Earlier text: General ArticlesA Letter to a Friend Concerning Tea.
By John Wesley
19. "But what is saved will be no better employed." Do you say this with regard to yourself, or others? If with regard to yourself, it will be your fault if you do not employ it better. I do not say you will, but I am sure you may; and if you do not, it is your own sin, and your own shame. If with regard to others, how do you know that it will not be employed better? I trust it will. It cannot be denied that it often has, and that it always may be. And it is highly probable all who save anything from the best motive, will lay it out to the best purpose. 20. "As to example," you say, "I have lately been without hopes of doing any good by it." I suppose you mean, because so exceeding few will follow either your example or mine. I am sorry for it. This only gives me a fresh objection to this unwholesome, expensive food, viz., that it has too much hold on the hearts of them that use it; that, to use a Scriptural phrase, they are "under the power of" this trifle. If it be so, were there no other reason than this, they ought to throw it away at once; else they no more regard St. Paul than they do you or me; for his rule is home to the point: "All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." Away with it then, however lawful, (that is, though it were wholesome as well as cheap,) if you are already brought "under the power of it." And the fewer they are who follow this rule, the greater reason there is that you should add one example more to those few. Though, blessed be God, they are not so few as you suppose. I have met with very many in London, who use less of it than they have done for many years; and above a hundred who have plucked out their right eye, and cast it from them, who wholly abstain from it. 21. You add: "But I am equally, yea, abundantly more concerned to set an example in all Christian behavior." I grant it; this, therefore, "ought you to have done, and not to leave the other undone." 22. But "one day," you add, "I saw your brother drink tea, which he said was for fear of giving offence." I answer, First, Learn from hence to follow neither his nor my practice implicitly; but weigh the reason of each, and then follow reason, wheresoever it stands. But, Secondly, Examine your heart, and beware inclination does not put on the shape of reason. Thirdly, You see with your own eyes, I do not drink it at all, and yet I seldom give offence thereby. It is not then the bare abstaining, but the manner of doing it, which usully gives the offence. Fourthly, There is, therefore, a manner wherein you may do it too, and yet give no more offence than I. For instance: If any ask you, simply reply, "I do not drink tea; I never use it." If they say, "Why, you did drink it;" answer, "I did so, but I have left it off a considerable time." Those who have either good nature or good manners will say no more. But if any should impertinently add, "Oh, but why did you leave it off?" answer mildly, "Because I thought water gruel (suppose) was wholesomer as well as cheaper." If they, with still greater ill manners and impertinence, go on, "What, you do it because Mr. Wesley bids you;" reply, calmly, "True; I do it because Mr. Wesley, on good reasons, advised me so to do." If they add the trite cant phrase, "What, you follow man?" reply without any emotion, "Yes, I follow any man, you or him, or any other, who gives me good reason for so doing." If they persist in cavilling, close the whole matter with, "I neither drink it nor dispute about it." 23. If you proceed in this manner, with mildness and love, exceeding few will be offended. "But you ought," say some, "to give up an indifferent thing, rather than give offence to any. So St. Paul: 'I will eat no flesh whilst the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.'" I reply, This is not an indifferent thing, if it affects the health either of myself or of my brethren. Therefore that rule relating wholly to things indifferent is not applicable to this case. Would St. Paul have said, "I will drink drams while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend"? "But tea is not so hurtful as drams." I do not believe it is. But it is hurtful; and that is enough. The question does not turn on the degree of hurtfulness. "However, it is but a small thing." Nay, nothing is small if it touches conscience: much less is it a small thing to preserve my own or my brother's health, or to be a faithful steward even of the mammon of unrighteousness. O think it not a small thing, whether only one for whom Christ died be fed or hungry, clothed or naked! To conclude the head of offence: You must at least allow that all this is no plea at all for your drinking tea at home. "Yes it is; for my husband or parents are offended if I do not drink it." I answer, First, Perhaps this in some rare cases, may be a sufficient reason why a wife or a child should use this food, that is, with them; but no where else. But, Secondly, try, and not once or twice only, if you cannot overcome that offence by reason, softness, love, patience, long suffering joined with constant and fervent prayer. 24. Your next objection is, "I cannot bear to give trouble; therefore I drink whatever others drink where I come, else there is so much hurry about insignificant men." I answer, First, This is no plea at all for your drinking tea at home. Therefore touch it not there, whatever you do abroad. Secondly, Where is the trouble given, even when you are abroad, if they drink tea, and you fill your cup with milk and water? Thirdly, Whatever trouble is taken is not for "insignificant me," but for that poor man who is half starved with cold and hunger; for that miserable woman, who, while she is poisoning herself, wipes her mouth, and says she does no evil; who will not believe the poison will hurt her, because it does not (sensibly at least) hurt you. O throw it away! let her have one plea less for destroying her body, if not her soul, before the time! 25. You object, farther, "It is my desire to be unknown for any particularity, unless a peculiar love to the souls of those who are present." And I hope to the souls of the absent too; yea, and to their bodies also, in a due proportion, that they may be healthy, and fed and clothed, and warm, and may praise God for the consolation. 26. You subjoin: "When I had left it off for some months, I was continually puzzled with, Why, What, &c.; and I have seen no good effects, but impertinent questions and unedifying conversation about eating and drinking." I answer, Those who were so uneasy about it, plainly showed that you touched the apple of their eye. Consequently, these of all others, ought to leave it off; for they are evidently "brought under the power of it." Secondly, Those impertinent questions might have been cut short, by a very little steadiness and common sense. You need only have taken the method mentioned above, and they would have dropped in the midst. Thirdly, it is not strange you saw no good effects of leaving it off, where it was not left off at all. But you saw very bad effects of not leaving it off, viz., the adding sin to sin; the joining much unedifying conversation to wasteful, unhealthy self-indulgence. Fourthly, You need not go far to see many good effects of leaving it off; you may see them in me. I have recovered thereby that healthy state of the whole nervous system, which I had in a great degree, and I almost thought irrevocably, lost for considerably more than twenty years. I have been enabled hereby to assist, in one year, above fifty poor, with food or raiment, whom I must otherwise have left (for I had before begged for them all I could) as hungry and naked as I found them. You may see the good effects in above thirty poor just now before you, who have been restored to health, through the medicines bought by that money which a single person has saved in this article. And a thousand more good effects you will not fail to see, when her example is more generally followed. 27. Neither is there any need that conversation should be unedifying, even when it turns upon eating and drinking. Nay, from such a conversation, if duly improved, numberless good effects may flow. For how few understand, "Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of God!" And how glad ought you to be of a fair occasion to observe, that though the kingdom of God does not consist in "meats and drinks," yet, without exact temperance in these, we cannot have either "righteousness, or peace, or joy in the Holy Ghost!" It may therefore have a very happy effect, if, whenever people introduce the subject, you directly close in, and push it home, that they may understand a little more of this important truth. 28. But "I find at present very little desire to change either my thoughts or practice." Shall I speak plain? I fear, by not standing your ground, by easiness, cowardice, and false shame, you have grieved the Spirit of God, and thereby lost your conviction and desire at once. Yet you add: "I advise every one to leave off tea, if it hurts their health, or is inconsistent with frugality; as I advise every one to avoid dainties in meat, and vanity in dress from the same principle." Enough, enough! Let this only be well pursued, and it will secure all that I contend for. I advise no persons living to leave it off, if it does not hurt the health either of them or their brethren; and if it is not inconsistent with the Christian frugality of cutting off every needless expense. 29. But "to be subject to the consequences of leaving it off again! This I cannot bear." I answer, First, It may be so. You cannot easily bear it. For, by your giving up the point once, you have made it much harder to stand your ground now than it was at first. Yet still it is worth all your courage and labor; since the reasons for it are as strong as at the beginning. Secondly, As to the consequences you fear, they are shadowy all; they are a mere lion in the streets. "Much trouble to others." Absolutely none at all, if you take the tea-kettle, and fill your cup with water. "Much foolish discourse." Take the preceding advice, and it will be just the reverse. "Nothing helpful toward the renewal of my soul in the image of Jesus Christ." What a deep mistake is this! Is it not helpful to speak closely of the nature of his inward kingdom? to encourage one another in casting off every hindrance of it? to inure ourselves to the bearing his cross? to bring Christianity into common life, and accustom ourselves to conduct even our minutest actions by the great rules of reason and religion? 30. Is it "not of any importance" to do this? I think it is of vast importance. However, "it is a very small circumstance in self denial." It is well if you find it so. I am sure I did not. And I believe the case is the same with many others at this day. But you say, "I have so many other assaults of self-indulgence, that this is nothing." "It is nothing," said one to a young woman, "to fast once or twice a week, to deny yourself a little food. Why do you not deny yourself as to anger and fretfulness, as to peevishness and discontent?" She replied, "That I want; so I deny myself in little things first, till I am able to do it in greater." Neither you nor I can mend her reply. Go thou and do likewise. 31. I have done what I proposed; and indeed in many words than I at first intended. I have told you the occasions of every step I have taken, and the motives inducing me thereto; and they have considered what either you or others have urged on the contrary side of the question. And now the advice I would give upon the whole is this: First, pray earnestly to God for clear light; for a full, piercing and steady conviction, that this is the more excellent way. Pray for a spirit of universal self denial, of cheerful temperance, of wise frugality; for bowels of mercies; for a kind, compassionate spirit, tenderly sensible of the various wants of your brethren; and for firmness of mind; for a mild, courage, without fear, anger, or shame. Then you will once more, with all readiness of heart, make this little (or great) sacrifice to God; and withal present your soul and body a living sacrifice, acceptable unto God through Jesus Christ.—John Wesley. HE alone can become a truly accomplished conversationalist who is gifted with a kind heart, and such a person will always take pleasure in conquering the painful diffidence of others, and in breaking away the limits which separate them from "life." Many persons suffer most unjustly under the imputation of having nothing to say, when the truth is, that few comparative strangers have ever conversed much with them. I believe it will be found that, in most cases, these silent persons are far better worth knowing than the majority of chatterers of common place trifles. If you are so unfortunate as to feel a tremor at the thought of encountering strangers in society, remember that they simply form a collection of persons, with whom you would have no difficulty in conversing singly. If you are conscious of possessing general information equal to that of those whom you expect to meet, and are yourself respectable as regards personal appearance, venture confidently and calmly on the ordeal. You will soon find it is like learning to swim, and that there is no difficulty or danger, even in the first plunge, which is not entirely imaginary. Let nothing deter you, come what may. If in certain circles you meet with people who are unkind enough to be indifferent, or annoy you more directly, take no notice of it; above all, do nothing to revenge yourself, and console your mind with the indubitable truth, that if you avoid acting as they have done, the time will come when you will be far their superior as regards the practice of all in "the art of society" which can make you truly esteemed. OUR DAILY RECKONING.
By The Young Reaper
If you sit down at set of sun,
And count the acts that you have done,
And counting, find
One self-denying act, one word
That eased the heart of him who heard;
One glance, most kind,
That fell like sunshine where it went,
Then you may count that day well spent. But, if through all the livelong day,
You've cheered no heart by yea or nay;
If, through it all,
You've nothing done, that you can trace,
That brought the sunshine to one face;
No act, most small,
That helped some soul, and nothing cost,
Then count that day as worse than lost! Wise Words on Sabbath Observance.
WHILE the teaching of God's word is mainly general, yet it is broad enough to cover the whole question of human duty and the obligations of individual conscience in every condition and generation of mankind. The Bible is a book of principles as well as of institutions. The law is clearly stated, but at the same time, in its detailed application to the specific acts and circumstances, much has been left to the individual conscience and judgment of men. It is here that our responsibility begins. Here we must seek to know the will of God and to cherish the spirit of obedience. A studious collation of Scripture hints will disclose the following particulars of a Christian observance of the Sabbath: 1. The Sabbath must be remembered, Ex. 20:8. 3. It must be secure from ordinary secular occupation, being, in this respect, a day of rest, Ex. 20:8. 4. It must be employed in divine worship—private and public—with meditation, prayer, and the preaching of the word, Isa. 65:23. 6. It must not be dishonored by frivolous recreation or idle pleasure, Isa. 58:13. 10. It must not be polluted by any form of vice or dissipation, Isa. 57:2. 11. It may be used in acts of social intercourse; spent in imperative travel; visiting the prisoner, the sick, or the poor, in religious instruction and deeds of charity, Matt. 12:1, 14; Luke 13:10, 17. 12. It may be employed in any works of necessity or mercy, Mark 2:23, 28, et passim. These conditions of Sabbath obligation apply generally to human society. They belong alike to the individual, the family, the community, the church, and the State.—Princeton Review. "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity."—1 Cor. 13:13. This term was employed in the apostles' time with a different signification, somewhat, than at present. It is from the Greek agapee, which is love. I merely mention this that some may have an accurate idea of the early usage of the word, which we use to express a different meaning. Love, then, is the mainspring of action with the Christian, and incites him to activity for his Lord and Master. It also binds the hearts of Christians together without which but little can be accomplished. When the heart is filled with this divine element, it naturally flows out toward others and delights to labor for Jesus. It is this of which the apostle speaks, which is the fulfilling of the law. Charity or love, unites; while the opposite divides and distracts the flock of God. How precious is this love which is shed abroad in the heart, and makes us love not only the saint, but the poor sinner and wanderer. It sweetens the cup of affliction; brightens the pathway before us, which leads to the land of rest. Praise God for his wondrous love to mankind, and for Jesus, who so loved us that he died that we might obtain life. Let us love one another and God supremely.—T. L. Waugh. Baptist Banner on the Sabbath.
By Editor
THE Baptist Banner is ever welcome to our table. Its columns embrace a wide range of subjects, and its correspondents vigorously discuss questions of vital importance. We would be pleased to have the editor give us a little light on some of his answers to questions. We are anxious to know where he gets his information on some points. We are ever willing to be learners, and to receive instruction from any source. We trust he will gratify our longing desire in this respect. In the Banner of Jan. 8 are the following words:— "The observance of Saturday was first enjoined in the wilderness of Sin between Elim and Sinai. See Exodus 16th chapter. Here is the first command for the observance of Saturday as the Sabbath, to be found in the Bible. And this command was given to the Jews. The keeping of Saturday then is a Jewish ordinance. Who can deny it? No one can find in all the Bible where any one else besides the Jews was made subject to it." Again, in the same article he says:— "When we work on Sunday, unnecessarily, we transgress the fourth commandment of the decalogue. The fourth commandment does not enjoin Saturday as some have thought. 'Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.' The word week is not in it. The seventh day spoken of is not the seventh day of the week necessarily, but the seventh day after labor begins." Now rise up our queries in this wise,— 1. Would the fourth commandment be kept if we worked six days and rested on Wednesday? And if not, why not, if we should begin our weekly labor on Thursday? 2. How may we ascertain that Saturday was the day required to be kept in Ex. 16? 3. How may we learn that the day enjoined in the fourth commandment of Ex. 20, was not the same day which was commanded in Ex. 16. 4. Did God rest upon and bless and sanctify any day of the week upon which we may choose to rest following any six "after labor begins?" 5. Did the Jews keep the day which is enjoined in the fourth commandment of the decalogue, or did they keep some other day? An answer to each of these queries is most respectfully solicited. Questions and Answers.
By Editor
In this question you are unfortunate both in the method of expression, and the texts produced to affirm the query. It is impossible that one person should be both father and son to himself. If the Bible dealt in such incredibilities no one's reason could accept it. Understand, we do not charge absurdity on anybody's faith, for that is not the faith of anybody. Trinitarians do not believe that the Father and Son are one person. Jude 25. God is in truth our Saviour. He gave the Son to be a ransom; he exalted him to grant repentance and remission; "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself." We cannot imagine by what means any one would try to separate the Father from our salvation. 1 Tim. 1:17. This text has no close relation to the question. 1 John 5:7. All critics agree that this text is an interpolation. For proof at length see Dr. Clarke's Commentary. If it were genuine it would not prove the position, as may be seen in the following. John 17:11, 21. A unity of the Father and Son is here clearly stated; but it is not unity of personality. "Keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." Verse 21. "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." Whatever is the nature of the union between the Father and the Son, he prayed that it might be shared by his disciples. No one would insist that he prayed that all his disciples may become one person! These texts sufficiently negative the idea of the question. To repent is, primarily, to turn, or to change one's purpose. The original signifies also to grieve—to be grieved. It is not necessary to notice the shades of meaning of these words; the question may be solved without. 1. God may be grieved with the actions of his creatures. This is abundantly taught in the Scriptures. 2. God may, and does, change his purpose toward individuals, when the purpose is based on a condition. 1 Sam. 3:30. "I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever; but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." He promised indeed to honor the house of Eli, but turned from that purpose because Eli and his family dishonored God. This is laid down as his uniform course of action, that if he speaks to do good to a people, and they turn from him, he will turn from (repent of) the good he spoke of them. See Jer. 18:1-10. Thus he dealt with Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. He promised to bring them into the land of Canaan, but because of their continued rebellions he changed his purpose, and the whole generation perished in Arabia. To them he said, "Ye shall know my breach of promise," margin, "altering of my purpose." 3. We must consider the subject or relation of an expression to be certain of its meaning. Thus, one text says, "with God nothing shall be impossible;" but this refers to his promise, and means that he is able to fulfill it. Another text says "it was impossible for God to lie." There is a verbal, but not an actual, contradiction in these texts. 1 Sam. 15:29 says, "The Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent." He will not falsify nor turn from his word,—"he is not a man, that he should repent." Men often betray the trust reposed in them. God never will. In this respect there is no "shadow of turning" with him. On this and on many other subjects, the difficulty arises from taking an expression that applies to a certain subject or to certain circumstances, and applying it to circumstances of an entirely different nature. Please explain Matt. 19:28. To whom does the promise refer, and to what time? Are the twelve tribes of Israel the literal seed of Abraham, or all the world? G. A. D. 1. The promise was probably made only to the apostles, as the "twelve thrones" would indicate. 2. The regeneration means the renewing, or new birth. This takes place when the Saviour comes on the throne of his glory. For this time compare Matt. 25:31, Rev. 20:1-4. 3. All the saints are called Israel, but there is no sense in which "all the world" are ever called Israel. This must refer to the tribes of literal Israel. To J. W. B.—You will find your question answered if you will follow carefully the argument of Eld. Canright on Future Life, in the articles now going through the SIGNS. Or send for a book, "Nature and Destiny of Man," by Uriah Smith, at this Office. See our list of books. To SISTER, S., Los Angeles. We know Mr. Keyser, to whom you refer, and think you justly style him a fanatic. We are not aware he was ever a preacher with the Seventh-day Adventists, but we personally know that he bitterly complained that he was not accepted in that capacity. We trust he will do no great injury to the cause of present truth, especially if he opposes it. Examination of a Famous Falsehood.
By John Nevins Andrews
CERTAIN doctors of divinity have made a special effort to show that the "stated day" of Pliny's epistle is the first day of the week. For this purpose they adduce a fabulous narrative which the more reliable historians of the church have not deemed worthy of record. The argument is this: That in Pliny's time and afterward, that is, from the close of the first century and onward, whenever the Christians were brought before their persecutors for examination, they were asked whether they had kept the Lord's day, this term being used to designate the first day of the week. And hence two facts are asserted to be established: 1. That when Pliny says that the Christians who were examined by him were accustomed to meet on a stated day, that day was undoubtedly the first day of the week. 2. That the observance of the first day of the week was the grand test by which Christians were known to their heathen persecutors. 3. That the Lord's day was the name by which the first day of the week was known in the time of Pliny, a few years after the death of John. To prove these points, Dr. Edwards makes the following statement:— "Hence the fact that their persecutors, when they wished to know whether men were Christians, were accustomed to put to them this question, viz., 'Dominicum servasti?'—'Hast thou kept the Lord's day?' If they had they were Christians. This was the badge of their Christianity, in distinction from Jews and pagans. And if they said they had, and would not recant, they must be put to death. And what, when they continued steadfast, was their answer? 'Christianus sum; intermittere non possum;'—'I am a Christian; I cannot omit it.' It is a badge of my religion, and the man who assumes it must of course keep the Lord's day, because it is the will of his Lord; and should he abandon it, he would be an apostate from his religion."—Sabbath Manual p. 120. Mr. Gurney, an English first-day writer of some note, uses the same argument and for the same purpose. The importance attached to this statement, and the prominence given to it by the advocates of first-day sacredness, render it proper that its merits should be examined. Dr. Edwards gives no authority for his statment; but Mr. Gurney traces the story to Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, who claimed to have taken it from the Acta Martyrum, an ancient collection of the acts of the martyrs. It was in the early part of the seventeenth century that Bishop Andrews first brought this forward in his speech in the court of Star Chamber against Thraske, who was accused before that arbitrary tribunal of maintaining the heretical opinion that Christians are bound to keep the seventh day as the Sabbath of the Lord. The story was first produced, therefore, for the purpose of confounding an observer of the Sabbath when on trial by his enemies for keeping that day. Sir Wm. Domville, an able anti-Sabbatarian writer, thus traces out the matter:— "The bishop, as we have seen, refers to the Acta of the martyrs as justifying his assertion respecting the question, Dominicum servasti? but he does not cite a single instance from them in which that question was put. We are left therefore to hunt out the instances for ourselves, wherever, if anywhere, they are to be found. The most complete collection of the memoirs and legends still extant, relative to the lives and sufferings of the Christian martyrs, is that by Ruinart, entitled, Acta primorum Martyrum sincera et selecta. I have carefully consulted that work, and I take upon me to affirm that among the questions there stated to have been put to the martyrs in and before the time of Pliny, and for nearly two hundred years afterwards, the question, Dominicum servasti? does not once occur; nor any equivalent question."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 258, 261.85 This shows at once that no proof can be obtained from this quarter, either that the "stated day" of Pliny was the first day of the week, or that the martyrs of the early church were tested by the question whether they had observed it or not. It also shows the statement to be false that the martyrs of Pliny's time called Sunday the Lord's day and kept it as such. After quoting all the questions put to martyrs in and before Pliny's time, and thus proving that no such question as is alleged, was put to them, Domville says:— "This much may suffice to show that Dominicum servasti? was no question in Pliny's time, as Mr Gurney intends us to believe it was. I have, however, still other proof of Mr. Gurney's unfair dealing with the subject, but I defer stating it for the present, that I may proceed in the inquiry, What may have been the authority on which Bishop Andrews relied when stating that Dominicum servasti? was ever a usual question put by the heathen persecutors? I shall with this view pass over the martyrdoms which intervened between Pliny's time and the fourth century, as they contain nothing to the purpose, and shall come at once to that martyrdom the narrative of which was, I have no doubt, the source from which Bishop Andrews derived his question, Dominicum servasti? 'Hold you the Lord's day?' This martyrdom happened A. D. 304, [The date in Baronius is A. D. 303.] The sufferers were Saturninus and his four sons, and several other persons. They were taken to Carthage, and brought before the proconsul Amulinus. In the account given of their examination by him, the phrases, 'Celebrare Dominicum,' and 'Agere Dominicum,' frequently occur, but in no instance is the verb 'servare' used in reference to Dominicum. I mention this chiefly to show that when Bishop Andrews, alluding, as no doubt he does, to the narrative of this martyrdom, says the question was, Dominicum servasti? it is very clear that he had not his author at hand, and that in trusting to his memory, he coined a phrase of his own."—Exam. pp. 263-265. Domville quotes at length the conversation between the proconsul and the martyrs, which is quite similar in most respects to Gurney's and Edward's quotation from Andrews. He then adds:— "The narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus being the only one which has the appearance of supporting the assertion of Bishop Andrews that, 'Hold you the Lord's day?' was the usual question to the martyrs, what if I should prove that even this narrative affords no support to that assertion? yet nothing is more easy than this proof; for Bishop Andrews has quite mistaken the meaning of the word Dominicum in translating it 'the Lord's day.' It had no such meaning. It was a barbarous word in use among some of the ecclesiastical writers in, and subsequent to, the fourth century, to express sometimes a church, and at other times the Lord's supper, but never the Lord's day.* My authorities on this point are— 1. "Ruinart, who, upon the word Dominicum, in the narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus, has a note, in which he says it is a word signifying the Lord's supper ('Dominicum vero desinat sacra mysteria'), and he quotes Tertullian and Cyprian in support of this interpretation. 2. "The editors of the Benedictine edition of St Augustine's works. They state that the word Dominicum has the two meanings of a church and the Lord's supper. For the former they quote among other authorities, a canon of the council of Neo Cesarea. For the latter meaning they quote Cyprian, and refer also to St. Augustine's account of his conference with the Donatists, in which allusion is made to the narrative of the martyrdom of Saturninus.‡ 3. "Gesner, who, in his Latin Thesaurus published in 1749, gives both meanings to the word Dominicum. For that of the Lord's supper he quotes Cyprian; for that of a church he quotes Cyprian and also Hillary."—Examination of the Six Texts, pp. 267, 268. The Entering of Thy Word Giveth Light
"The entering of Thy word giveth light." Scandinavian Mission.
By Editor
ALL will be pleased to learn that the recommendation of Bro. White is being promptly acted upon by our Scandinavian brethren, to raise means to assist Eld. Matteson in publishing the present truth in Christiana, Norway. Bro. John F. Hanson reports as follows from Iowa:— “I have recently held eleven meetings with the churches at Elkhorn and Altamont. In these meetings I have tried to raise some money for the Scandinavian mission, in accordance with the testimony from Bro. and Sr. White. Feb. 9, the Elkhorn church pledged for that mission $408, a part of which is paid, and also voted to send for a set of Sr. White’s books to keep as a church library. Feb. 15, 16, I was with the brethren at Altamont, where they willingly pledged $76 for the same mission, and paid a part of it. We thank the Lord for this liberality and love for the good cause on the part of these two churches, and hope and pray that the rest of our Scandinavian churches, as well in Iowa as in any other State, will show the same love for their own brethren.” IN making out news notes from the daily papers it often happens that reports are itemized which prove to be untrue; but, unfortunately, it does not always happen that false reports are corrected. We recently copied a statement in circulation to the effect that Neal Dow said Mr. Spurgeon drank beer. It now appears that Mr. Spurgeon denies that he drinks beer, and Gen. Dow denies that in his statements he had any reference to Mr. Spurgeon! We sympathize with Mr. Spurgeon for the unjust obloquy cast upon his name, and also with Mr. Dow who has been sufficiently abused for the supposed slander. Now, if it can authoritatively be denied that Mr. Spurgeon uses tobacco, or smokes cigars, we shall be still more pleased, and will promptly note it. THERE is no passage of Scripture upon which more reliance is placed to prove that the first day of the week is the appointed day of Christian observance, than Rev. 1:10. And no one comes farther from affording any proof of that assertion; the evidence derived from it (if such it may be called) is purely inferential. By no possible means can it be made to prove what is affirmed concerning it. We present a few considerations. 1. This is the only place in the New Testament where this phrase—the Lord's day—is found. The object or thing to which reference is made may be referred to in many other places, but not in these words. 2. The Lord does not, in direct terms, in the New Testament, lay claim to any particular day as being his in any special sense of proprietorship, as he does in the Old Testament. The evidence of such claim is found in recognition and allusion, not in any direct statement. 3. The Lord does, in the most direct and unequivocal terms, in the Old Testament, put forth his claim to one day of the week of seven days, as being his day, separated from merely human interests, or secular work, to be devoted to his service and worship, and to be observed in commemoration of the work of creation. 4. Because God rested the seventh day "from all his work," he chose this alone to commemorate his work. Indeed, he could not have chosen any other day of the first week of time for this purpose, for on no other day could he rest "from all his work." At the commencement of each of the other days of that creation week, his work was yet incomplete. On the sixth day the work was complete; the seventh was his day of rest. 5. For this reason he sanctified the seventh day,—separated it from the other days, called "working days," and "set it apart to a holy use." Concerning it he used such expressions as these: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." "The seventh day shall be to you holiness, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord." "The holy of the Lord." "My holy day." This was so often and definitely stated in the word of God that wheresoever the holy Scriptures were known the seventh day was also known as the Sabbath. 6. The Sabbath was mentioned often in the New Testament, and as familiarly as in the Old without any explanations being given, none being needed. For Christ and his apostles were constantly appealing to "the Scriptures" for their authority, and, as before stated, wherever the Scriptures were known, there it was well known that the seventh day—the Lord's holy day—was meant when the Sabbath was mentioned. 7. There is no intimation either in the Old Testament or the New, that any other day than the seventh was, or was to be, the Sabbath of the Lord. No other day was sanctified—set apart from secular uses—or claimed by the Lord as his day. 8. On all this evidence we claim that Rev 1:10, when speaking of the Lord's day, alludes to the seventh day, and to no other, for no other was known as being set apart to the Lord at that time. Dr. Barnes, speaking of the words rendered Lord's day, says:— "So far as the word is concerned, it might mean a day pertaining to the Lord, in any sense, or for any reason—either because he claimed it as his own, and set it apart for his service, or because it was assigned to commemorate some important event." Now all these particulars apply to the seventh day as the Lord's day. (1.) He claimed it as his own. (2.) He set it apart for his service. (3.) He designated it to commemorate an important event, even the creation of the heavens and the earth. But neither of them applies to the first day. (1.) He never claimed it as his own. (2.) He never set it apart for his service. (3.) He never designated it to commemorate any event. If "the Scriptures" are left to settle this important question the controversy will soon be ended.