Text: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." Ex. 20:10.
PERHAPS there is no view more generally entertained by those who are arrayed against the Sabbath of the Lord than that which is commonly called the "seventh-part-of-time theory." Its friends, while denouncing Antinomianism, and insisting upon the universal and perpetual obligation of the law of God, so construe the fourth commandment as to make it simply require the observance of one day in seven, leaving the individual to determine which this shall be.
It is a matter of no little surprise that they, while loud in their condemnations of all who, as they claim, seek to abridge their liberty by compelling them to observe the last day of the week to the exclusion of all others, do nevertheless, without exception, unite in keeping the first. The query naturally arises, Why is this so? why no greater diversity in practice? And when inquired of respecting this matter, the invariable reply is that, for the sake of the common good, they have concluded to forego their personal right of choice, and conform to an excellent custom resting upon the necessity of a uniform day of rest, and designating Sunday as the same.
It never seems to have occurred to their minds that the moment they assume this position, they virtually abandon their own exposition of the Sabbath law. Nevertheless, this is undeniably true; for, by their own confession, there is in society a necessity for a uniform day of rest. Now, therefore, if they are right in this, as they unquestionably are, one of two things is certain: Either God did comprehend the necessities of the race and provide for them by instituting a definite Sabbath day, to be kept by all, or else his law is imperfect, in that it does not meet the requirements of those for whom it was made.
Leaving these, therefore, to determine for themselves which horn of the dilemma they will take, i. e., whether they will still insist upon holding on to an explanation of the commandment which involves the dishonor of God, or conclude that he who knows the end from the beginning has, in his law, exactly met the necessities of his creatures, and that the whole difficulty has arisen, on their part, through a misconception of the meaning of the statute which he has given, we turn to examine it for ourselves. While doing so, as this is a matter of no small moment, since it is one upon which eternal interests hang, we invite the prayerful attention of all who are earnestly seeking for truth, while we offer what seems to us to be a few conclusive arguments that the opinion in question is utterly unsound.
First, we submit that it is not in accordance with the obvious meaning of the commandment. In proof of this, we might advert to the fact that the history of the Jews from Sinai to the cross not only fails to furnish a single act in the performance of which they proceeded on the hypothesis that the day of the Sabbath of the decalogue was variable at pleasure, but, on the contrary, it is full of the most convincing proof that they ever regarded it as fixed and immovable.
As an evidence of this, from many others of like nature which might be adduced, take, if you please, those sieges of Jerusalem in which they persisted in their customary regard for their holy day so far as to refuse to employ its sacred hours in preventing their enemies from advancing their works against the place, thereby enabling them to destroy both it and them; a calamity which might have been altogether averted, had it occurred to them that the Sabbath law was so accommodative that while one portion of them were fulfilling its requirements by resting on one day, another might be fighting in the field at the same time, providing only that they should meet its requirements by resting on some other one of the seven days of the week.
We conclude, therefore, that in as much as the history of the Jews, covering a range of fifteen hundred years, and characterized by all the vicissitudes of war and peace, fails to furnish a single instance in which one of their number ventured, either by word or deed, to question the fact that the last day of the week, and it alone, was the one which Jehovah claimed as his own, we shall be safe in deciding that this was the judgment of the whole people, without exception; a fact by no means insignificant, when we consider that to them were committed the sacred oracles, after having been written out upon tables of stone, in their own tongue, with which they must have been more familiar than we can be. And, strange as it may appear, the verdict which they have given in the premises has received the unqualified approval of the Christian world from the commencement of this dispensation down to within two hundred and seventy-five years of our time.347
For it was not until the year 1595, and more than three thousand years this side the giving of the law, that, when pressed to the wall by papists, on the charge that Protestants were observing Sunday in obedience to the decree of the Catholic church, and in contravention of the commandment of the Lord, Nicholas Bound made the first successful effort to bring into favorable notice the doctrine that all which its phraseology demands is the keeping of any one of the seven days of the week. This being true, we find, after all, that those who have prided themselves so much upon the idea that their version meets with the approval of the majority, are, nevertheless, when we take into account the opinions of those who have lived in the past, vastly in the minority.
Turning, then, from the opinions of men, and the bearing which they have upon this subject, after having seen that there has ever been a wonderful concurrence among them in the belief that the commandment is so worded as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind of the unprejudiced, that it pointed unavoidably to one day, and only one, as the Sabbath, the observance of which it was given to enforce, let us seek elsewhere for additional proof, that this modern view finds no warrant in the word of God, and never could have gained credence had it not been for the necessity that something of the kind should be invented to defend a practice which could not be justified in any other manner.
We naturally recur to the commandment itself, in the hope that it will afford all the light which is necessary to enable us to reach a correct conclusion. It reads as follows:—
"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, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it."
A glance reveals the fact that the whole discussion must turn upon the meaning of the expression, the "seventh day;" for that is plainly called "the Sabbath," and in it we are forbidden to do any work. In the opinion of our opponents, this is applied indiscriminately to any twenty-four hours in the cycle of the week which we may see fit to call the Sabbath, and devote to the worship of God.
But the question with which we have to deal is not what they now understand this language to mean, but what was the impression which it then conveyed to the minds of those to whom it was given; for, as language is variable in its meaning, it is universally conceded that laws must be interpreted in accordance with the signification of the phraseology when they were enacted. How did the men who stood at the base of Sinai view the question? Was the idea imparted to them by the words in controversy the same as that held by our friends? or was the language as determinate to them as it would be to us should the Lord declare in so many words that Saturday is the Sabbath?
Fortunately, this question can be settled beyond peradventure. The sixteenth chapter of the book of Exodus seems to have been thrown in almost for the express purpose of furnishing a commentary upon this subject. The events which it records transpired but thirty-three days before the trembling multitude stood at the base of the quaking mount, a period of time altogether too short to admit of change in the use of language, or a revolution in the customs of the nation. Whatever appellation, therefore, was given to the days of the week at the commencement of this period, would apply equally well at its close. But in the brief record under consideration, mention is made three times of the sixth day of the week, and four times of the seventh day. Here, then, is an excellent opportunity for testing the merits of the rival theories.
If, in the cases alluded to, we shall find that the terms "sixth day" and "seventh day," there signified respectively one-sixth and one-seventh part of time, the latter was undeniably employed in that sense in the decalogue a little more than a month later. But if, on the contrary, it shall appear that they were made use of in this case because they were the titles commonly given to the last two days of the week, then they retained this signification when the Lord employed the last of them in making his rest day. The verses in which they occur read as follows: "And it shall come to pass that, on the sixth day, they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily." Verse 5. "And it came to pass that, on the sixth day, they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses." Verse 22. "See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath; therefore, he giveth you, on the sixth day, the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day." Verse 29. For the use of the term, "seventh day," see verse 29, as copied above, also the following: "Six days shall ye gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none." Verse 26. "And it came to pass that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none." Verse 27. "So the people rested on the seventh day." Verse 30.
Now, consistency demands that if the words, "the seventh day," used in the above, are to be construed as meaning one day in seven, then the kindred expression, "the sixth day," must mean one day in six. But this would make nonsense of the whole thing; because, according to the context, it was to be the preparation before the Sabbath, and on it, twice as much manna was to be gathered and prepared as on other occasions, for the reason that on the seventh day there was to be none. Who does not see, however, that, admitting the construction in question, the whole plan would have proved a failure, inasmuch as the preparation occurred as often as once in every six days, while the Sabbath transpired only once in seven days; so that, at the end of the second week, they would have been separated by one whole day; at that of the third, by two; of the fourth, by three; and so on, until the cycle of the week was completed, when they would occur at one and the same time, thus representing God as so far blundering, through a misconception of a plain mathematical principle, that six out of seven of the miracles which he worked for the preservation of food for the Sabbath were rendered ineffectual by the fact that they occurred either too soon or too late to meet the requirements of the case. It is evident, therefore, that the day spoken of in the above as the sixth was so called, not because it represented one-sixth part of time, but for the reason that it was the distinctive appellation by which it was known from the other days of the week. That this is so, is abundantly attested by the fact which is brought to view in verse 22, wherein it appears that the people, so far from having any doubt as to when the proper time had arrived for the gathering of the double portion of manna, entered upon this work, without exception, at one and the same time, since all of the rulers came and reported the same to Moses.
From this standpoint, therefore, we are enabled to construct the whole Jewish week, giving to each day its proper name; for, if the day under consideration was the sixth, it must have been preceded by five others, each following in consecutive order, and receiving its proper numerical title from its relations to the first. It was not only true that this was preceded by five others, but, according to the statement found in verse 23, it was followed by the Sabbath; for Moses, from the standpoint of the sixth day, says, "Tomorrow is the Sabbath." And, in verse 26, he makes the statement that it also has the additional signification of "the seventh day;" and is further characterized by the fact that in it there was to be no manna: a thing which was not true of any of the others. These facts, which were familiar to the minds of all, not only serve to locate it unmistakably in the wilderness of Sin, but, as they were equally true a little further on, when the voice of the Lord was heard in the mount, and when his finger traced upon the marble tablets the words, "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," must have marked it with moral certainly as the one to which reference was made.
Secondly, it is not in harmony with the reason of the law.
We apprehend that one of the chief difficulties in the way of arriving at the truth in the matter, arises from a misconception of what the Lord really requires at our hands. Many seem to read the statute as though the keeping of a Sabbath is all that it requires. Acting upon this impression, it not unfrequently occurs that Sunday-keepers, when reminded that Saturday is the Sabbath, reply somewhat as follows: "We know that Saturday is your Sabbath, but Sunday is ours." The error here consists in the use, in such a connection, of the words your and our. For, mark, Jehovah does not say, "Remember a Sabbath, to keep it holy," neither does he direct you to abstain from labor upon your Sabbath. But the injunction is, to do no work on "the seventh day," which "is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Hence, all that is necessary to determine, so that we may know whether we are obeying him or not, is to decide the simple question whether the Sabbath we are celebrating is that of the Lord. If the mere fact of resting upon a day makes it such, then all which is necessary, in order to impart this distinction to every day of the week (and, as a consequence, to each one in the whole year), is, that seven individuals, through accident, caprice, or interest, should devote to this purpose seven days following each other in consecutive order, a condition of things of a nature to render the absurdity of such an opinion palpable to all.
How, then, shall we ascertain when we have found the Sabbath of the Lord? We answer, Its identification is easy. It is not necessary to leave the sacred tablets themselves, in order to locate it with absolute certainty.
Underlying every wise law is found a good and sufficient reason. The one which is assigned by its Author for the institution of the Sabbath, is found in the following words: "For, in six days, the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore, the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." Here we are informed that the seventh day became the Sabbath of the Lord on account of three distinct acts: 1. He rested; 2. He blessed it; 3. He hallowed it. Now, therefore, as the seventh day and the Sabbath are herein declared to be one and the same, before any other day can be said to be entitled to this distinction, its friends must be able to show that these three things have, at some time, or in some sense, been true of it. Let us, therefore, examine the claims of the first six from this standpoint, taking them in the order in which they occur.
We will first investigate those of Sunday. Did God ever rest upon it? There is not a scintilla of evidence in his holy word to that effect. Did he ever bless it? If so, he has failed to mention the fact. Has he ever hallowed it? The most patient student of sacred history has failed to find a single trace of this fact.
Thus we find that it comes short in every particular necessary to constitute it the Sabbath of the Lord. The same line of argument which has proved the claims of Sunday to be unsound, invalidates equally those of the other five days, as neither of the three conditions required is met by them. They are all of them working days, and, consequently, it could never, with propriety, be said of them that God blessed and hallowed them after he had rested upon them.
How different the case, when we come to the seventh and last. Standing in the field without a rival, its competitors having been dismissed on the ground that sacred history has shown that the facts peculiar to the Sabbath are not true of them, we are furnished with a strong presumptive argument at the outset, that it is entitled to the distinction which the others have failed to obtain. Nor shall we be disappointed upon further investigation. The same man who penned the sixteenth chapter of the book of Exodus, in which the seventh day is distinguished in so marked a manner from all others, and the same one to whom was committed the awful responsibility of receiving from the hand of Jehovah, and conveying to the people, the tablets of the law, has spoken emphatically upon this point. In the brief but lucid account of creation, which he has left us in the book of Genesis, we are furnished with a narration of what transpired during the first week of time.
Making mention of the events which characterized each day in order, and referring to each by its proper numeral, he speaks of the last as follows: Gen. 2:2, 3: "And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. 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."
In these short verses is found the historic counterpart of the statement made in the commandment, that in the beginning God rested upon, blessed and hallowed (or, that which is the same, sanctified), one of the days of the week. The scripture in question once more announces that it was the seventh, and the context shows that it was the last, thereby establishing, beyond dispute, that the seventh or last day of the week is the "Sabbath of the Lord."
Thirdly, it makes the law contradictory in its provisions.
Nothing is more manifest than that a rule emanating from the Infinite must be characterized by harmony in all of its parts. In fact, should a document claiming this honor appear to be deficient in this respect, it would be all which would be necessary to disprove its heavenly origin.
W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
(To be continued.)
The Spirit of Prayer
REMEMBER that God is no curious or critical observer of the plain expressions that fall from his poor children when they are in their closet duties; 'tis not a flow of words, studied notions, seraphic expressions, or elegant phrases in prayer, which take the ear, or delight the heart, of God, or open the gate of glory, or bring down the best of blessings upon the soul; but uprightness, holiness, heavenliness, spirituality, and brokenness of heart—these are the things that make a conquest upon God, and turn most to the soul's account.
Regarding Reproof
HE that regardeth reproof is prudent.
Costly Array and Fine Apparel.
The Scriptures forbid the wearing of “costly array” and “fine apparel,” but there are always some people who do not know what costly array is. They are puzzled over fine apparel, cannot tell what that is. Of course many of them are finely educated, but not up to that point. They are posted on most any thing else, but on this they are not, and still worse, they do not want to be.
They can see a good many things, but the exact dividing line between plain apparel and fine apparel they cannot find; they search for it in vain. Of course it is needful that they know just where the line is, for they claim it a blessed privilege to walk just as close to the world as possible. They do not want to get on the side of the world, but then they have a drawing that way and must get close enough to lock arms at least. These are the people who walk so close to the world that it requires an extra good vision to tell which side they are on.
There is another class quite different. The question with them is not, how close can we go to the world, and yet not be injured, but how far can we keep away from the corrupt ways of the world. Christ prayed his Father, not to take his disciples out of the world, but to keep them from the evil of the world. That is just what is wanting now. Christians want to keep away from the evils of the world; they want to abstain from every appearance of evil. When they learn to do this, there will be no trouble about fine apparel and costly array.
People who love Christ with all their heart—have had their minds fully renewed, and now love the things they once hated, and hate the things they once loved, will never be annoyed by a desire for fine dressing and gaudy display. Their disposition is to keep away from such things as far as possible. They believe fine apparel and costly array to be wrong, and therefore have no desire for it.
Christians, when selecting clothing, want to be sure that it is not costly array. There should be no doubts about it, and there need not be, if proper judgment is exercised. We are to be a distinct and separate people from the world, and to do so, requires much watchfulness upon our part. No one can reasonably object to the purchasing of good, substantial clothing—this is right and sensible, but the purchasing of fine apparel and costly array is contrary to the principles of both reason and revelation. In the selecting of clothing, it will be safe to risk the judgment of any person who is fully converted to the will of God. If they hate fine apparel there is no danger of them ever selecting and wearing it. The reason some professing Christians lean towards the world, is because there is a little love of sin still lurking in the heart, not yet fully rooted out. Just root that little sin out of the heart and we will never be annoyed with a love for the display of the world.—Brethren at Work.
Expressing an Opinion.
We all have our opinions, or we ought to have them, but as regards the advisability of expressing them on all occasions much might be said. There are people, good people, too, who pride themselves on doing this; but it must be owned that they are not often popular. “Must we then conceal our true views, dissimulate for the sake of popularity?” asks some one. By no means, good friend, but reserve need not be untruthfulness. We are not called upon to tell just what we think when by so doing we would only irritate without aiding any one.
These outspoken folks are seldom aware of the pain they inflict, or the vexation they cause. Long after they have forgotten their own words they are rankling in the mind of the recipient. “I can’t help that,” perhaps they would add if you could make them see this result. “I must express my opinions frankly, you know, and people ought not to be offended at the truth.” But when the truth is as unnecessary as it is unpalatable, what then? And then, too, it does not always follow that truth-telling people relish a like plainness of speech from their victims. On the contrary, they often resent what they practice, with most illogical warmth.—Sel.
Envy Destroys Itself
ENVY, if surrounded on all sides by the brightness of another's prosperity, like the scorpion, confined within a circle of fire, will sting itself to death.
The Sabbath Truth.
By Editor
THE light which is now spreading on the subject of the Sabbath is felt by all classes of religionists, and is leaving its impress wherever it extends. The Christian Statesman of October 31, quotes the following from a paper read by Dr. Goodwin at the "church Congress" in Cincinnati, and calls it "excellent":—
"It is felt by some that either we must give up the authority of the fourth commandment entirely, or we must furnish some satisfactory account of this change of the day. This seems to be the more commonly received view; but it has the character of most compromises—it is wavering and inconsistent. . . . It is not necessary to suppose that this change was made by any formal or express enactment or institution of Christ himself before his ascension, or of the apostles afterward, or even of the church in any age, acting in her organic capacity. Neither does ecclesiastic history reveal to us any formal legislation of the church introducing such a change of the day. The change came in by degrees. The Lord's day, the weekly celebration of Christ's resurrection, stood at first, and from the very day of resurrection itself, side by side with the weekly Jewish Sabbath. Then the observance of the latter gradually faded out of use in the Christian church, and the Lord's day, or Sunday, completely took its place."
That the first day of the week from the time of the resurrection, stood by side with the seventh day Sabbath, in honor and observance, cannot be proved. Except this, the above quotation contains a fact of history which we have for years claimed to be true, but which our opposers have strenuously denied. And the Christian Statesman has been steadfast in claiming the perpetuity of the fourth commandment on divine authority for the change of the Sabbath, an idea or theory which it now confesses to be "wavering and inconsistent." Mr. Goodwin argues that evidence of authority for this change is not required. We are of the opinion that he, and the Statesman with him, arrived at this conclusion only because he has become thoroughly convinced that no such evidence exists. The change of position is made to suit the necessities of the case.
They have insisted that the change was made by the authority of the Saviour and of his apostles; that this change was effected at once; that all Christians, from the very time of the resurrection of the Lord, were unanimous in their observance of the first day. Step by step the truth is gaining ground, and the advocates of Sunday keeping are compelled to concede what they have so long and so strenuously denied.
It is a fact most singular that these teachers do not seem to be aware that they are showing unmistakable signs of weakness by these concessions; they appear to feel as secure as ever while their strongholds are being taken from them. But the people are not thus to be deceived. They cannot fail to see that a theory is weak which has constantly to change its position; to admit what it has so long denied, and to deny what it has so long affirmed. With the plain, simple declarations of the Bible they are becoming pressed too closely. This ought to inspire every lover of the "third angel's message" of Rev. 14:9-12, with confidence in its power to convict opposers, and in its ultimate glorious triumph.
There has been no change of the Sabbath by divine authority. A change without Scriptural authority ought to be discountenanced by every Protestant. It makes no matter how strong the claim is made on "common consent," or "nearly universal custom." This can have no authority on questions of this nature. "The Bible, and the Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." All the world, without the word of God, cannot make religious duty. The holy Scriptures must stand though all the world combine against them. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." Isa. 8:20.
Conference in New York on the Second Advent
By Editor
Conference in New York on the Second Advent.
THE doctrine of the near coming of Christ is certainly an unpopular one. A deep-seated prejudice exists against "Second Adventism." Considering the importance and the prominence which are given to this subject in the Scriptures it seems strange indeed that so many professors of religion, so many professed ministers of the gospel, and religious papers, persist in denouncing the lovers of the coming of Christ, and in meeting their arguments and reasons with sneers.
Having so constantly met this prejudice for years we were somewhat surprised at the long array of names of eminent men who favored the object of this Conference. It was quite brief—only a session of three days—and largely attended. The audience which thronged the house listened to the reading of the several papers with deep attention.
We have read some of these papers carefully, and glanced over the others, and we feel assured that nothing but prejudice and religious bigotry could ever give rise to the remarks which some of the papers styling themselves religious have made about the Conference and the truths presented there. The arguments were dignified, Scriptural, and breathed a Christian spirit. Of course the writers and speakers had no time to enter into particulars on the subject. They dwelt upon the great facts that Christ will come the second time; that his coming will be literal and visible; that it will be pre-millennial; that it is now near; and that it is "the blessed hope" of the church, (Titus 2: 13) inciting to personal godliness and to Christian effort.
Dr. S. H. Tyng, Sr., was chairman of the Conference, and Major D. W. Whittle, secretary. The opening address of Dr. Tyng was brief but impressive. The following paragraph contains an important truth which should be read carefully and treasured up by all:—
"We are saved, not merely by believing facts about Him, or truths which He has taught, but by our living participation in Him and with Him through the power of His spirit. He is the vine. We are the branches. The living connection which we must have with Him, He has thus illustrated: as the branch cannot bear fruit if severed from the vine, so, also, must we be dead and helpless if separated from Jesus. Our whole spiritual heavenly life depends upon this vital connection with Him and our participation in the blessings which He has obtained, and which He alone can impart. Thus He presents His historic future to His disciples: In my Father's house are many mansions; I go to prepare a place for you, and I will come again and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also. This future, glorious coming of Jesus is the very life of the hopes, the inheritance of his people. To the soul that really loves Him, where He is, is heaven, and prisons would palaces prove, if Jesus would dwell with us there."
We cannot refrain from giving a further extract from this address on the hope of the church. It is cheering to read and contemplate such truths, so soon to be realized; when we shall be like our Lord, for we shall see him as he is. 1 John 3: 2.
"This divine scheme of spiritual and heavenly relationship has been the history of the True Church of Christ, through all the succeeding ages of the Christian era. Union with Christ, living in Christ, following Christ, looking forward to the promised coming of Christ, and to an everlasting dwelling with Christ, have made up the character, the joy and the hope of true believers in every age, and these constitute their significant description with equal certainty in our day. The lovers of a Saviour are looking for his appearing, longing with increasing desire to see Him as He is, to be with Him where He is; and thus He offers for them all the earnest supplication: For all who shall believe on Him, through His word; that they may (all) be one; that they may be with him where He is; that they may behold His glory which He had before the foundation of the world. Thus in the day of His ascending triumph they beheld His glory, as a cloud received Him out of their sight. And while in wonder they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He ascended, angelic messengers addressed them: 'This same Jesus, who is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven.' In the belief of this coming the church of Jesus has been one in every age. In the thankful anticipation of this new manifestation of their glorious Saviour, His church on earth have always been in union, believing in his future advent; looking for his appearing; striving to seek the things which are above, that when Christ who is our life shall appear, we may also appear with Him in glory. In this sure confidence in the reality of this personal advent of the Saviour to the earth on which he died; in the certainty of the confidence that the time of His glorious advent draweth near, we stand and wait. Many of its preliminary facts have been accomplished; much that was necessarily antecedent in the history and condition of man has already past, and every passing year brings the great fact in this history of earth still nearer, and diminishes the number of earthly events which are to precede its manifestation. Knowledge and interest in connection with this great event on earth have vastly increased, and increasing multitudes are looking for the Lord's appearing, with enlarged understanding, with new convictions, with constantly brightening hopes."
We intend to quote further from these papers. We confidently expect that such utterances will arrest the attention of many, and help to rescue the doctrine of our blessed Saviour's coming from the reproach which worldly-minded professors and unprofessing worldlings have so unjustly heaped upon it.