" from the law of Jehovah, and insert the "first day" in its stead; thus setting aside the institution of the rest-day of God. Let the following statement of a great historian also be brought to the above test of Pres. H.:— EUSEBIUS.—"All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day, as more appropriately belonging to the Lord's, because it had a precedence, and is first in rank, and more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." DR. SCOTT.—"The change from the seventh [day] to the first appears to have been gradually and silently introduced." Only among the Catholics there is unity of faith of all who teach the observance of first-day. The following testimonies will show their teachings:— DR. TUBERVILLE.—"It (Sunday) is a day dedicated by the apostles to the honor of the Most Holy Trinity, and in memory that Christ our Lord arose from the dead upon Sunday, sent down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday, etc., and therefore is called the Lord's day. It is also called Sunday from the old Roman denomination of Dies Solis, the day of the sun, to which it was sacred."—Douay Catechism. DR. CHALLONER.—"The Scripture does not in particular mention this change of the Sabbath. John speaks of the Lord's day (Rev. 1: 10); but he does not tell us what day of the week this was, much less does he tell us that this day was to take the place of the Sabbath ordained in the commandment. Luke also speaks of the disciples' meeting together to break bread on the first day of the week. Acts 20: 7. And Paul (1 Cor. 16: 2) orders that on the first day of the week the Corinthians should lay by in store what they designed to bestow in charity on the faithful in Judea, but neither the one nor the other tells us that this first day of the week was to be, henceforth, the day of rest, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the church; and therefore, those who pretend to be so religious of the Sunday, whilst they take no notice of other festivals ordained by the same church authority, show that they act by humor and not by reason and religion, since Sunday and holy days all stand upon the same foundation; viz., the ordinance of the church."—Cath. Chris. Instructed. As many reverence the name "Sunday," it may gratify their feelings to learn its origin from the following high authority:— AM. S. S. UNION.—"Sunday was a name given by the heathen to the first day of the week, because it was the day on which they worshiped the sun."—Bible Dictionary. The following is intended as a decisive strike against the Sabbath of the commandment—the seventh day:— PRES. BOARD OF PUBLICATION.—"It is perfectly plain from the several passages we have collated, that the apostle enjoined and observed the first day of the week as sacred to religious assemblies for Christians; and as plain that he reproved as sinful the observance of Jewish times. The term "days," therefore, in the epistle to the Galatians, and "holy day," and "Sabbath days," in that to the Colossians," cannot be understood in any other light than as embracing, if they did not exclusively signify, the Jewish seventh-day Sabbath, which, as the servant of God, he disowned and forbade."—Tract No. 128. But a D. D. meets it with a still more decided rejoinder:— DR. EDWARDS.—"So in the second chapter of Colossians. . . . The sabbaths spoken of are not "the Sabbath" associated with, Thou shalt not commit murder, or adultery, or theft; but the sabbaths associated with meats and drinks, and new moons, which were, indeed, shadows of things to come. But to take what he said of those sabbaths, which were associated by God with ceremonial laws, and which the apostle himself, in this very discourse, associates with them, and apply it, as some have done, to "THE SABBATH" which God associated with moral laws, is wrong."—Sab. Man., pp. 135, 136. But the climax of contradictions is the following:— DR. DWIGHT.—"The blessing, also, and the sanctification were annexed to the Sabbath day, and not to the seventh." GEN. 2: 3.—"And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." Comment is needless. Against learning or learned men, as such, I have nothing to say. But if education served men no better purpose on other points than it has many of the writers here quoted on the Sabbath question, it would truly be a vain and useless thing. Their learning, no one will question; of their honesty, I shall say nothing. But I shall leave it for their friends and admirers to decide whether Dr. Bogue was more learned than Bishop Hopkins; or the "Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge" is more reliable than the American Sunday-school Union; or Dr. Brown more reliable than Bishop Cranmer; and whether Dr. Dwight ever read the second chapter of Genesis and the twentieth chapter of Exodus!—Truth Found. Railroads Replace Depot with Station
The Pennsylvania Railroad Company is making an effort to abolish the improper use of the word "depot." The word "station" is to be used on its lines henceforth; and even the great "Union Depot" at Pittsburg is hereafter to be known as the "Union Station." Richard Grant White is thus indorsed. The word "depot" means a place of storage of goods. "Station" is the correct word. Railroads may have their "depots" for freight, but not for passengers. Lesson for September 30.—John XVI.
“THESE things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.” The New Version has it “that ye should not be made to stumble,” which is preferable. Christ had just been telling the disciples that they might expect persecution. He had continually met with reproaches and persecution, and his teaching had been received with indifference and contempt. They must not expect better treatment than their Lord had received. Going forth into the world, full of love and zeal for the truth, they would naturally expect that all that would be necessary to cause others to accept it with the same ardor, would be to present it to them; and to have it rejected with scorn would be apt to discourage them. To prevent this, Christ forewarns them. “THEY shall put you out of the synagogue.” To sever one’s church connections is not always an easy thing. With many, this is an insuperable obstacle in the way of their accepting truth, especially the truth upon the Sabbath. “If I should keep the Sabbath, I should be turned out of the church,” say some. Christ foretold this state of things. Right here let it be noticed that all the persecution that Christ foretold was to come from the professed church. But being cast out of the synagogue, evidently means more in this place than simply being deprived of church fellowship. The greater excommunication deprived the individual of all civil rights. No one was allowed to transact business with the excommunicated person; he was an outlaw. Just this state of things existed during the period of papal persecution. “Heretics” had no rights that anybody was bound to respect; no one could offer them shelter or sustenance; no faith was to be kept with them. A similar state of things is pointed out in the prophecy as still future. See Rev. 13:16, 17. “And he causeth all, . . . to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads; and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast.” When the “image” is made, when Sunday is recognized in the Constitution of the United States, then those who refuse to observe it will be classed as criminals, and deprived of all civil rights. If present indications count for anything, this time is not far distant. We are forewarned of these things, that we may be prepared for them, and may not be caused to stumble and fall away from the truth when the persecution comes. BECAUSE a man is honest in his convictions, it does not follow that his course is acceptable to God. Christ said: “The time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.” It will be considered as an act of worship, pleasing to God. This shows that the persecution will come from the professed servants of God. Men often say, “God will not punish me, if I am honest.” If that statement were always true, then we should expect those who have killed God’s servants, under the delusion that they were thus serving him, will be rewarded with a place in Heaven. No one will claim that. Paul persecuted the church, and he obtained mercy, because he did it ignorantly; but he had to repent and change his course before he found mercy. Had he made his previous honesty of purpose an excuse for continuing the same course, God could not have accepted him as his servant. And such a course would have proved that he had not been really honest. WHY is it men exhibit such fanatical zeal for certain forms of religion as to lead them to persecute those who differ with them? Christ says, “These things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” John, in his first epistle, tells us what it is to know God: “And hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” In the religion of Jesus there is no room for a spirit of persecution. “But the wisdom that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits.” It is only when men depart from the purity of Bible religion that they manifest a spirit of intolerance. The gospel wins men by persuasion. The ardent Paul used no stronger means. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” We may be intolerant to this degree, that we rigidly exclude error from our own lives, but no man has any right over the conscience of another. We are simply to be doers of the law; God is the judge. It may be set down as a sure rule, that when professed Christians attempt, by the power of the civil law or otherwise, to compel others to believe or practice as they do, it is because they do not know God; they are not keeping his commandments. It is possible for men to know and understand the truth of God. To deny this is to impeach the wisdom and goodness of God. The Bible is God’s revealed will. Those things that he does not wish men to pry into he has withheld; but “whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” Rom. 15:4. Men who are “unlearned and unstable” may wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction, but those who have the Spirit of God will be guided “into all truth,” for that is the Saviour’s promise. “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine.” It is not self-conceit that leads the student of the Bible to say that he knows that certain things are to take place. Christ said of the Spirit: “He will show you things to come.” He will show things to come by shedding light on those portions of the Bible where the things to come are revealed. And Christ has commanded us to know when his coming is near. Ignorance in such a case becomes sin. “THESE things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.” A comforting ending to his discourse. “In the world ye shall have tribulation.” “We are appointed thereunto.” The powers with which we have to contend are mightier than we. “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Our adversary “the devil walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.” But Christ has overcome the world. He has had a contest with Satan, and has come off victorious. That is our only ground of hope. Because he has overcome, we shall overcome. “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.” THERE is a vast deal more in every lesson than you can hope to teach your scholars, or than you ought to try to teach them. A forgetfulness of this truth stands in the way of good teaching by some who study hard, and who gather material enough on every lesson for a dozen classes, and for a month of Sundays. The question, therefore, is not, What do you know of the lesson? but, What are you to cause your scholars to know of the lesson? Until you can answer this question explicitly, in view of your knowledge of your scholars, and out of your experience in their teaching, you are not yet through with your indispensable study as preparatory of your teaching of the lesson now in hand. Your study must include a great deal more than an acquaintance with all the multitudinous dishes on the extended bill of lesson-fare. You are to decide which of these dishes are suited to your particular scholars, with their tastes and needs as you know them; for unless you do this, you will cram your scholars without feeding them, or they will famish while you are expatiating on the merits of dishes which are wholly beyond their reach. A good way of both perfecting and testing your preparatory study of a lesson, as a teacher, is for you to state to yourself in a few words the points of your proposed lesson-teaching. Some one has facetiously said, that in the average church prayer-meeting he would like the privilege of calling out at the close of a rambling speaker's remarks, according to the custom in deliberative bodies, “Will the gentleman be so good as to submit his proposition in writing?” In other words, What have you been saying? What point, if any, were you trying to make? It would be well for every teacher to ask himself, before he sets out for his class, What am I now ready to teach my scholars to-day? His preliminary study should be made with that question before him for ultimate answer.—S. S. Times. To FIND out one's own folly is the great point of wisdom. REVISED EDITION—JUST ISSUED.
By J. H. Waggoner
Being an examination of its ACTION, SUBJECTS, and RELATIONS. Also, a brief consideration of the Historical Evidences of Trine Immersion. Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Price, postpaid, Paper Covers, 25c.; Flexible Cloth, 35c. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. THOUGHTS ON REVELATION, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL.
By Uriah Smith
This work presents every verse in the book of Revelation with such remarks as serve to illustrate or explain the meaning of the text. It is a new and harmonious exposition of that important book, and is designed to create an interest in its study. 416 pp. $1.25. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. Or, REVIEW AND HERALD, Battle Creek, Mich. THE NATURE AND TENDENCY OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM.
By Eld. J. H. Waggoner
This is a thorough exposure of the system of spiritualism. The author has carefully studied the subject, and has given such copious extracts from a large library of spiritualist publications, as to fully condemn them in their teachings and their practices, by their own testimony. It is also shown from the prophetic scriptures that spiritualism is one of the most impressive signs of the times. 184 pp. Price, 20 cents. SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. THOUGHTS ON DANIEL, CRITICAL AND PRACTICAL.
By Uriah Smith
AN Exposition of the book of Daniel verse by verse. We are now living in times plainly pointed out in this prophecy, and it is important to understand it; for Daniel himself says that in the time of the end, the wise shall understand; while, if we fail, we are equally guilty with the Jews, who knew not the time of their visitation (Luke 19:42-44), and shall meet a similar fate. 416 pp. $1.25. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. JUST published by GEO. D. RUSSELL, 126 Tremont St., Boston, a new book of music, 160 pages, entitled The music and words of this book are mostly entirely new, and well adapted to the Sabbath-school and social circle. It is receiving the most unqualified praise from all who have examined it. The music is of a high order throughout and yet not at all difficult. Per copy, 35 cents; $3.60 per dozen. Bound, 50 cents; $5.00 per dozen. Address, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR.
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE.
This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information. As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study. The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR.
All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge. TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE.
Price per Copy, Post-paid. 5 to 10 copies....................................60 cents a year.
10 copies and upward ..............................50 cents a year. Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months. Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly. Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich.
Or, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. An Incipient American Inquisition.
THE Sunday movement which is now in progress in California, and fast rising in several States in the East, will never meet the desire of its friends while it is confined to State action. In 1863 a company of ministers met in Xenia, Ohio, to consult in regard to securing a better observance of Sunday. They came to the conclusion that, with our system of "through lines" of railways, and other heavy interests in favor of Sunday traffic and travel, that State laws could never accomplish what they desired, and they then laid the foundation of the "National Reform Association," the avowed object of which is to procure such an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States as will authorize Congress to make laws for the enforcement of the "Christian Sabbath." Their declaration was, and is, very comprehensive. They say in their "platform" that they are laboring for an Amendment whereby "all Christian institutions, laws, and usages, may be placed upon an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." And they were bold to declare that, when this shall be obtained, no person shall be eligible to office who violates the "Christian Sabbath"—the Sunday. Now the Constitution says there shall be no religious test of eligibility to office in the United States. The "Home Protectionists" of California set themselves in opposition to this provision of the National Constitution when they declared that no man must be elevated to office who would not conform to their ideas of Christian institutions. And yet they presume to call all those who do not agree with them rebels against the government! When this declaration was put forth by the "Amendment Party," all non-religionists took the alarm. They saw this Association fast growing in favor and influence. All the bishops in the American churches, many Presidents of Colleges, Doctors of Divinity, United States and State officers, were among its officers and supporters. The non-religious saw at once that, if the object of the Association should ever be accomplished, their rights and privileges in this "land of the free" would forever be at an end. Did this discovery lead the advocates of the Amendment to pause, and to consider that their proposed action would work disastrously to the civil and religious rights of large classes in the nation? Not at all. To the contrary they exulted in the prospect that such would be the case, and pressed more vigorously toward its accomplishment! We hold ourselves to be as far removed from sympathy with infidelity as is possible to be. Yet we are ever ready to confess that infidels have rights which Christians are bound to respect. The Evangelical Repository noticed the fears expressed by certain non-religious papers, and this notice was copied approvingly by the Christian Statesman, the organ of the "Amendment Party." For the benefit of our readers who are interested in the present controversy in California, we produce the notice of these Christian authorities as follows:— "These quotations seem to indicate one of our strongest weapons as a Christian people. Few are able to teach us more clearly on this point than our enemies. What they most dread is sure to be what we shall find to be most effective. Now scarcely anything sets the Index, or the Boston Investigator, or the Banner of Light, so quickly in trepidation, as a movement in favor of the religious amendment to the Constitution. This is the battery which, once established in its place, they consider almost impregnable. Ought not the hesitating, therefore, to ask themselves whether the use of such an instrumentality is not proper, and highly desirable, in the conflict with evil? Are not our opponents instructive, though unconscious, guides in this matter?" As an argument we cannot approve these remarks. Is it not a fact that the fears of these papers and of the people whom they represent are well founded? Have they not rights under our government which ought to be respected? Were the question one of the triumph of Christianity and of the downfall or restriction of infidelity, we would espouse the cause with all possible zeal. But the Association does not expect thereby to lessen infidelity and increase pure Christianity; they know full well that every step they take in that direction only confirms and hardens infidels in their unbelief. Thus, instead of converting the unconverted, they strengthen their infidelity and then deprive them of their Constitutional rights because they are infidels! And how do they propose to advance the cause of Christianity? By offering inducements to every office-seeker to profess Christianity as the only possible way to obtain office under the Government! Alas, for the blindness which has overtaken them! But for pointing out these facts, and giving the word of warning, we are denounced as enemies to Christianity, and as being the friends of "publicans and sinners." So be it. We shall proclaim the truth, "whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." Eze. 2:3-7. Let us step back a few centuries and suit this Christian argument to Italy or Spain, and all may see that it will prove as pertinent and logical, and as much to the furtherance of religion, as it appears in the Repository and the Statesman. Imagine we are quoting from an organ of "the church," thus:— "In regard to the efficiency of the holy Inquisition, few are able to teach us more clearly than our enemies. What they most dread is sure to be what we shall find most effective for the correction of heresy—the highest known crime. Scarcely anything sets the enemies of the church in such trepidation as a movement for the establishing of the Inquisition. This is the battery which, once firmly established, they consider almost impregnable. Ought not the hesitating therefore, to ask themselves whether the use of such an instrumentality is not proper, and highly desirable, in the church's conflict with evil? Are not our opponents instructive, though unconscious, guides in this matter?" The Repository and Statesman, or the California political religionist, cannot complain of the comparison, for was not the Inquisition established for the glory of God, and for the advancement of the cause of Christianity? Was not its design to prevent the increase of infidelity and heresy? Was it not that the governments of earth might thereby acknowledge their loyalty to Christ? which is now set forth as the object of the Religious amendment. And was not the burning of heretics, such as Jews, and all those who preferred the plain reading of the Bible to tradition, the very essence of piety, and therefore styled an auto de fe, or act of faith? Can the advocates of this civil-law religion claim any higher motive than was avowed by the advocates of the Inquisition? But they urge that their action has no such tendency. We can prove to the contrary. What mean the following remarks by a well-known advocate of this Amendment which will actually unite church and State in this country:— "But it may be asked, Would not the Jew be denied equality of rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath, and ignoring the Jewish? The answer is, We are not a Jewish but a Christian nation; therefore, our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely necessary from the nature of the case." These writers know that such laws would have little or no effect upon the Jews who do not, as a rule, religiously regard the Bible Sabbath. As a general thing their places of business are kept open on that day. It would seriously affect only those Christians who are conscientious in their observance of "the Sabbath of the Lord," to the exclusion of "the venerable day of the sun." And what mean the words of another of its adherents, more prominent than the writer just quoted, who said he would treat all who persisted in keeping the seventh day and not the Sunday, whether Jews or professed Christians, as he would treat insane people; let them alone while they were quiet and disturbed nobody, that is, did not work on Sunday, but by means of an asylum or otherwise would prevent their disturbing anybody if they proved to be troublesome? These are strong words to be spoken in advance by people professing such lamb-like principles as they do. See Rev. 13:11 and onward. The Romanists never spoke their intentions more plainly, even if such intentions were definitely formed, before the power was in their hands. And it is pertinent to add that Italy, Spain, and Austria, were Christian nations, and Russia is a Christian nation, and all as distinctively Christian as the American nation will be when these people shall succeed in the efforts which they are now putting forth, which will make a nominal adherence to Christianity necessary to political preferment. According to such writers, it is consistent with "the spirit of Christianity" to ignore the rights, not only of infidels, but of those whose conscientious convictions lead them to obey the fourth commandment of the decalogue just as it was spoken and written by Jehovah; just as it now stands, unaltered and unrepealed, in the statutes of Heaven. But it is the spirit of such a Christianity as made bonfires of Bibles because they tended to uphold heresy! such a Christianity as made "Saint Bartholomew's Day" a thought of terror, and lighted the fires of Smithfield. We have announced over and over again that we shall not oppose these demoralizing schemes except by the faithful presentation of the pure truth of God. And yet we say in this article, as we have said before, that such a deprivation of civil and religious rights as they contemplate, will bring great evil upon our nation. Do you ask why? It is because there are large classes of people who will not accept the situation in the same spirit, and meet it with the same means, that we shall. They have already announced that they stand ready to fight to preserve those rights which their fathers fought to establish. Thus the intention is formed and declared on both sides. Between them we stand neutral, so far as physical force is concerned. We cannot unite with the one party to invade the rights of any in their efforts to enforce an institution of tradition which is opposed to the commandment of God. We shall not unite with the other party to defend our rights with physical force. We sympathize with neither, and we cannot expect sympathy from either. We pity those who oppose this movement without the blessed hope of divine help and deliverance in the day of trial. Our hope is in the Mighty One, who will forever remember his covenant to them who keep his commandments. 1. Do THE words, mind, soul, spirit, heart, and bowels, all refer to the same part of man in the following passages? Dan. 5:20; Job. 30:25, 27; Gen. 41:8. As some of the words are used tropically, it is impossible to give a brief and very direct answer to this question. In Gen. 41:8—his spirit was troubled—the word used is that usually rendered spirit; the translation is literal. The word is variously used, and in this text means his mind was troubled, or, as might be said, he was troubled. In Job. 30:25 also the translation is literal; the word used is that usually rendered soul. The meaning is evident—I was grieved. Verse 27, the translation is literal, but the word (bowels) is used with much latitude. Its use here is explained by Gesenius, in his definitions, thus: "d. Tropically, like the breast, heart, etc., for the inmost part, as the seat of grief, pity, affection. Job. 30:27," etc. Dan. 5:20—his heart was lifted up—a literal translation. Its use needs no explanation. His mind was hardened—the original is the same word which is used in Gen. 41:8, generally rendered spirit. As before said, it is used with considerable latitude. No definition could be given of such terms which would literally and strictly apply in all passages.427 2. What is the soul of man, and is it material or immaterial? Where the word is used with the possessive preposition as in the question—"of man"—it is always used in a secondary sense, and it is difficult to answer the question directly in such cases. Thus in the text: "Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil." Rom. 2:9. And also, "As the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth it shall die," Eze. 18:4. It is used periphrastically. It means simply this: As the father, so also the son is mine; the one, or person, who sins shall die. Tribulation and anguish upon every man. The original word in the Hebrew, neh-phesh, is used over seven hundred and fifty times, and its general use is to express personality or being. It is translated "person" a number of times, and might have been correctly so rendered in a multitude of other cases. It is translated "creature," and also by the various pronouns, etc. According to its primary use, it is material; when used tropically we could hardly say so. But that does not effect its first or primary meaning. The word is the same in both texts. Greenfield gives the following definitions: "Animal, i. e. having animal life, existing by breathing. 1 Cor. 15:44, 46. Animal, natural, i. e. accommodated to animal existence, swayed by the affections and passions of human nature, sensual. 1 Cor. 2:14; Jas. 3:15; Jude 19." This gives a complete answer to the question.