Earlier text: EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLEY'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH“New Lights.”
By F. A. Buzzell
From the “Life of Eld. Benjamin Randall,” by Eld. John Buzzell, I copy the following, which was from Eld. R’s diary. He says, in reference to George Whitefield: “But oh! how disgusting to me was the news of his arrival; for I was much opposed to all traveling preachers, who in those days were called ‘new lights;’ and in short to all except the settled clergy, and to everything but form, so that the power of God was even a torment to me. Where there was any power in the preaching, I thought it was all delusion and enthusiasm; and that all such preachers were turning the world upside down, breaking up churches, frightening the people, that their earnest and loud preaching was all affected and disposed to make the people cry out, and make a noise; and that they preached only because they would not work.” “I felt enough of persecution to have had all such preachers whipped out of town; though I should not liked to have been seen in it myself I should have been willing to have seen others do it.” “Believing there are many others of the same disposition, I mention this with grief and shame, that if any such should ever read it, they may take warning, and cry to God to change their hearts, and give themselves no rest, till they feel the disposition removed. Oh! how dreadful to a profession of religion, a form of godliness, yet denying the power, to belong to a church, eat and drink in Christ’s name, yet hate his spiritual appearing. * O, persecuting Pharisees, Christian professors, take warning, I pray you before it be too late.” We feel that if Randall were living now, he might, without much trouble, find many to whom this appeal could with propriety be made. Free-will Baptists, I ask you, was the founder of your society wrong in regard to his spirit of persecution? So he confessed. Well, will you, who may feel something of this persecuting spirit, receive this good man’s earnest counsel? “Take warning before it be too late.” Are there any “new lights” within your ken? Do you see them to your mind, “turning the world up-side down?” “breaking up churches?” “frightening the people?” Remember the words, How dreadful to belong to a church, eat and drink in Christ’s name, yet hate his personal appearing. (Excuse me for changing one word.) And here you may with propriety question if the writer of this article styles your society the church having a “form of godliness,” &c. We would hope that it is not; yet from further extracts from the same source, we infer that Eld. Randall feared it might become so, and in all kindness we urge you candidly to consider his words below quoted. Are they prophetic? Will they become so? In his farewell to the New Durham quarterly meeting, with a fatherly love and gentle admonition, Randall writes: “There is in some branches and in some members in this connection, I think, a great inclination to mingle with the world; and this I fear will cause a great deal of trouble. Oh! beware of it, I pray you; for we are called out from among the world and from every people under heaven; and our prosperity wholly depends on our following our heavenly leader; and if we do not, God will raise him up another people, and we shall sink as others have done before us.” We give the italics. We conclude from the history of the past, and the evidences of the present time, that if God calls out a people from the world and the different denominations, they will exhibit a marked dissimilarity to those from whom they have been called out. Therefore if Methodists or Baptists who have evidently been called out, present a favorable contrast in their spirituality, their dress, and their labor for souls, to senior denominations, it is very good evidence that they are still the people of God. But if there is a striking similarity between orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, &c., aside from form and ceremony, two things are very evident; either they have not continued in favor with Him who called them out, or, they were called out to be a “peculiar” people for a season only, to relapse again into the old ruts. Do you, Baptists, or Methodists, desire to know whether you are the “peculiar people,” “zealous of good works”? Do not decide the matter yourself; you are in danger of being prejudiced. Ask the world’s people, the sinner, the scoffer, and skeptic, if they see your good works. If there is a contrast they will know it. “Prove all things, hold fast that which is good, and despise not prophesyings.” And let us who think we, as Seventh-day Adventists, are called out, take to ourselves the warning of a Randall—to beware how we “mingle with the world” lest we lose our crown. F. A. BUZZELL. ONE day, having to go down to St. Katharine’s Docks from the city, I thought I should save a little journey by going through the Tower of London. So I entered the gates at the west end, and walked along some little distance, passing through archways, and over draw-bridges, till at last I approached the high wall that runs along the eastern boundary of the Tower precincts. The place where I had to go, was only just the other side of this wall, and I had but to pass through the gateway before me, and I should arrive at my destination. But at this gateway I found a policeman stationed, who opened and shut the door as the people passed to and fro; and I noticed that he spoke to each person, as he came up, before he let him through. On coming up to the gateway, the policeman stopped me and thus accosted me: “The password, if you please, sir.” “The password? I have no password to give you,” I replied. “Then I cannot allow you to pass,” said he. “But my business is urgent, and I have but to go to these docks; you’ll let me pass surely?” “No, sir, I can not.” I tried to persuade him, but he was inflexible. “It is more than my place is worth,” said he; “I dare not let any one through without the password.” Seeing that all expostulation was useless, I turned round with no other alternative than that of going all the way back, and walking round—altogether a walk of some distance. As I returned, my mortification was not a little increased at seeing others coming up, and on giving the password, at once allowed to go through. In this simple incident, what an illustration we have, thought I, of another journey, and the gateway at the entrance of the Heavenly City! How important that we should know the password! Let us try to picture the scene. The gate is guarded, people are coming to seek for admittance. Here is one who, with confident step, marches up to the gate, and loudly knocking, demands an entrance. The password is required. “Oh,” says he, “don’t you know who I am? why, I am well known as a man of generosity. I have made good use of my wealth in relieving distress, promoting the cause of religion, and establishing churches. And, thank God, I can say, I have never offended either against the laws of my country, or the commands of my God. I am not one of those who have sunk in sin. So open the gates, and let me enter.” But the answer is—“The gates can not be opened, as you have not given the password.” Then up comes another. He is not so respectable a man as the former. “No,” says he, “I can not justify myself for I am a sinner indeed, my soul is guilty, and I have no good works to bring; but I’ve repented of my sins: behold my tears, my sighs, my groans, my prayers! Oh, sir, are not these enough to gain for me an entrance into the celestial city.” Ah! the gates are still fast closed, because he can not give the password. But look again. There is one coming with trembling step and eyes cast down—he is afraid almost to approach the gate. At last he gives a gentle rap. It is asked, “Who art thou?” “I’m a poor, undone sinner,” saith he; “I come for mercy.” “What is your plea? Do you know the password?” “JESUS ONLY,” cries the penitent. And no sooner do the words escape his lips, than the portals fly open, and ten thousand voices fill the air, “Come in, come in, dear soul, thrice welcome!” Thus it is, dear reader; until we have been enabled to say from our inmost soul, “Jesus only,” we have not yet learned “Heaven’s password.” It is not merely taking these words upon our lips, or even having a head knowledge of the fact that Jesus only can save the soul, that will admit us into Heaven; but it is a real heart-felt experience of the truth, that we, as sinners, can do nothing, either to cleanse from sin, or to clothe with righteousness; but that for all this we must trust in “JESUS ONLY.” LORD, if thou direct, I will advance.
In thy wisdom and thy strength
I will advance.
If I but really know, my duty is to go,
I will not wait for friend or foe,
But will advance. Lord, if thou direct, I will stand still.
Intrenched behind thy shield
I will stand still. [sit still,”]
If from my lack of skill, “my strength is to
If it should be thy holy will,
I will stand still. Lord, if thou direct, I will retire.
In obscurity to rest,
I will retire.
If my mortal race is run, and the victory has [been won,
I can say, Thy will be done,
And retire. “I REMEMBER away up in a lonely Highland valley, where beneath a tall black cliff, all weather-worn and cracked and seamed, there lies at the foot, resting on the green sward that creeps round its base, a huge rock, that has fallen from the face of the precipice. “A shepherd was passing beneath it; and suddenly, when the finger of God’s will touched it, and rent it from its ancient bed in the everlasting rock, it came down, leaping and bounding from pinnacle to pinnacle, and it fell; and the man that was beneath it is there now! ‘ground to powder.’ “Ah, my brethren, that is not my illustration; that is Christ’s. Therefore I say to you, since all that stand against him shall become ‘as the chaff of the summer threshing-floor,’ and be swept utterly away, make him the foundation on which you build; and when the storm sweeps away every ‘refuge of lies,’ you will be safe and serene, builded upon the Rock of Ages.”—M’Laren. THERE are readers who are never happier, as mere readers, than when they light upon a typographical error in their favorite author or journal. No beauty in the blemished page gives quite so much of a certain kind of satisfaction as the blemish itself, for that enables the reader to rise for a moment superior to the writer, however learned, brilliant, or graceful he may be. The reader seems to have the impression, more or less vague, that he is himself an exceedingly clever fellow, and straightway sends a note to the editor, pointing out the error that was in his last issue. Every journalist knows this kind of a note, and has dropped hundreds of such missives, half read, into his waste paper basket, for it is only people unfamiliar with types who think it worth their while to make an ado about an inverted letter or a misplaced comma. Typographical perfection is impossible even in works slowly and carefully prepared. It is unreasonable to demand it in a newspaper, the writing and printing of which are naturally done in haste. The wonder is, that there are so few mistakes. Let readers reflect for a moment that every letter on this page is produced by a separate piece of metal, so small that only the most skillful fingers can handle it dexterously. The slightest displacement of one of these slender strips of lead would inevitably cause a blunder. How easy it is to drop a type, or misplace, or dent it. Even after the proof-reader has corrected his proof sheet, all the chances, and a hundred others, are possible. In correcting one error in the types, it is easy for the compositor to disarrange a word in another part of the next. Then, proof-readers are mortal. There is nothing easier in this world—lying not excepted—than not to see a misprint until it is too late to amend it, and then the blunder that escaped the keenest eye always has the faculty of becoming the most prominent thing on the page, and making the proof-reader wonder how in the world it escaped him. An author or proof-reader may revise and revise, and at the end find that he has overlooked some serious flaw. Then, again, in “making up” a form, the printer may let a type fall out, and in replacing it, he may put it in the wrong place—or again, he may not notice its absence, and then a blank is left. This is true of books as well as newspapers. There has never yet been produced a volume of any considerable size, free from typographical blemishes.—Every Saturday. The United States in the Light of Prophecy.
A very marked and rapid change is taking place in public opinion relative to the proposed religious amendment of the Constitution. We have learned of instances of men who were at first openly hostile to the movement, now giving their influence for its advancement, and clamoring loudly for a Sunday law. And some who at first regarded it with indifference, are now becoming its warm partizans. As a sample of this change of feeling, the following paragraph from the Christian Press of Jan., 1872, may be presented. The Christian Press is the organ of the Western Book and Tract Society, Cincinnati, Ohio, and the editor, speaking of the National Association above referred to, says:— “When this Association was formed, while we were prepared to bid it God-speed, we did not then feel that there was any pressing need for the object sought; and, as our mission was specially directed to the Christianizing, enlightening and elevating the masses of the people, we have said little in our columns on the subject, being assured that if the people are right, it is easy to set the government right. The late combined efforts, however, of various classes of our citizens to exclude the Bible from our schools, repeal our Sabbath laws, and divorce our government entirely from religion, and thus make it an atheistic government—for every government must be for God or against him, and must be administered in the interests of religion and good morals, or in the interests of irreligion and immorality—have changed our mind, and we are now prepared to urge the necessity for an explicit acknowledgment in the National Constitution of the authority of God and the supremacy of his law, as revealed in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments.” With the anti-Sunday movements of the present day, considering their associations, and the manner and object in and for which they are carried forward, we have no sympathy. They aim at utter no-Sabbathism, freedom from all moral restraint, and all the evils of unbridled intemperance—evils which we abhor with all the strength of a moral nature quickened by the most intense religious convictions. And while the indignation of the better portion of the community will be aroused at the lack of religious principle and the immorality attending the popular anti-Sunday movements, a little lack of discrimination, by no means uncommon, will, on account of our opposition to the day, though we oppose it on entirely different ground, easily associate us with the class above mentioned, and subject us to the same odium. Meanwhile, some see the evils involved in this movement, and raise the voice of alarm. The Christian Union, Jan., 1871, said: “The friends of the measure are not likely ever to agree among themselves. The Convention which met in Philadelphia on the 18th inst. to consider this subject, refused to accept a phraseology which simply recognizes the Deity, and insisted upon including in the amendment the name of Jesus Christ as well. A party, in behalf of the Holy Spirit, which is so conspicuously slighted, will be next in order; and then the way will be open for a proposition to recognize the ‘Viceregent of Christ on earth,’ as the true source of power among the nations! If the proposed amendment is anything more than a bit of sentimental cant, it is to have a legal effect. It is to alter the status of the non-Christian citizen before the law. It is to affect the legal oaths and instruments, the matrimonial contracts, the sumptuary laws, &c., &c., of the country. This would be an outrage on natural right.” The Janesville (Wis.) Gazette, at the close of an article on the proposed amendment, speaks thus of the effect of the movement, should it succeed:— “But, independent of the question as to what extent we are a Christian nation, it may well be doubted whether, if the gentlemen who are agitating this question should succeed, they would not do society a very great injury. Such measures are but the initiatory steps which ultimately lead to restrictions of religious freedom, and to commit the government to measures which are as foreign to its powers and purposes as would its action be if it should undertake to determine a disputed question of theology.” The Weekly Alta Californian of San Francisco, March 12, 1870, said:— “The parties who have been recently holding a convention for the somewhat novel purpose of procuring an amendment to the Constitution of the United States recognizing the Deity, do not fairly state the case when they assert that it is the right of a Christian people to govern themselves in a Christian manner. If we are not governing ourselves in a Christian manner, how shall the doings of our government be designated? The fact is that the movement is one to bring about in this country that union of church and State which all other civilized nations are now trying to dissolve.” The N. Y. Independent, Feb., 1870, spoke of the movement as having the same chance of success that a union of church and State would have. The Champlain Journal speaking of incorporating the religious principle into the Constitution and its effect upon the Jews, said:— “However slight, it is the entering wedge of church and State. If we may cut off ever so few persons from the right of citizenship on account of difference of religious belief, then with equal justice and propriety may a majority at any time dictate the adoption of still further articles of belief, until our Constitution is but the text-book of a sect beneath whose tyrannical sway all liberty of religious opinion will be crushed.” For a union of church and State, strictly so-called, we do not look. In place of this we apprehend that what is called “the image,” a creation as strange as it is unique, comes in—not a State controlled by the church, and the church in turn supported by the State, but an ecclesiastical establishment empowered to enforce its own decrees by civil penalties; which in all its practical bearings amounts to exactly the same thing. The direct aim of the movement is undoubtedly a union of church and State; a result which it will so nearly accomplish as to secure, by way of compromise, the erection of the image. Some one may now say, As you expect this movement to carry, you must look for a period of religious persecution in this country; nay, more, you must take the position that all the saints of God are to be put to death; for the image is to cause that all who will not worship it shall be killed. There would, perhaps, be some ground for such a conclusion, were we not elsewhere informed that in this dire conflict God does not abandon his people to defeat, but grants them a complete victory over the beast, his image, his mark, and the number of his name. Rev. 15:2. We further read respecting this earthly power, that he causeth all to receive a mark in their right hand or their foreheads; yet chapter 20:4 speaks of some who do not receive the mark nor worship the image. If, then, he could cause all to receive the mark, and yet all not actually receive it, in like manner his causing all to be put to death who will not worship the image, does not necessarily signify that their lives are actually to be taken. But how can this be? Answer: It evidently comes under that rule of interpretation in accordance with which verbs of action sometimes signify merely the will and endeavor to do the action in question, not the actual performance of the thing specified. George Bush, Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in N. Y. City University, makes this matter plain. In his Notes on Ex. 7:11, he says:— “It is a canon of interpretation of frequent use in the exposition of the sacred writings that verbs of action sometimes signify merely the will and endeavor to do the action in question. Thus Eze. 24:13: ‘I have purified thee, and thou wast not purged;’ i. e., I have endeavored, and used means, to purify thee. John 5:44: ‘How can ye believe which receive honor one of another;’ i. e., endeavor to receive. Rom 2:4: ‘The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance;’ i. e., endeavors, or tends, to lead thee. Amos 9:3: ‘Though they be hid from my sight in the bottom of the sea;’ i. e., though they aim to be hid. 1 Cor. 10:33: ‘I please all men;’ i. e., endeavor to please. Gal. 5:4: ‘Whosoever of you are justified by the law;’ i. e., seek and endeavor to be justified. Ps. 69:4: ‘They that destroy me are mighty;’ i. e., that endeavor to destroy me. Eng. ‘That would destroy me.’ Acts 7:26: ‘And set them at one again’; i. e., wished and endeavored. Eng. ‘Would have set them.’” So in the passage before us: He causes all to receive a mark, and all who will not worship the image, to be killed; that is, he wills, purposes, and endeavors, to do this; he makes such an enactment, passes such a law, but is not able to execute it; for God interposes in behalf of his people; and then those who have kept the word of Christ’s patience, are kept from the hour of temptation, kept from falling, according to Rev. 3:10: then those who have made God their refuge, are kept from all evil, and no plague comes nigh their dwelling, according to Ps. 91:9, 10; then all who are found written in the book, are delivered, according to Dan. 12:1; and being victors over the beast and his image, they are redeemed from among men, and raise a song of everlasting triumph before the throne of God. Rev. 14:4; 15:2. Another objector may say, You are altogether too credulous in supposing that all the skeptics of our land, the spiritualists, the German infidels, and the irreligious masses generally, can be so far brought to favor the religious observance of Sunday, that a general law can be promulgated in its behalf. We answer, The prophecy must be fulfilled; and if the prophecy requires such a revolution, it will be accomplished. But we do not know that it is necessary. Permit us to suggest an idea, which, though it is only conjecture, may show how enough can be accomplished to fulfill the prophecy, without involving the classes mentioned. This movement, as has been shown, must originate with the churches of our land, and be carried forward by them. They wish to enforce certain practices among all the people; and it would be very natural that, in reference to those points respecting which they wish to influence the outside masses, they should see the necessity of first having absolute conformity among all the evangelical denominations. They could not expect to influence non-religionists to any great degree on questions respecting which they were divided among themselves. So, then, let union be had on those views and practices which the great majority already entertain. To this end co-ercion may first be attempted. But here are a few who cannot possibly attach to the observance of the first day, which the majority wish to secure, any religious obligation; and would it be anything strange for the sentence to be given, Let these few factionists be made to conform, by persuasion if possible, by force, if necessary. Thus the blow may fall on conscientious commandment-keepers, before the outside masses are involved in the issue at all. Thus much by way of conjecture, to which every one is left to attach as much or as little weight as may seem to him proper. To receive the mark of the beast in the forehead, is, we understand, to give the assent of the mind and judgment to his authority in the adoption of that institution, which constitutes the mark. By parity of reasoning, to receive it in the hand, would be to signify allegiance by some outward act. The number over which the saints are also to get the victory, is the number of the papal beast, called also the number of his name, and said to be the number of a man, and said to be six hundred three score and six. The pope wears upon his pontifical crown in jewelled letters, this title; “Vicarius Filii Dei,” “Viceregent of the Son of God;” the numerical value of which title is just six hundred and sixty-six. The most plausible supposition we have ever seen on this point is that here we find the number in question. It is the number of the beast, the papacy; it is the number of his name; for he adopts it as his distinctive title; it is the number of a man; for he who bears it is the “Man of Sin.” We get the victory over it, by refusing those institutions and practices which he sets forth as evidence of his power to sit supreme in the temple of God, and by adopting which we should acknowledge the validity of his title, by conceding his right to act for the church in behalf of the Son of God. And now, reader, we leave with you this subject. We confidently submit the argument as one which is invulnerable in all its points. We ask you to review it carefully. Take in, if thou canst comprehend it, the wonderful phenomenon of our own nation. Consider its location, the time of its rise, the manner of its rise, its character, Satan’s masterpiece of lying wonders which he has here sprung upon the world, and the elements which are everywhere working to fulfill in just as accurate a manner every other specification of the prophecy. Can you doubt the application? We know not how. Then the last agents to appear in this world’s history are on the stage of action, the close of this dispensation is at hand, and the Lord cometh speedily to judge the world. Then an issue of appalling magnitude is before us. It is no less than this: To yield to unrighteous human enactments soon to be made, and thus expose ourselves to the unmingled wrath of an insulted Creator, or to remain loyal to our God and brave the utmost wrath of the dragon and his infuriated hosts. In reference to this issue the third angel now utters his solemn and vehement warning. To aid in sounding over the land this timely note of alarm, to impress upon hearts the importance of a right position in the coming issue, and the necessity of pursuing such a course as will secure the favor of God in the season of earth’s direst extremity, and a share at last in his glorious salvation, is the object of this effort. And if with any it shall have this effect, the prayer of the writer will not be utterly unanswered, nor his labor be wholly lost. The Dress Question—A Puzzled Woman.
By James White
A SISTER writes to me, asking me the following question: “Why do the Adventist brethren dress so much like other gentlemen, and require the sisters to dress so peculiarly singular? I must confess I have been a little puzzled over the matter sometimes, when I could not tell one of our ministers from other well-dressed men in a crowd.” 1. It is necessary to a proper understanding of any question, that all irrelevant statements should be set aside. In the above question there is a material error in the statement. It charges that the “brethren” “require the sisters to dress peculiarly singular.” Who are the brethren who require this? If there are any such, I would be pleased to be informed thereof. Now, I would invite all the sisters who are in any way perplexed on this subject, to stop and consider anew the reasons of their action. How was this Dress Reform introduced among us? Do our sisters adopt it as a duty, as a matter of conscience, or because the “brethren require it?” 2. Is there any objection to our ministers’ dressing like “well-dressed men” so long as they pay no deference to any prevailing fashion? The truth is, that fashion has but a slight hold on the male portion of the community. The cities are infested with a class called “fops” who are as much a standing advertisement of their tailors, as ordinary fashionable women are of their milliners. But, while very many of our sisters are ever inclining toward the latest fashions, our ministers, and our brethren generally, would be ashamed to be seen on the street in the style of a fop or a dandy. It is a fact beyond dispute that women, more than men, are inclined to run after fashion, finery, and show. Whether it is something peculiar to their nature as “the weaker vessel,” or whether it is the result of education, I cannot say. But no one will deny the fact. Except dandies, the men will not submit to an uncomfortable compression of the waist; but how many women in any community can be found whose dresses around the waist are fitted for comfort and health? What lady will wear a hat or bonnet for protection in a cold day, when fashion requires that only a slight covering shall be stuck on the top of the head? How many females can be found on the streets of any city or even village, with good, heavy-soled shoes on the feet even in very wet weather? Or how many can be found with good, comfortable clothing around their ankles who can walk the streets so clad without a sense of shame? Shame for what? For daring to appear before people in a comfortable, healthful style of dress, which is not in fashion. When large, unsightly hoops were in fashion, well-meaning Christian women would insist that they were necessary for convenience, for comfort, and even for health. When they go out of fashion, neither convenience, comfort, nor health will induce those same women to wear them. For myself, I should be a hopeless invalid on account of rheumatism before one winter passed over me, if I had to dress as the great majority of females dress. And is it any wonder that women are weakly, pale, consumptive, and subject to almost unnumbered complaints known to the medical profession as “female complaints,” the majority of which are truly “fashion and folly complaints?” If females are subject to more complaints than men, by their constitution and nature, why do they not dress so as to avoid them, and to guard their health as far as possible, instead of so dressing as to induce them? Why not? Because they dare not! Fashion holds them with an iron grasp. Now as long as women are slaves to fashion and to the fear of the world, so long they must bear a cross in dressing comfortably, healthfully, or, sometimes, even decently. When they emancipate69 themselves from this slavery, then the heavy cross will cease and they can begin to enjoy life. I cannot see that it is our duty to be singular for the sake of singularity. Some love to appear eccentric, but I have always thought that it impaired their influence and usefulness. But where fashion rules, and duty demands a departure from its rules, there should be no hesitation. Let the sisters encourage and assist each other by consistency, and modest independence in the way of right, and they will soon reap the benefit of reform, in comfort and the enjoyment of better health, and in the blessing of Heaven, which requires that we “be not conformed to this present world.” To Correspondents.
By J. H. W.
M. A. CONRAD: You ask if the Gentiles to whom Paul preached, used pork. Undoubtedly they did; and whether or not the apostle undertook to reform them in reference to this practice, except on the general principles of temperance, and the abstaining from things hurtful, we are not informed. J. M. G.: The most reliable chronologers make the world to be, at the present time, about six thousand years old. Please inform me through the REVIEW what the Greek word is from which “at hand” is translated in Matt. 4: 17 and 2 Thess. 2: 2. In Bro. White’s tract, “The Kingdom,” he says the first is “engizo,” and the second is “enisteemi,” while in the book, entitled “Prophecy of Daniel, Four Kingdoms, Sanctuary, and Twenty-three Hundred Days,” it is given in Matt. 4: 17, to be “engikee,” in 2 Thess. 2: 2 is given “enisteeken.” Now can it be both, or which is correct? ANS. Both are correct, essentially. They are but different forms of the same words. In the REVIEW of Jan. 16, under the heading Question Answered, I find an exposition of Rom. 10: 4: “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. I shall not object to the exposition, only I think the phrase, “Law for righteousness,” refers particularly to the Levitical priesthood law of sacrifices, by which the people received atonement, and consequently, justification, or righteousness, in believing in the Messiah to whom these sacrifices pointed.” The Levitical priesthood, in which all those rites were administered, being typical of the sufferings and death of Christ by which we receive the atonement and justification. Therefore, Christ is not only the scope and design of that law, but also the termination of it. Col. 2: 14: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” For further evidence of this fact, I refer the reader to the whole epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, wherein he portrays the similarity of the priesthood of Aaron to that of Christ, and wherein he describes the greater excellency of that of Christ to that of the former. ANS. All that is here said about the relation of the priesthoods of Aaron and Christ is correct. But that Heb. 10: 4 refers to the priesthood of Aaron cannot be correct. See the exposition to which you refer, on the latter part of the verse. Your theory would have some show of plausibility if you could make it appear that Christ was the termination of any law to the believer and not to the unbeliever. But, as such an idea is absurd, your view must be wrong. QUES. Is it right to raise swine to sell? ANS. We are disposed to leave this question to be answered by Rom. 14: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” We cannot consent to bind people’s consciences in matters concerning which we have no direct order in the Scriptures. 2. A man here belonging to the M. E. church, claims, from what is recorded in Gen. 2, that man and woman were not created until after God’s six days of labor were ended. Will you give us light on the subject? 1. On the second part of this verse there can be no query. Christ is the second Adam, a quickening, or life-giving spirit. The first is a quotation from Gen. 2: 7: man, the first Adam, became a “living soul.” Clarke, in commenting on Gen. 1: 24, says of the phrase “living creature:” “nephesh chaiyah; a general term to express all creatures endued with animal life, in any of its infinitely varied gradations, from the half-reasoning elephant, down to the stupid potto.” But Clarke does not mention the fact that the words living soul in Gen. 2: 7, applied to man, are exactly the same as in chap. 1: 24, there rendered “living creature.” Our confidence in his commentary might sometimes be heightened if he had told the whole truth on some important points. His remarks on the formation of man, and the difference between his body and soul, are entirely out of harmony with his comment on the same words in chap. 1: 24. The true idea of chap. 2: 7, may be found as follows: “Man became a living soul”—text: “A general term to express all creatures endued with animal life.”—Clarke. 2. We do not know what object, or what reason, he can have for making such a statement. Gen. 1 shows the order of God’s work of creation; and the making of man is set down as part of the work of the sixth day. In chap. 2 the making of man is referred to in order to show how he was made, and to introduce the narrative of his probation. But it does not contradict the definite statement of chap. 1, or say that man was made on any other than the sixth day of the first week.