Review and Herald, Vol. 35, No. 22. (5/17/1870)

Review and Herald

May 17, 1870

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 17, 1870

OUR FAITH AND HOPE;

By James White

Or, Reasons Why We Believe as We Do.

NUMBER TWENTY-FOUR—THE THIRD MESSAGE.

BY ELDER JAMES WHITE.

(Continued.)

3. THE mark and worship of the beast. The two-horned beast causes men to worship the first beast and receive his mark. The worship and mark are alike enforced by the two-horned beast. It is this worship and mark against which the third angel warns us. It becomes, therefore, a matter of solemn moment to inquire what is meant by these expressions, since the message levels against these things, whatever they are, a denunciation more terrific than any other threatening that can be found in the word of God. The sin must be one which is most presumptuous and Heaven-daring. What is it? Many are ready to assert that we never can know, and accuse us of prying into secret things, when we raise the question. But is this possible? If we cannot know what the mark and worship are, we are liable to receive the one, and perform the other, without knowing it. We then become subject to the terrible punishment threatened. But would God ever punish a person thus for sins which he did not know he was committing? Never. It would be contrary to the principles on which he has thus far dealt with mankind, and contrary to the justice of his own nature. And a special message, that of the third angel, is sent out to warn men, not against something they are never to know anything about, but against a plain and open act of disloyalty to God, which the two-horned beast is to require of them, and to which if they yield, they must drink of the unmingled wrath of God. We return to the inquiry, What is the mark of the beast?

The beast, as we have seen, is the Papacy. The two-horned beast which is to enforce the mark is our own government. What is the mark of the Papacy which this nation is to enforce? It must be something on which they occupy common ground, and in which both are equally interested. The mark of any power must be something to distinguish the adherents of that power. This none can dispute. And that which distinguishes the adherents of any power, must be some law, requirement, or institution of that power. It can be nothing else. The mark of the beast, then, must be some requirement, of course of a religious nature, which the Papacy has instituted, and to which it claims obedience from its followers, as a token of its right to legislate in religious matters. This is an unavoidable conclusion from the foregoing principles, which must be admitted as sound.

Again, the beast has been shown to be identical with the little horn of Dan. 7; and of that power it is said that he should “think to change times and laws.” What laws are these which the Papacy should think to change, but not have power to change? It must be divine laws, the laws of God; for all human laws may be changed by earthly powers. This power is again brought to view under the title of the “Man of Sin;” 2 Thess. 2:3; and of him it is said that he “exalteth himself above all that is called God.” How could he do this? There is one way, and only one, in which it could be done, and that is, to change the law of God by putting in place of some of its requirements an enactment of his own, and demanding obedience to that change, to the violation of the law of God.

In all these testimonies, the evidence tends with wonderful harmony to one conclusion, namely, that the Papacy was to promulgate some religious enactment, which would involve a change of the law of God, and obedience to which would stand as an acknowledgment of its supremacy in religious things. If we can find a Papal enactment of such a nature, this surely must be the mark of the beast. It may now facilitate our investigations of this subject to appeal directly to the Romish church for information. Among its claims and institutions do we find anything of this kind? We do; and it may surprise some Protestants to learn that it is the institution of Sunday in place of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Hear what that church claims on the subject of the change of the Sabbath:

“Ques. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?”

“Ans. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no scriptural authority.”—Doct. Catechism.

“Q. How prove you that the church hath power to command feasts and holy days?”

“A. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and, therefore, they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same church.

“Q. How prove you that?”

“A. Because by keeping Sunday, they acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, &c.”—Abridgment of Chris. Doc., pp. 57–59.

These extracts are from standard Roman Catholic works, and clearly set forth the claim of that church. When a person is charged with a crime and confesses it, that is usually considered sufficient to settle the matter and preclude the necessity of any further investigation. The prophecy declared that the little horn should think to change times and laws; and here the Papacy claims to have accomplished this very work; and we must admit the claim or give up the prophecy as a failure; for no other fulfillment can be shown. What need have we of further evidence? Notice, also, how admirably this work of the Papacy answers to all the prophecies touching it. 1. It is a change of the law of God, such as the little horn was to accomplish; for the fourth commandment requires the observance of the seventh day as a memorial of creation, while this requires the observance of the first day for another reason. 2. It is a work by which it sets itself up above God, as the Man of Sin was to do; for it places its institution in place of that of Jehovah, and demands obedience to it on its own authority in preference to the requirement of God. 3. It involves on the part of those who understandingly yield to it, that worship which the beast, Rev. 13:8, was to receive from those that dwell on the earth. 4. It is in striking contrast with the commandments of God which those are found keeping, Rev. 14:12, who refuse the mark and worship of the beast. 5. It is claimed as a token of the authority of the church to ordain religious institutions, just such as the mark of the beast must be intended to show; for in so many words, the “very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday,” is claimed by that church as proof of its power to command feasts and holy days; and the observance of this institution is considered by them as an acknowledgment of such power. 6. Protestants have brought this error from the Romish church, and though they rest it on different ground, are equally tenacious of the institution, and equally zealous for its preservation. As above quoted from the address of the “National Association” for amending the Constitution, Catholic and Protestant are alike interested in this matter; and the Protestant will, of course, be ready to join with the Catholic in upholding that which is to him equally dear.

Here, then, we have an institution of the Papacy which admirably answers to every specification of the prophecy, and which singularly enough, this nation, though Protestant, is taking steps to make a national institution, and will soon be ready to enforce by the civil arm. For proof that Sunday-keeping has no foundation in the Scriptures, but is an institution of the Papacy, as Romanists claim, see History of the Sabbath, and other works, published at the Review Office. If, then, the keeping of a counterfeit Sabbath, and one so long and generally observed as the first day of the week, constitute the mark of the beast, the question will doubtless arise in many minds, whether

the good of past ages who have lived in the observance of this institution, have borne the mark of the beast, and rendered worship to that antichristian power; and if the many Christians of the present time who are still keeping the first day, are worshiping the beast, and wearing his mark. By those who wish to raise a blind prejudice against the views of S. D. Adventists, we are uniformly represented as so teaching. But it is purely a misrepresentation. We do not so teach; nor does such a conclusion follow from our premises. It has already been noticed that the mark and worship of the beast are both enforced by the two-horned beast. Now, in view of this fact, there can be no worship nor reception of the mark, such as is contemplated in the prophecy, till it is enforced by this power.

The great majority of Protestants who have kept the first day of the week as the Sabbath, although it is an institution of the Papacy, have not had the remotest idea that it had any connection whatever with that false system of worship. Have such been worshiping the beast, while they have been keeping Sunday without a thought of that power, honestly supposing that they were keeping a Bible institution? By no means. Have they had the mark of the beast? Not at all. The denunciation of the third message is against those who knowingly keep Sunday as an institution of the beast. It speaks of those who are enlightened in the matter, and of those alone. And for a person thus enlightened, knowing what God requires, and what the beast requires, to basely yield to the requirements of the beast, to avoid persecution, turning away in a cowardly manner, through motives of worldly interest, from what he knows God requires,—this is what makes his sin so presumptuous and Heaven-daring in the sight of God; this is what calls forth the terrible threatening uttered by the third angel. But the good of past ages have not kept the day with any such understanding of the matter, nor from any such motives.

Just so with the mass of Protestants now living. But the third message is sent forth to warn us in reference to an issue yet future. The people of God are coming up to translation. They must be freed from Papal errors. The truth is to be agitated; and the antagonism between the requirements of God and those of antichristian powers, is to be set in a clearly-defined light before the people. The issue is to be met understandingly, the two-horned beast demanding from its subjects the reception of the mark, and the performance of the worship of the first beast, on pain of death, and God commanding us to refuse the mark and worship of the beast, and keep his commandment, on pain of drinking his unmingled wrath. With this issue before them, those who yield to his requirements instead of the requirements of God, will worship the beast and receive his mark. Thus seeking to save their lives by avoiding the wrath of earthly powers, they will lose them by becoming exposed to the wrath of God. Till this issue is upon the people, under the enactment of civil law, we accuse no one of worshiping the beast or receiving his mark. And the third message is sent forth to warn men to put away their errors and receive the truth, that they may be prepared to stand when this fiery ordeal shall come, and, at last, having gotten the victory over the beast, his image, his mark, and the number of his name, to sing the victor’s song upon the sea of glass.

(To be Continued.)

ONE DAY LESS.

By Sarah F. Sharpe

One day less of toil and care, And one day less of sorrow, The pleasant thought helps me to bear The trials of to-morrow! When troubles come ’t is sweet to know, We’ve one day less to live below.

One day less to watch and pray, And one day less of waiting, The knowledge keeps from day to day, My courage from abating. A gentle whisper seems to say, You’ve one day less to watch and pray.

One day less a pilgrim here, In this dark world so dreary, I have to shed the bitter tear And wander faint and weary; As twilight deepens in the west, ’Tis sweet to feel I’ve one day less.

One day less to intervene, Between us and that morning, When Christ our coming Lord is seen, His happy saints adorning With endless life and robes of white, And golden crowns of dazzling light.

SARAH F. SHARPE. Sandusky Co., Ohio.

Instructive Examples.

By Adolphus Smith

“LET your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” Matt. 5: 37.

The obligation to be chaste in conversation, rests upon every child of God. Not only the precepts of Jesus, who spake as never man spake, but also the teachings of the apostles abound with important instructions on this point. And, indeed, the Old Testament scriptures are replete with commandments, influences, examples, and incidents, enjoining this obligation.

“Thou shalt not surely die,” was the first lie uttered in Eden, and its dire consequences are sadly felt by fallen man, and will be till God shall turn to his people a pure language, and every liar shall have expiated his guilt by a portion in the lake of fire.

Cain talked with his brother; and in the same verse it is said, “he slew him.” God saw that the thoughts of the hearts of men, before the flood, were only evil continually; and Jesus afterwards testified that out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; and, if, as it is in the days of the coming of the Son of Man, so it was before the flood, we justly conclude that they were given to low, unchaste, unholy, conversation. That was then, as its counterpart will be now, soon exchanged for wailing, because of the judgments of God.

The ten spies, who, with Caleb and Joshua, were sent to view the land of Canaan, returned with an evil report, and dire was the consequence to the murmuring children of Israel.

When the patience of Job was put, seemingly, to the severest test, it is recorded, “In all this did not Job sin with his lips.” Says David, “The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things.” He further asks, “Lord who shall abide in thy tabernacle?” Ans., “He that speaketh the truth in his heart. He that backbiteth not with his tongue, . . . nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbor.” David thus testifies of the ungodly: “They are corrupt, and speak wickedly concerning oppression; they speak loftily. They set their mouth against the heavens, and their tongue walketh through the earth.”

Says Solomon, “A man that beareth false witness against his neighbor is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow;” but “A word fitly spoken, is like apples of gold in pictures of silver.”

Our Lord, in the language quoted at the head of this article, plainly intimates that superfluous language in conversation is wrong.

He would, evidently, have us use the most proper and pure language to convey our ideas. This should consist, not only in the use of chaste words, to the exclusion of everything of a light and trifling character, but, I believe, that every Christian should pay some regard to the proper construction of sentences. Else, why not copy the style of Artemas Ward, Nasby, or Josh Billings, if the fancy so lead? Should we not rather copy after those who speak our language in its purity?

The practice of jesting or joking, is plainly forbidden in the Scriptures. See Eph. 5: 4.

“Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.” Eph. 4: 29.

“And whatever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus giving thanks to God and the Father by him.” Col. 3: 17.

Is it right then to tell stories, and relate anecdotes? Yes, when such would edify, or minister grace to the hearers, or when such can be uttered in the name of Jesus, and with thanksgiving to God.

My brethren, says James, if any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. Jas. 3: 2.

ADOLPHUS SMITH.

Kent Co., Mich.

Saturday Is the Seventh Day.

By John Matteson

That the Lord commanded us to keep holy the seventh day, is most clearly brought to view in the fourth commandment. There is no record in the Bible that any other day but the seventh has been sanctified, or set apart, as a divinely-appointed rest-day for man to keep holy. But the question so frequently arises, How can you prove that Saturday is the real seventh day?

We think the following considerations will prove this beyond all doubt:

1. Weeks are counted by numbering seven days independent of months and years. This question is not affected at all by the number of years that have passed by, but may be stated thus: Have the people in the world since creation made a mistake in counting the seven days of each week? If so, where? when?

2. During the first 2500 years of the existence of the world, this account was kept without a mistake; for the Lord called the very same day the Sabbath or seventh day which the people called the seventh day. This is shown by the following language of Moses: “This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Ex. 16: 23. Some of the people on the seventh day went out to gather manna, but found none. Verse 27. By the falling of the manna on six days only, and none on the Sabbath, the Lord would prove the people whether they would obey his law or no. Verse 4. They were evidently proved on the fourth commandment. But the individuals mentioned refused to observe the seventh day as the Sabbath. Wherefore the Lord reproved them: “How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws.” Verse 28. Consequently the people knew which day the true seventh day was; and the account had been kept correctly from generation to generation so far.

And during the forty years in the wilderness, as the real seventh day was pointed out by a constant miracle, the manna falling on the six days while on the seventh day there was none, this knowledge of the true seventh day was certainly established to that generation beyond all controversy.

3. During the 1500 years, from the giving of the law till the ministry of Christ, the people made no mistake in counting the days of the week; for when Christ came, all must acknowledge that he knew which day the real seventh day, or Sabbath, was; and he would call no other day the Sabbath but the day which his Father recognized as the Sabbath; for Christ and the Father are one. John 10: 30. But Christ called the very same day the Sabbath which the Jews called the Sabbath. “The Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they [the disciples] on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? Mark 2: 24. “And he said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Verse 27. When was the Sabbath made for man? At creation. “God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” Gen. 2: 3. Thus we have traced the counting of the days of the week 4000 years, from creation till Christ, and found it to be all correct.

4. Does any one claim that a mistake has been made in the numbering of the days of the week since Christ? We ask you to prove it. The burden of proof rests with you.

Yet we will introduce four witnesses who all agree that the day now commonly called Saturday is the true seventh day.

a. The Jews have been scattered throughout the earth. Many of them still observe the seventh day. But wherever you find the Jews observing the seventh day, whether in Asia, Africa, Europe, or America, they do observe that day on Saturday.

b. The Mahometans have kept their account independently of Jews and Christians. They are instructed to observe as a Sabbath the sixth day of the week. But wherever you find a Mussulman observing his Sabbath, he observes it on Friday, consequently counts Saturday as the seventh day.

c. Many Christians have, for a number of years, observed the first day as a Sabbath in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. And they unanimously observe this day on Sunday. Therefore they also prove that Saturday is the seventh day.

d. There are found Christians in Africa, Europe, and America, who still observe the seventh day as the Sabbath, and all such observe the Sabbath on Saturday.

“In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

A recent traveler in the holy land, Mr. Fairfield, of Michigan, stated that the population of Jerusalem was about one-third Mahometans, one-third Jews, and one-third Catholic Christians. Every Friday the Mussulmen would all rest, every Saturday the Jews, and every Sunday the Christians; observing respectively the sixth, seventh, and first, days of the week.

5. If any one should still feel disposed to doubt on this question, we will put the proposition in the following

form: It is an impossibility that the whole world could make a mistake in counting seven.

Sometimes a single individual or a family has been mistaken in numbering the days of the week; but they have always been corrected by their neighbors. There is no record that a whole town ever made such a mistake. Yet if a town, or county, or even a whole State, should miscount seven, there are other towns, counties, and States, who could correct it.

Dear reader, the Lord has made this matter exceedingly simple, so that none ever need mistake which day he has sanctified and blest as long as the world can count seven. Is it not plain that Saturday is the seventh day, and that the seventh day is the rest-day of Jehovah, which he has commanded you and me to keep holy?

JOHN MATTESON.

This Present World.

By Thirza M. Foster

GOD has given us his word, which is a lamp to our feet, and a light to our path. As we journey Zionward it reveals the dangers to which we are exposed, and shows us how to escape them. It tells us much about this world, representing it as full of dangerous snares. The peculiar danger which lies in the way, we learn from Moses’ address to Israel, given us in the eighth chapter of Deuteronomy: “For the Lord thy God bringeth thee into a good land,” “A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness.” “When thou hast eaten and art full,” “beware that thou forget not the Lord thy God, in not keeping his commandments,” “lest when thou hast built goodly houses, and dwelt therein; and when thy herds and thy flocks multiply, and thy silver and gold is multiplied, then thy heart be lifted up and thou forget the Lord thy God.”

The necessity of this caution is explained in the fifteenth stanza of his sacred song, “But Jeshurun waxed fat and kicked; thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.”

If worldly prosperity made ancient Israel apostatize from God, should it not be a warning to the “remnant” in these last days, when a desire to accumulate and hoard up is predominant. How appropriate for us at this time, is the prayer of Agur, “Remove far from me vanity and lies; give me neither poverty nor riches; feed me with food convenient for me: lest I be full and deny thee, and say, Who is the Lord,” Prov. 30: 8, 9.

David says, “If riches increase, set not your heart upon them;” thus implying that in accumulating property, there is danger of giving it the place in our hearts, which rightfully belongs to God. Our Saviour in his parable of the sower, represents “the cares of this world, the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things,” as choking the word to such a degree as to render it utterly fruitless. In his parable of the great supper, speaking of those who were bidden, he says, “They all with one consent began to make excuse. The first said, I have bought a piece of ground, and I must needs go and see it, I pray thee have me excused. Another said, I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I go to prove them, I pray thee have me excused; and another said, I have married a wife, and therefore I cannot come.”

We see that all these excuses spring from one common root: an undue attachment for the things of this world. Christ, in his sermon on the mount, thus exhorts us: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth. But lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven: for where your treasure is there will your heart be also.” He says, “No man can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” Matt. 6: 24.

The worship of mammon stands as much opposed to the worship of God, as the worship of Juggernaut or any other Pagan idol. Paul says, “The love of money is the root of all evil; which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” 1 Tim. 6: 10. In Col. 3: 5, he says that “covetousness is idolatry,” and in Eph. 5: 5 he says that “no covetous man,” who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” This world exerts a deadly influence over all who place their affections upon it. We have a striking example of this in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. It was the love of money which influenced them to lie to the Holy Ghost, and which brought upon themselves a signal display of God’s vengeance. Demas was one of Paul’s fellow laborers in the ministry, and Paul says of him, “Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world.” For thirty pieces of silver Judas betrayed his Master and Lord. But money is not the only means by which this world ensnares mankind. Some seek its profits, others its honors, others it allures with costly apparel, sumptuous tables, fleshly lusts and vain mirth. One of these attractions alone often proves strong enough to hold individuals away from the truth. How great then must be the influence of the whole combined.

Dear brethren and sisters, is there not danger of our zeal and interest in the cause of God being chilled by a worldly spirit? We know Satan, our great adversary, wants to lead us down to everlasting ruin. With the perishable things of this vain world, he hopes to effect his purpose. We are only safe from his assaults when in the light of truth. God’s holy word teaches us how to pass the time of our sojourn here. It tells us to be “not slothful in business;” but to be “fervent in spirit; serving the Lord,” Rom. 12: 11. God would not have us drop from our hands all the business of life and have nothing to do with earth.

No, it is our duty to be industrious, provide for ourselves, and do what we can to advance his cause. Then let us not serve mammon, but use it to aid us in the service of him who made this world and all that is therein.

THIRZA M. FOSTER. Vienna, Wis.

Ascension Robes

By J. T. Dixon

From the World's Crisis.

Ascension Robes.

BRO. GRANT: Will you be so kind as to insert the following correspondence, clipped from the New York Independent, for the benefit of many readers of "our paper," who believe that "Millerites" once donned ascension robes to "go up" and meet the Lord?

"Mr. J. T. Dixon, of Rocky Brook, R. I., under date Feb. 10, writes: 'In the notice of a new work on the Coming of Christ in his kingdom,' in the Independent of last week, I read the statement that 'gaping believers have prepared their ascension robes, ready to be donned at a moment's warning, on the appearance of the august and descending Personage.' Will you be so kind as to announce in the Independent that the sum of one hundred dollars will be paid if proof positive can be produced that an ascension robe was ever 'donned' by any of the Second Adventists at any time. I, like others, have been misled by that slander.' Mr. Dixon will observe that the writer of the notice in the Independent did not say that ascension robes had been 'donned,' but only that they had been 'prepared, ready to be donned.' But we suspect that even this cannot be proved. The writer probably erred in assuming the truth of idle stories set afloat in a time of excitement to satirize the Second Adventists."

The following letter from Rev. Samuel Lee, pastor of the Congregational church in New Ipswich, N. H., and the affidavit accompanying the same, tell their own story:

New Ipswich, N. H., Feb. 26, 1870.

MR. TILTON—Dear Sir : As Mr. J. T. Dixon offered, through the Independent, $100 to any one who would furnish evidence that an 'ascension robe' was ever 'donned,' I suppose the evidence in point should be given through the same medium. The Mr. Chas. C. Bellows, whose testimony I send, is one of my neighbors, and a Christian gentleman, whose word would not be doubted by any who know him. Please, then, inform Mr. J. T. Dixon, of Rocky Brook, R. I., that I am happy to give him the information he so much desires; and also that I shall regard myself as entitled to the $100. Respectfully yours, SAMUEL LEE.

AFFIDAVIT.

On the 23d October, 1844, while boarding in Providence, R. I., I saw two ladies, fellow-boarders—the name of one I well remember—who firmly believed they were to ascend to Heaven that night, and appeared very anxious that I, with four or five other boarders, should go with them to the general meeting of the Millerites and place of ascension. I had frequently seen these ladies sewing on fine white goods for several days. They said to me they were ascension robes. They were made longer than ordinary dresses of that day. My engagements did not permit me; but those who went, one of them my own brother, since dead, told me there were over thirty in the company of about two hundred that were ready, with their ascension robes on, and that the excitement was very great.

C. C. BELLOWS.

State of New Hampshire, Hillsborough, ss., Feb. 26, 1870. [SEAL.] W. A. PRESTON, Justice of the Peace and Notary Public.

"Mr. J. T. Dixon, of Rocky Brook, R. I., in response to the letter of the Rev. Samuel Lee, and the affidavit of Mr. C. C. Bellows, published by us last week, writes as follows:

'I have just read the affidavit of Mr. C. C. Bellows in relation to the 'donning ascension robes,' etc. While I would not for a moment question the Christian integrity of Mr. B., or of the Rev. Mr. Lee, who sends the affidavit, I must dispute the testimony as not being positive or sufficient for any honorable man to claim the reward. It is certainly not such testimony as I demanded. I think you, Mr. Editor, and every common-sense person, will admit it. I trust Mr. B. will not regard this as too severe, neither as a plea to evade the fulfillment of the pledge. I simply reason from my own standpoint.'

"Mr. Dixon fortifies his position by an argument for which we cannot find room. His decision in the case is all that interests our readers or the public."

In my reply, or argument, as they called it, I simply asked for one living witness who would before a magistrate make oath, or affirmation, that they ever saw an ascension robe donned. C. C. B.'s brother was dead. He did not give the name of that lady; neither did he state the place of meeting. I happen to know where that meeting was: in the vicinity of Providence, on the 23d of Oct., 1844; and have positive proof from more than one living witness that no ascension robes were donned. I spoke of the two ladies making robes longer than usual, that Mr. B. noticed several days, as being of a kind that all ladies generally use; and that when gentlemen are too impulsive, modest ladies sometimes answer equivocally, as it might have been in that case; and that often in their meetings in those times they would speak of having on their robes, or of having them prepared, always meaning the spotless robes of Christ's righteousness. Prejudiced persons would report these things with their colorings, and in this way many were perhaps duped, as was C. C. Bellows. I requested Mr. B. and Rev. Mr. Lee to post themselves a little better, and they would discover that Adventists never expected to "ascend to Heaven" with or without "ascension robes."

In a private note from the editor of the Independent, after giving reasons why he could not give place in his columns for my argument, he closes thus: "As to an investigation, to decide whether anybody ever 'donned' an ascension robe, I don't believe any such thing ever happened; but if it ever did, it is not of the slightest consequence."

J. T. DIXON.

The Last Argument.

By M. W. H.

A NEW argument, and the last, it might well be presumed, I thought as I heard one who was guiding a Bible class remark upon John 20: 19, “Here was when and how the Sabbath was changed. ‘The same day at evening, being the first day of the week.’ Heretofore the Jewish day had begun and ended at sunset; the evening and the morning being the day; but here the succeeding evening was added to the past day, thereby carrying the first Christian Sabbath up to midnight, making the day ever after begin and end at midnight.”

I could but wonder from whence came such erudite knowledge. Certainly it was far-fetched, possibly, dearly bought. Such misrepresentations may meet the approval of fellow-mortals as deeply prejudiced as themselves, but when the hidden things of dishonesty shall be revealed, such perversions of the sacred word must appear in their true light.

Doubtless that rendering of the verse is the “repealing clause” of the fourth commandment, since it is correctly argued that a law once made, is binding until it is repealed, or otherwise expires by limitation. Very recently I heard this ground distinctly taken by a preacher, who, even quoting at length the first, second, and third commandments, and asking at each in turn, defiantly, “Where is the repealing clause?” Then by a strange consistency (for in the morning sermon he had averred that the Lord’s supper was observed as a remembrance of our Lord’s death; and the Christian Sabbath as commemorative of the resurrection,) he passed silently over the fourth, quoting again the fifth and sixth, asking as before, for the “repealing clause,” then closed with a sweeping assertion “that thus with the rest, no repealing clause could be found; hence the whole was still in force.” M. W. H.

Continue reading: Signs of the Times