Earlier text: General ArticlesArguments Against the World's Conversion.
It is often charged that the arguments of the Pre-Millennialists on this subject rest chiefly, if not entirely, upon the more obscure and symbolical portions of the Scripture. It is even said by some that their case rests chiefly, if not entirely, upon a certain interpretation of Rev. 20, touching the first and second resurrection. It is proposed, therefore, in the present inquiry to waive reference to the prophecies of the Old Testament and the symbolical portions of the Bible generally. We shall all agree that in our interpretation of the Bible, the interpretation of that which is obscure or symbolical is to be determined by that of those portions which are evidently to be taken in a literal and didactic sense. Especially must the New Testament be ever allowed to determine the interpretation of the Old, and not the reverse. On these principles all wise interpreters of every school must agree. What, then, saith the Scripture on the subject before us? 1. The first notable fact bearing on the decision of the question before us is the utter absence of any statement in the New Testament that any such period of universal conversion and long-prevailing righteousness is to be witnessed previous to the coming of the Lord. This fact is peculiarly notable and significant in the case of the apostle Paul. In our day the expected conversion of the world is constantly held up as the great motive and incentive to missionary labor. We are even told by many who ought to be able to judge, that if through the prevalence of the contrary view people shall come to doubt this, a sad decline in missionary activity of the church must be expected as the inevitable result. But here is the very chief and prince of all missionaries, holding his commission direct from the Master, taught, as he tells, not by any fallible or even inspired man, but directly by the Lord himself and His Spirit. More than once he tells us of the motives that urged him on, and filled him with a zeal for the salvation of men which has been rarely equaled and never excelled. But never does he state that his motive was found in the expectation that the world was to be converted by his preaching or that of any other man. He speaks, indeed, of a time when all Israel shall be saved. But that does not affect the precise fact which we now urge, that nowhere does he represent the subjugation of the world to Christ as the motive which was the inspiration of his unequaled labors and sufferings. On the contrary, when he states his motives, he does it in language like the following: "Knowing the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; the love of Christ constraineth us." 2 Cor. 5 : 11, 14. "Endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." 2 Tim. 1 : 10. "I am made all things to all men that I might by all means save some," 1 Cor. 9 : 23. Nor does it appear as if he expected the conversion of the world as the final result of such labors by his successors in the future. "The last times" he tells, shall differ from the times before only in that they shall be "perilous times." 2 Tim. 3 : 1. On one occason in particular the apostle had very special reason, if he expected a millennium of peace and holiness before the coming of the Lord, to refer to the fact. When the Thessalonian Christians on one occasion were greatly troubled because they had been led to believe that the day of the Lord had already come, Paul quieted their apprehensions—how? By telling them, as was most natural if the modern doctrine were true, that "the day of the Lord would not come except the world should first be converted unto God?" If this were the truth, it was the very thing to say. It were, indeed, simply inconceivable that the apostle, if he knew anything about this coming conversion of the world as the necessary antecedent of the Lord, should have said so. But the fact, simply unaccountable upon the truth of the modern theory, is that he did not. Nay, so far from this, he told them the exact reverse; not that the millennium must come first, the world be converted, but that "the man of sin" must first be revealed, whom the Lord would "destroy with the brightness of his coming." 2. But we may go yet farther. Not only does the New Testament nowhere state that the intended result of the preaching of the gospel in this dispensation is the conversion of the world to God, but when that object is formally stated, as it is in two places, it is stated in terms which imply the exact reverse of this. The first passage we may note is in Acts 15 : 14. The Jewish Christians were greatly scandalized that Peter should have preached the gospel to the Gentiles, or heathen as we should call them, and received them into the church along with the circumcision. Peter, it appears, felt it necessary to justify himself for this before the council of the church in Jerusalem. How natural it were, again, if that preaching of the gospel to the Gentiles were for the conversion of the whole of the Gentiles to God, that Peter should have said so. But here again we have no hint from him of such an issue, though, if he knew about it, it was evidently the very thing to say. His language, on the contrary, seems rather to exclude any general conversion. For read, : "God did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name." But some one may ask, is it not possible that the preaching should go on until all mankind, in an age to come, should be numbered among the people of God? This question is explicitly answered in the other passage, where according to the usual understanding, the object of the present ministration of the gospel is formally stated, viz: Matt. 24 : 14, where we read: "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world," not for its conversion. Why did not the Lord say so if that were indeed the object?—but "for a witness unto all nations and then"—without waiting for a general conversion of the nations—"then shall the end come, all nations must hear, and then shall the end come." To sum up this argument, we may safely say that in the whole Bible, among the formal statements of the object of the preaching of the gospel by Christ's ministers, there is not a single one which states that object to be the conversion of the world to God. If we are to expect a millennium of righteousness before the Lord's return, how is this fact to be accounted for? 3. Again, any theory which, like the modern Post-Millennial doctrine, interposes a period before the Advent so long that it should be known as impossible within the lifetime of any individual generation of believers is irreconcilable with the repeated statements of the Scripture that we know not the day "when the Master will return from the far country" whither he has gone; whether His coming will be "in the first watch or in the second watch, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning." According to these words, it was far from being certain that He would not come until almost the morning of a watching; that it was represented as likely enough, for anything that his people knew to the contrary, that He might come even in the first watch of the night. So far from there being any revelation which should warrant any generation of believers in assuming that the coming of the Lord was a thousand years or more away, this postponement, as it were, of the coming of the Lord, is in utter opposition to all those statements of the word of God that we know not the day of Christ's appearing. On this subject Archbishop Trench has well and truly said, "It is a necessary element of the doctrine concerning the second coming of Christ, that it should be possible at any time, that no generation of believers should regard it as impossible in theirs." Those, therefore, who fix a time in the distant future before which Christ cannot come, equally with those who fix a time in the near present by which he must come, place themselves in conflict with the word of the Lord: 4. And this argument becomes even more forcible when we consider the duty which, in view of this utter uncertainty of the time of the advent, is everywhere urged upon the disciples of Christ in all ages to watch continually. Matt. 24 : 42, etc. We cannot refer these words to death, as is sometimes done, because in no place where these words occur is there the slightest reference to death in the whole context, but only to the return of the Lord Jesus. Not an instance can be adduced in the whole Bible where the phrase "the coming of the Son of Man" can be proven to refer to death. Nor can we expect that exegesis which in certain places, at least, refers the phrase to the destruction of Jerusalem. For although undoubtedly the chapter in Matthew's gospel, to which reference has been made, does contain a prophecy of that event, yet that coming of the Son of Man for which Christ bids his disciples to watch cannot possibly be understood of the destruction of Jerusalem, for the simple reason that the coming in question is expressly said to take place "after" that event, and therefore cannot be the same thing. It can only be that glorious coming of the risen Jesus in the clouds of heaven which the universal church expects sooner or later, of which in the passage cited we are told that no man knows the time, and for which all believers in all ages are therefore bidden to watch until He shall come. Now, on the common hypothesis that the entire world is to be converted and continue in that happy state for centuries before the Lord can come, how is it possible for any generation of believers receiving that theory as certain truth to watch for the coming of the Lord till that expected Millennium shall have come and gone? It is too often forgotten that theories as to the interpretation of prophecy should never be allowed to affect our attendance to plain precepts. It is quite safe to say that any interpretation of prophecy which makes obedience to any command a moral impossibility is ipso facto proven to be erroneous. But is it a possibility for a believer who is assured that the coming of the Lord is at least a thousand years away, to watch for that coming in his lifetime? If, for example, I take a journey to another country, and on departing tell my son that I shall not return for ten years, or for any other fixed and definite time, and then tell him to watch for me every day, would I not seem to him utterly inconsistent? If, on the other hand, he believes my assurance that I will not return before a certain appointed time, will it not for that very reason become impossible for him to watch for me till that time is up? And on the other, would not my charge to watch for me every month and year inevitably suggest to him a doubt whether after all I am sure that I will not return much sooner than I had said? For it is plain that the mental state or act of watching for a person implies not only a general expectancy that the person will come sometime, but beyond a doubt involves as a necessary condition the belief that the person may come at any time. Inasmuch, therefore, as no candid person will deny that the Lord does command his disciples in all ages to watch for his coming, it follows irresistibly that the Lord intended that we should think of his advent as always possible, and forbids us to interpose any such fixed period of time between us and his coming as shall make it impossible for us to believe that he may come in our own day.—Dr. S. H. Kellogg, in Prophetic Conference. The Seventh Day or the First.
By O. Dickinson
To the Editor of the Oregonian: Some two years ago the question as to whether the Christian world was right in keeping the first day of the week instead of the seventh was brought forcibly to my mind by a new and carefully prepared presentation of the subject. From that time to this I have been as candidly and fully weighing all the arguments for and against the present view and practice as I was able, and I have to confess that I believe we are wrong. If God has commanded us to keep the seventh day of the week as a day of rest from labor, and a day of special worship of him, then men have no right to assume that the first day may be substituted for it. It is a principle in all good government that we submit ourselves to law, even though we may think something else, or some other way is equally good. In the family and in the school the child is required to obey, and we even expel him from the privileges of the school if he sets up his own wishes in opposition to his teachers, who require him to study on Monday rather than on Saturday. Monday may be a better day for him, and for all his companions than Saturday, and they may all choose that, but the rule of the teachers is that he be in school on that day, and he is obliged to obey. The wishes of the child, if submitted to, would break up the school. It would destroy all the authority of the parent and send the child forth into the world prepared to follow his own will and be without law—a hoodlum in society. The question then comes, Is there any other day than the seventh which God has ordained as the Sabbath? If there is another day, and God has made the change, then it is right for us to keep that other day. On this question, the one question of fact, the whole argument turns. It is said by a large share of the Christian world that the day has been changed, and to an investigation of this point I have applied myself, but can find nothing, either in the sayings of Christ or his apostles, which on any other subject or in any court of law would warrant us in believing that the original law, as given to the world on the seventh day of creation had been changed. Our Saviour says in His Sermon on the Mount that he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill. He came to obey the law. "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me." He was careful "to fulfill all righteousness," even to the unnecessary things (as man views it) of circumcision and baptism. He never, in any instance spoke against obedience to any one of the commandments of God; but reiterated the duty on many occasions. When the Jewish traditions, which He found in practice worked against the spirit of love to our neighbor and good toward man, He rebuked those traditions, even though the Jewish doctors contended that they were founded upon the law of the Sabbath. He showed that it was right to heal the sick on the Sabbath day. When the disciples were hungry and had no means of satisfying that hunger but to nib out the kernels of wheat as they went through the field on the Sabbath, and the Jews found fault with it as a violation of the law of the Sabbath, he declared to them that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath; that he was Lord of the Sabbath day, thereby indicating that he had the perfect right to interpret the meaning of the law in regard to it. But in no instance and by no word did he abrogate the law in its original purpose as given to man. This we find to be his course all through his teachings. He and his apostles never make void the law, but in every instance show that it is the law that is to assert its power more and more as men come into an understanding of the high and holy ends to which it reaches. It not only condemns the outward acts of violation, but lays hold upon the spirit within and declares that anger may be murder and even the look of lust adultery. If then the law of God, as given on Sinai, is not abrogated, and there has never been any change by one who has a right to make that change, then the law of the Sabbath still remains unrevoked, as all the other commandments remain in force to the Christian world. Looking at things in this light, which I must unless some one comes forward to help me out of the sorest trial of my life, I do not see but I must shut up my store on Saturday, and utterly refuse the hundreds who may come for supplies, although they may come with the sanction of good society, and with the approval of thousands of the best minds of the whole Christian world. O. Dickinson. Salem, Ogn., Jan. 8, 1879. A good name is better than riches—provided that it is well earned. Subject to Whom?
By Christian at Work
WHEREVER we are asked to indulge in amusement or engage in practices over which Christ is allowed to have no jurisdiction, and which would have been as they are now, even if He had never come into the world, we are asked to recognize the world as supreme, and by yielding we dishonor Him. Wherever we are met with the well-worn maxim, that “When we are at Rome we must do as they do at Rome,” we are at the gate of the world, and if we pass through, we part company with Christ. Wherever, therefore, the world is the acknowledged sovereign, then, even though in the abstract we may think the place indifferent, we should not enter. Gessler’s cap, in the abstract, was nothing at all, and it was a small matter to salute it; but, in the circumstances, the salutation meant allegiance to Austria, and William Tell showed his patriotism by refusing so to honor it. The question is not whether, in other circumstances, the things done there may not be done without sin, but whether, in present circumstances, we should do them, when the doing of them is recognized as homage to the world; and when it is thus put, no true Christian can waver for a moment as to his answer. The believer knows no king but Jesus, and where His royalty is ostentatiously repudiated, no Christian can be a subject. That is a plain principle, easily understood, and not difficult of application. If we are asked to specify individual things which come under this principle, then we have to answer that we decline to be the keepers of other men’s consciences. The Protestant principle of the right of private judgment involves in it also the responsibility of every man to examine such cases and judge for himself. We give the general law. Let every man apply it for himself. That which we repudiate when we come into the Church is the supremacy of the world, and every time we acknowledge the world as king, we are guilty of treason against the royalty of Christ. But we cannot understand why any one should seek to haggle and bargain here. For us in reference to all such things there is a golden lesson in the parable of the Hidden Treasure: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath and buyeth that field.” “For joy thereof.” He talks not of sacrifice, or of giving up. His heart is filled with the gladness of discovery and possession, and that he forgets to think of cost. So will be the man who has a right idea of the value of Christ and His salvation; and they who stand outside the Church asking “What must we give up?” have need to be exhorted first to estimate the value of that which they profess to have received.—Christian at Work. HEAR instruction, and be wise. A BAPTIST paper, from which we should look for better things, is out with the assertion that the fourth commandment does not say the seventh day of the week! This objection is so weak, and has so often been exposed, that we are astonished that writers, who have any regard for their reputation as Bible scholars and Christians, should persist in using it. Mr. Baird, a Congregational minister of Michigan, whose work was highly complimented by his friends, laid much stress upon this point in a pamphlet which he published against the Seventh-day Adventists. In our review of Mr. Baird we used the following language which we recommend to the notice of our friend, the Baptist editor:— The cycle of seven days to the week was plainly pointed out at creation, and no one can point to anything else as its origin. And we have seen that no fact recorded in connection with the institution of the Sabbath will apply to any day but to the seventh day of that first week of time. Therefore, to assert, as Mr. Baird repeatedly does, that the commandment does not refer to the seventh day of the week is an evasion and a perversion of the law of God. It is only folly to assert that the phrase, "the seventh day," means a seventh day, or any seventh day after any six days. If that is the meaning of the language, then the phrase, "the sixth day," in Ex. 16, would mean any sixth day after an interval of five days. That is, if "the seventh day" is a term of proportion, and marks indefinitely a seventh of a cycle of seven, then also "the sixth day" marks merely a sixth part of a cycle of six. From this, it is easy to see that the order to gather manna on the sixth day—that is, on a day of a cycle of six, would soon come in conflict with the order to gather none on the seventh day; for the end of the sixth cycle of seven would coincide with the end of the seventh cycle of six. So absurd is this indefinite-seventh-day theory. Dr. Edwards leads the way in which Mr. Baird has followed, saying, in his (so-called) Sabbath Manual, that the words six and seven in the commandment denote proportion, and not order. But the falsity of this assertion is too evident to require much argument for its refutation. For the word "seven" is not in the commandment, but the word "seventh," which is an ordinal number. Order, and not proportion, is the idea of the law. To justify this perversion, Mr. Baird says the commandment does not say the seventh day of the week. This is a very weak evasion. It refers to no seventh day but that of the week. When God rested and blessed the seventh day, only one week had elapsed; hence it was of necessity the seventh day of that week. No other computation but that of the week was, at that time, possible. At the falling of the manna the seventh-day Sabbath immediately succeeded "the sixth day." Now this sixth day was either the sixth day of the week, or it was a sixth part of a cycle of six, after Mr. Baird's favorite method of computing cycles. But it could not have been a part of a cycle of six, for in seven such cycles it would coincide with the seventh day of a cycle of seven; and therefore the requirement to gather a double portion of manna, and that not to gather any, would have fallen on the same day. Hence it was the sixth day of the week, and the seventh day following it was the seventh day of the week. Again, while the Saviour lay in the grave, his disciples "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." And the day following was "the first day of the week." As every week has seven days and no more, the seventh day of one week must immediately precede the first day of the next week. Therefore it was the seventh day of the week which was then kept "according to the commandment." Nor could they have kept any other day of the week and kept the commandment. For the commandment is based entirely on the fact that God wrought six days and rested the seventh day of the first week of time. No other cycle but that of the week then existed, and the weekly cycle originated there, and there only. We will illustrate the folly of Mr. Baird's method of identifying the seventh day. Say a man has seven sons; the first-born is named John; the youngest, Robert. The father makes a will, bequeathing to each of his sons one thousand dollars, but having a customary fondness for his youngest, bequeaths to his seventh son ten thousand dollars. John determines to gain the ten thousand dollars for himself; therefore he calls the family together, and places them in a circle; commencing just next to himself he counts around, and of course reckons himself the seventh! and on that enumeration claims the ten thousand dollars. Now John has thoroughly instructed them that "the seventh son" means one son after six others, no matter where you begin to count! And while Robert fully believes in the correctness of this method in regard to the claims of God and his commandments, he is not so ready to admit it when his own rights are involved; and therefore he throws the matter into court where John's method of determining "the seventh son" is condemned on short hearing. And so, when God shall bring every work into judgment in the light of his own commandments, will be condemned all the petty evasions by which men seek to escape God's requirement to keep the seventh day. The Shame of Protestantism.
By Editor
A CORRESPONDENT of the Chicago Telegraph thus speaks of his visit to the "Church of the Holy Family," a Catholic church of that city :— "I loitered about until the eight o'clock congregation had gone, and the half-past eight o'clock congregation came. It was the largest of the day. High Mass attracted what is commonly called a "fashionable" attendance. Many families came in their own carriages. There was quite a display of fine toilets. On the other hand, the poor were there, too; and the contrast thus presented can be seen nowhere but in the Catholic Church. The poor they have always with them; they do not go to hear Professor Swing; they cannot be detected in Grace Church on Wabash Avenue; they never mingle with the gorgeous deposits that are left by brilliant equipages at the door of Unity Church on Dearborn Avenue. The Protestant Church has driven the poor out by its coldness and its wealth. The Catholic Church welcomes them, puts them in its front pews, treats them with delicate consideration and thoughtful kindness, and when days of prosperity come they remember their early friends." No one can deny the statements here made. And who can read them without feelings of sadness? It is as unfortunate as it is true, that the spirit of caste—of personal admiration—has eaten out the vitality from the Protestant churches. It is not a process merely going on; it is a fact already accomplished. Too much comparative importance is attached to the conversion of a rich man; a poor man is worth as little on the church roll as on the bank book. We would not under-estimate the importance of money as a help to carry on the work of Christianity; but we do speak decidedly against the dependence which is placed upon it. God can bless the humble offerings of the poor, as he did the mites of the poor widow, to the accomplishment of great things. As a general thing the cause of God is best cared for by the poor. If any hold back from doing their share, they are quite often the ablest in the congregation. True, the rich build enormous churches in the large cities; but they are often the evidences of the pride of their founders; the courts of Mammon, where the poor are not permitted to come. Where the example of Christ is not followed, the Spirit of Christ will not remain. The second chapter of James is quite forgotten. Sunday-Keeping—Is It of Rome?
The claim that the Christian Church is indebted to the papacy for Sunday as a Christian institution, rests upon manifold proofs. We have, first, the prophecy (Dan. 7:25) that the papal power should undertake to change the law of God; and it is easy to show that what the Church of Rome has attempted to do in changing the Sabbath, is a most explicit fulfillment of the prophecy; and further, that no other event can be found which can be claimed as a fulfillment, and if that has not fulfilled the prophecy, then the prophecy has failed. We have, secondly, the testimony of history showing how the first day of the week was lifted up among festival days, till finally that power which attempted to dictate respecting both faith and practice to all the churches, claiming to be the head over all, even Christ's vicegerent upon earth, endeavored to enforce it upon all as a divine institution. We have, thirdly, the doctors of the Catholic church expressly claiming that their church has changed the Sabbath, that it had the right and power to change it, that its success in putting Sunday in place of the Sabbath, is proof of its right in this respect, and that all who observe Sunday as the Lord's day, thereby acknowledge the right of that church to institute festivals of precept, and therefore act inconsistently when they refuse to observe other festivals ordained by the same church. And this teaching they put into their standard catechisms for the instruction of their children; and the priests and all Catholics who are intelligent in regard to their faith, will tell us that such is the position of that church respecting the institution of the first-day Sabbath. But here an attempt is made to nullify all this evidence by the assertion that we do not receive the institution of the Sunday-Sabbath from the Catholics, but from the apostles; and that Romanists themselves claim that the change was made by apostolic authority, and hence that it is wholly wrong to call Sunday-keeping a papal observance. We recently received a letter from a Methodist minister who had just read the tract published at this Office, entitled, "Who changed the Sabbath ?" in which are given extracts from Catholic catechisms in which they claim to have made the change. Our clerical friend thought we were appealing to the prejudices of the people on the Sabbath question. We replied that we were not appealing to prejudice, but to facts; that we claim no more than what the Catholic church itself claims, that it has made the change, and that we are indebted to it for the Sunday-Sabbath. He replies that the catechism of the Council of Trent claims "that the change was made during apostolic times, and was done by apostolic authority." And he adds, "If your authorities are correctly quoted, of which fact I have no doubt, it simply shows the want of harmony in that church respecting this question; but as my authority is that of a Council, and 'published by command of Pope Pius the Fifth,' it will stand against all the individual writers that can be brought on the other side." The catechisms from which we quote do not rest upon merely individual authority. They are not the expression simply of individual opinion, but published by authority, and used for the education of Catholic children everywhere. And we may be sure that a church which exercises such untiring and keen surveillance over all the literature that goes into the hands of its members, would not tolerate any lack of harmony in the fundamental principles which they teach their children. That the Catholic church claims that the change was made in apostolic times, we are well aware. For instance, in one of the catechisms quoted in the tract above mentioned, in answer to the question, "What warrant have you for keeping the Sunday, preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday ?" this answer is given: "We have for it the authority of the Catholic church, and apostolic tradition." Now because they refer it to apostolic times and apostolic tradition, does that invalidate their claim and ours that it is an institution of the Catholic church? Let us look at this point candidly. The rule of the Protestant is, that whatever is taught in the Bible, we can find there as well as others, so that there is no need of tradition in the matter. But do the Romanists claim that this change of the Sabbath can be proved from the Bible? By no means. On the contrary, they say that "the Scriptures do not in particular mention this change" (Cath. Chris. Instructed); and after referring to Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; and Rev. 1:10, they say, "Neither the one nor the other [of these texts] tells us that the first day of the week was to be henceforth the day of worship, and the Christian Sabbath; so that truly the best authority we have for this is the testimony and ordinance of the church." (Id.) They further speak of it as "a change for which there is no scriptural authority," and say that Protestants do not find for their practice in this respect any "permission clearly laid down in the sacred volume." (Doctrinal Catechism.) They call it a change "that cannot be evidently proved from any text of Scripture." (Robt. Manning.) And they even go so far as to say that it is "against the plain letter of the Bible." Thus the Catholic claims no apostolic authority for the change except what rests upon tradition; but the Protestant does not admit tradition as of any authority in matters of faith; therefore the Catholic reference to apostolic authority for the change of the Sabbath is not of such a kind as Protestants can indorse at all. All Protestants are ready to admit that purgatory, prayers for the dead, and invocation of the saints, are Catholic doctrines, and rest upon the authority of the Catholic church; yet that church claims apostolic authority in these matters, even more distinctly than for the change of the Sabbath; not written out, to be sure, in the New Testament, but resting on tradition; and they throw it into the face of all Protestants, that if they could produce no better proof for these doctrines, than Protestants can produce for first-day observance, then might Protestants indeed have good cause to laugh them to scorn. This brings us to the second stage of the answer to the question whether the Catholic appeal to apostolic authority for Sunday-keeping invalidates our claim that it is a Romish institution. The fact already established that they have no apostolic authority except what rests upon tradition, destroys it for all Protestants. But there is something more. When we search for the so-called Christian Sabbath, as a historical fact, where do we find it? In the apostles' days! No. In the age immediately following? No. It is not till we come down well into the centuries, to that period which developed in its strength the great apostasy, that we find it taking its place authoritatively in the church; and then we find Sylvester, one in that line of the bishops of Rome now called popes, formally giving to Sunday the imposing title of "Lord's Day," and enforcing it by the unrepealed law of Constantine which, before his conversion to Christianity, he enacted in behalf of Sunday as a heathen festival. This is the time, and these the circumstances under which, Sunday-keeping first appeared in fact, as a Christian institution of binding obligation. Every one will acknowledge that it is just to attribute the origin of any institution to that people among whom, and by whose instrumentality, it first appears. But the Catholics say Sunday is of apostolic authority. What of that? So they say of all their errors and corruptions. But when we search the apostolic writings, and do not find them, oh! they tell us, they rest on tradition. And Sunday-keeping rests right there too. Are not all these things then of Roman Catholic origin? and do not all who receive them take them from that church ? To illustrate: Suppose any church of the present day, the Methodist for instance, should succeed in introducing and establishing some new practice. Suppose they should say then that it was not their own, but was introduced by the apostles. Would it make any difference what they should claim in regard to its apostolic origin, if we could not find it there? None at all. Every one would say that such institution was wholly a Methodist concern; and this would be a correct decision. Just so with the Sunday-Sabbath. Facts, applied according to the same principle, show it to be wholly a Romish institution. U. S. THE Bible account of creation makes woman the "counterpart" of man—for this is the nearest to a literal translation of the Hebrew rendered "help meet" for him. And it is only where the Bible and Christianity are known and respected that woman is recognized as the companion of man, having equal moral responsibilities. A missionary, writing from Africa, says:— "A Zulu audience at a Kraal is a most interesting sight. All are seated on the ground, a few young men perch themselves upon the cattle-wall enclosure. The men are all together; the women, the maidens, are each in separate lots, the little children near their mothers, the larger ones nearer the front. All listen attentively. I must except, however, the women and girls from the real listeners. There are many exceptions, I am glad to say; but the whole life and training of these poor, poor women produce this effect: It makes them regard themselves as not fit to understand anything one says to them, and therefore they do not try to understand. "One day I was talking with two women, telling them that there was a heaven for those who loved God, and a hell, etc. One of the women burst out into a loud laugh, not at the truths told her, but simply at the very idea of my telling her at all, she being a woman."—Heathen Women's Friend. Southern Book Repository.
By James White
We call attention to the fact that a full assortment of all our Religious and Health publications are kept in stock at Denison, Texas. There is a large stock of the beautiful Hymn and Tune book, entitled Song Anchor, on hand. These publications can be furnished by mail, express, or as railroad freight at the same prices as at Battle Creek, Michigan, or Oakland, California. Sums exceeding $2, should be sent in drafts or money orders. Address Mrs. M. J. Bahler, Denison, Texas.
JAMES WHITE.