I find the following article in the New York Chronicle, Vol. VI, No. 30. The only changes I have made in it, are to make it read Sunday-keeping instead of Infant Baptism, and omit a single paragraph on infant communion, and put one papist in the place of another. The conscientiousness of the writer, and the purity of his motives, are sufficiently apparent to be allowed by all candid readers; but I would be glad to know how he can maintain either, if when he looks again into the great mirror of truth, he looks exclusively on the anti-Protestant appearance of Infant Baptism and refuses to look on the anti-Protestant appearance of Sunday-keeping. S. D.
It is truly deplorable that men, Christian men, holding the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and who, on every other point of revealed truth, are sound in the faith, should, on the subject of Sunday keeping, betray that want of judgment and logical acumen which invariably characterize their general exposition of biblical truth; men, too, who readily adopt the noble aphorism of the renowned Chillingworth, "The Bible, the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." Would that they were willing to abide by such a glorious principle, and subject their practice to this infallible test. What is its import? Does it not mean that Protestants derive their religion from the Bible alone?—that they admit nothing into their religious faith and practice, but what they find in the Bible? If this be its import, ought not those who inscribe it on their banners, to exemplify it in their practice? Ought they not to be careful that they believe nothing as a religious doctrine, and that they practice nothing as a religious rite, but what the Scriptures teach? To adopt this aphorism, and at the same time admit into their religion what is not found in the Bible, is to proclaim to the world that they are not Protestants. And yet this is done by the advocates and practicioners of Sunday-keeping.
What an unspeakable relief to the laboring intellect would it be, if the Scriptures had contained but one single command, or had furnished but one single example of Sunday-keeping; but alas, they are not to be found. Persons deeply interested in the research, and ardently desirous to make the discovery, have completely failed in the attempt to find such a command. How many longing eyes have pried into the sacred history to find but one example of Sunday-keeping, yet how inexorable the sacred page! Neither diligence, nor learning, nor criticism, nor prayers, nor tears, can extort from it the confession that one Sunday was kept in the days of Jesus and his apostles. This being the case, the Protestant principle disallows its authority, and the consistent Protestant must reject it as no part of his religion. To bolster up the unscriptural practice of Sunday-keeping, its advocates are obliged to go out of the record, and have recourse to the writings of the Fathers, thus substituting the traditions of men for the commandment of God; and with an air of complacent assurance they tell us that "Sunday-keeping was practiced at a very early period of the church's history." But what avails this statement, if it be not in the Scriptures? It matters not how long the practice has prevailed, it matters not how extensively it has prevailed, it matters not if it be patronized by the great, the wise, and the good—if it be not in the Scriptures, it is not a Christian ordinance. Earthly patronage cannot make it a heavenly institution. Patronage may be a passport for error, from one generation to another, yet it does not convert error into truth, nor does it give such sanctity to error as to make it profane to touch it.
It may be true that Sunday-keeping is found in the beginning of the third century, but can this add the weight of a feather to the argument for it? Certainly not, in the opinion of any consistent Protestant. If Sunday-keeping be in the Scriptures, this discovery from the writings of the Fathers is not needed; if it be not in the Scriptures, a thousand such discoveries will give it no claim to a place amongst Christian observances.
In what an awkward dilemma do the advocates of Sunday-keeping place themselves in practicing that which only has tradition for its authority, by attempting to vindicate their conduct from Scripture. Thus shorn of their strength, in vain do they thunder their anathemas against the Church of Rome on account of her traditionary character, for it is well known that the Roman Catholics maintain that there is no authority in the Scriptures for Sunday-keeping. "A great papist, going to hear a discussion about Sunday-keeping, told his friend he was going to hear—MIRACLE, namely, Sunday-keeping proved from Scripture."
"Happy is he who condemneth not himself in the thing which he alloweth."
It is deeply to be regretted that so large a portion of the Protestant Church, losing sight of the fundamental principle, namely, the sole sufficiency and sole authority of the Scriptures to determine all matters of faith and practice, should be placed in the anomalous position we find them, especially in the present day, when there are evident indications of an approaching conflict between Protestantism and Popery. Does it not behoove Protestants of every class seriously to consider whether they be prepared for the encounter, and we earnestly ask, are the Protestant advocates of Sunday-keeping in a right position for the conflict? Are they prepared to prove that the Scriptures, and not tradition, the Apostles, and not the Fathers, are the only authority on which they found their practice? If they be not prepared to avow, and to prove this, will not their inconsistency enfeeble their efforts, and prove a tower of strength to their adversaries? The cause of truth and righteousness demands this at their hands. This is no controversy between sect and sect, but between truth and error—the commandments of God and the traditions of men. Look at "the truth, on this subject, with open face," without the spectacles of a system. We invite appeal "to the law and to the testimony."
NEW WORK.
By Editor
We are now publishing a work entitled, Home here and Home in heaven, with other Poems. By Annie R. Smith. It will contain about 112 pp.
Price—bound—20 cts; by the dozen and over, 15 cts; postage 3 cts. In paper covers—15 cts; by the dozen and over, 12½ cts; postage 1 ct. Orders may now be sent in.
APPOINTMENTS.
By J. N. Loughborough; R. F. Cottrell
PROVIDENCE permitting, there will be a Tent Meeting held in Roosevelt, to commence Sabbath, July 28th, and continue over Sabbath, Aug. 4th. Also in Vanburen as Bro. Walker shall arrange, to commence Sabbath, Aug. 11th, and continue the second Sabbath if thought best. Meetings on the Sabbath at 10½ A. M., and 12½ P. M. On First-day 10½ A. M., 12½ and 5 P. M.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
R. F. COTTRELL.
To Correspondents.
By Editor
Wm. Bartlett.—We are unable to see what you were aiming to prove by your quotations of Scripture.
Danl. Baker.—We have received your commentary on the Apocalypse, but cannot endorse it. If you wish it returned we will do so on your prepaying the postage.
A. B. Coney.—In answer to your inquiries, we send you a tract containing a thorough exposition of 2 Cor. iii. If carefully studied we think it cannot fail to remove entirely all objections.
Business.
By Editor
J. Dorcas.—We make it right in this No.
L. Sheldon.—We have no recollection of ever receiving the money you speak of, and have written to Bro. Bingham on the subject.
J. A. Laughhead.—We received your $1 for the Extra, and were intending to credit it when we issued another number of that sheet. We now place it to your credit for Vol. vii, of REVIEW.
S. J. Gardner.—The P. O. Address of H. Flower is Ronald, Ionia Co, Mich.
D. Hewett.—We have no one by the name of Griswold on our books at Battle Creek. Is he a new subscriber? If not, where has his paper formerly been sent? We credit his money in this No.
S. Vanloon.—We received but one letter from C. W. Stanley last March, and that said nothing of a dollar from you.
J. E. Titus.—The MS from Eld, S. A. Taft, we have forwarded to Bro. Cornell.
Notice.
By Joseph Bates, E. L. Barr
BRETHREN in N. H. and Conn. will please notify us of the places where they wish to have Tent-meetings, that notice may be given in the Review, and also in the vicinity of the meetings.
JOSEPH BATES.
E. L. BARR.
East Unity, N. H., July 16th 1855.
Letters.
E O Meacham, J Huber, L Sheldon, M S Bovee, R Judd, J D Hough, D Wakefield, C Truman, G W States, H Edson.
Receipts.
T Hale, N Gibbs, A Lamb, S N Haskell, S Allen, E S Lewis, R Godsmark, Wm D Williams, W Grant, L Eggleston, H Lyon, S B Warren, J B Lewis, C G Cramer, J Cramer, A B Pearsall, C Green, L Martin, S Martin, H Barr, A Morton, E Richmond, (for A Bowers,) J Crispell, H Wheeler, J Sturdevant, J G Camp, J F Hammond, W L Saxby, L Wait, S Hammond, Wm Mott, M Mott, L Baker, N G Needham, S B McLaughlin, L Smith J Bodley, E M L Corey, I R Trembly, L M Freeto, a Friend, P Reynolds, A M Rathbun, Jas Hogle, M North, J A Blackmer, Mrs A Thurber, E A Averill, A Belden, M Fairbanks, C O Taylor, G Rider, C Walker, J G Whipple, S Cronkright, J Byington, E Hall, A H Hilliard, S D Arnold, N A Gale, A Palmer, G Felshaw, L Haskell, C W Smith, L D Hodge, J W Marsh, J C Lawton, R Bennett, E Wilcox, J E Nichols, W Wells, S Street, Rugg,* J Cady, J Bostwick, C Bates, J Smith, C B Preston, S Lanphear, D Chase, S Chase, A A Marks, B Marks, M G Kellogg, D R Palmer, J Whitmore, P Diokerson, S P Hungerford, S Holford, M E Gleason, A Hart, H Norton, J Fishell Jr., F Lamoreux, A C Morton, H D Corey, D C Elmer, L Corruth, S G Cottrell, Wm Chapman, S N Bascom, Sr. Spnr, S Eastman, S J Voorus, E Dunham, E D Cook, C Smith, Z Brooks Bro Griswold, J Jones, B G Jones, H P Wakefield, C Baker, A H Huntley, J Carrol, J G Briggs, I Gardner, J Aldrich, C Aldrich, D Kellogg, C M Wade, R B Wheeler, J Stryker, O Raymond, S Osgood, L H Dubois, J Lunger, R Gosline, Sr Dickinson, Sr Feeler, J A Laughhead, S Myers, J Breed, L Tarbell, Mrs S Smith, Jno Doroas, H Shauck, F Gould, C R Austin, M Southard, E Scribner, A Fife, E Colby, M A Ford, S H Peck, W Fisk, R Loveland, W Peck, O Bailey, J J Robins, J Griswold, L Titus, W McClenerthan, L Bean, H P Gould, J Barrows, E Churchill, M Burritt, J Swasey, P Davis, S Willey, J Park, S Slayton, A R Morse, S Segar, each $1.
S Lathrop, E Goodwin, L Crosbie, J Y Wilcox, H W Dodge, L B Lockwood, G. W Vineca, D Smalley, J S Cottrell, R Cochran, J G Smith, L Gould, J Lamson, S Benson, H Childs, L B Willey, L Sullaway, E E Hammond, each $2.
S L H Chamberlain $3. H W Moore $5. A Friend $4,50. J Place, A Abbey, H S Gurney, (50 cts for S Gurney,) O Davis, (50 cts for W Bailey,) R P Rice, each $1,50. J P Rathbun, S Dunten, each $1,25. A friend of truth, (for J C C,) J Munsel, (for J F,) J B Lewis, (for A G B,) E Taylor, M A Eaton, S Chamberlain, C Lyman, O Ingles, B Straight, A A Marks, (for E Clark,) a Friend, H Page, D Aldrich, E Wheeler, J Burroughs, M Dean, N Colby, M S Prior, U Colby, S W Bean, D Sperry, each $0,50.
To Pay Arrears on Volume VI
By Editor
To pay Arrears on Vol. VI.
M Fisk, M A Loveland, each $1. J Chapman $1,50. L Gould, J Carrol, J G Briggs, D Kellogg, each $0,75. S B McLaughlin, J J Robins, F Capron, each $0,50.
For Tent in New York.
Mrs L Smith, T Wright, S G Cottrell, R Bennett, each $1. R Gosline $2. J Lamson, J B Lamson, a Friend, each $5. Church in Lorain $30.
Contributions for a Horse
By Editor
TO PURCHASE HORSE FOR J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.—J C Lawton, R Gosline, each $1. A friend $5.
For Wisconsin Tent
Lawton, R Gosline, each $1. A friend $5.
FOR WISCONSIN TENT — J Hall $1, S B McLaughlin $0,50