p. 642 | Signs of the Times, Vol. 19, No. 41. (8/21/1893)

Signs of the Times

Aug 21, 1893

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Aug 21, 1893

Editorial.

By Editor

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable."—2 Tim. 3:16.

THE one absolute condition of salvation is "faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." And faith is distinct from nominal belief. We may believe theoretically that Christ is the Saviour of the race, but the requisite is living, abiding faith in Christ as a personal Saviour,—a faith that enthrones him within the heart, and that makes him the living, actuating principle of the life. Then it is that Christ will come in unto us and make his abode with us. The counsel of peace will be between the two, and with power and might shall the works be wrought in him.

IN Christ Jesus is shown the perfection of beauty, the fullness of every quality and virtue. He is the fullness of all in all. While in his people will dwell perfect righteousness and purity, even the righteousness of Him, there will not be in anyone the fullness of perfection that exists in the great Head. One saint will prominently manifest one virtue; another, another, and taken together all will show the fullness manifest in Jesus. That is, Christ's perfect image, the fullness of all his attributes, will be reflected in his people as a whole, not in any one alone. As God's people are thus to reflect different phases of Christ's character, may not this explain why each is given a little different experience than any other? In the spiritual temple of the Lord each is to fill a particular place. And each by an individual experience in God's great workshop is polished and refined for God's great building.

"FOR our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ." Phil. 3:20. The word "conversation" as here used has a much broader meaning than common usage gives to it. Literally it means "commonwealth," or "citizenship," and is so translated in many versions. This earth is not the home of God's people. They are counted as "pilgrims and strangers" here. They are ambassadors of the heavenly court to the kingdom of darkness; and as ambassadors of earthly powers are supposed to represent in their lives and deportment the government for which they act, so God's people are to represent in this world the character of the righteous kingdom or commonwealth of which they are citizens. They are not to use their high office for personal gain, but to advance the interests of God's kingdom. They are not to avenge wrongs, but look to their government for redress and succor. More exalted and honorable is the position of ambassador of the Prince of Peace than is the highest station held by king or potentate.

SIN AND CRIME.

THERE are those, and they doubtless number the greater part of Christendom, who consider sin and crime to be synonymous terms in all cases. Sin is the violation of divine precepts, or, as expressed by the apostle, the most comprehensive definition ever given, "Sin is the transgression of the law;" that is, God's law, or the Decalogue. Compare 1 John 3:4 with Rom. 7:7.

Crime may also be against the divine government, and in that use would be synonymous with sin. But "crime" is generally used to express infractions of civil law. In this use it is entirely distinct from sin. Crabbe, in his "English Synonyms" on "Crime" and "Sin," says:—

Crime consists in a violation of human laws; . . . sin is a violation of divine law. . . . There are many sins which are not crimes nor vices. Crimes are tried before a human court, and punished agreeably to the sentence of the judge; sins are brought before the tribunal of the conscience, and will be punished in the world to come by the sentence of the Almighty. . . . Crimes vary with times and countries; but sin is as unchangeable in its nature as the Being it offends.

The above are very good definitions and illustrations. Crime may be sin, but sin is not crime. There are many sinners who are not criminals, and there are criminals who are not sinners. Crime has reference to outward or overt act. Sin lies in the actuating motive. Man may therefore sin in thought and his fellows may never know it, and therefore have no power to condemn or punish him. Sin, therefore, in all its forms must be left with God. He alone knows the heart, and, therefore, he alone can judge its motives. Man, on the other hand, can take into account only the overt act. Human courts have the right to condemn only that which is uncivil. Into the underlying motive human tribunals may not go, because they cannot go, only as the motive is revealed by word or act.

Human tribunals can punish men for the very act of murder, but God declares that he that hateth his brother is a murderer. Man can take cognizance of the known outward act of adultery, but God declares that the cherished lustful thought which man cannot know is adultery in his sight. The human takes account of the crime; the divine, of the sin. In the above cases of course the crime would also be sin.

But all crimes are not sins. When a human government enacts a law contrary to God's law, it is crime to disobey that law, but it is sin to obey it. Crime in that case is not sin. It was criminal to refuse to bow down to the golden image which Nebuchadnezzar set up, but to bow down was sin. Meshach, Shadrach, and Abednego were criminals, but not sinners. It was a crime in the Medo-Persian Empire to ask a petition of any being save the King for a certain thirty days, but it was sin to obey the law. Daniel continued to worship God, and was because of that condemned as a criminal, but he was not condemned of God as a sinner.

The only way for a Christian to do is to serve God, and to submit himself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake. But when man institutes an ordinance which to obey is sin before God, the Christian cannot submit to it for the Lord's sake. It is his duty to obey God. He will say to the human government, "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye;" and his conclusion will inevitably be, "We ought to obey God rather than men." See Acts 4:19; 5:29.

The martyrs of the early church and of the Dark Ages were condemned as criminals and executed as criminals by those who claimed to be ruling in God's stead, but in the majority of cases their crimes were not sins; and whether they were or not, only God can judge. Thus it is with Sunday laws. It is a crime to violate them, but it is as lawful in God's sight to do any legitimate work on Sunday as it is on any of the five days following, and he who does this does not sin, even though he may be condemned by the courts as a criminal. He who works at any legitimate week-day work on Sunday, one of the six working days; according to God's word and law does not commit sin, and there is no other standard. Human tribunals may condemn as crime, but the approval of God more than offsets all the penalties.

But notice this: The Christian who works Sunday will never do it to defy the law, nor to spite his neighbors; he will do it for the

sake of Him who gave him the right and privilege, and who has made him steward of his time, with instructions to work while the day lasts. He who truly serves God according to God's word will never do wrong nor despite to his neighbors. But if the neighbors count his righteousness to be either sin or crime, he must, like his Master and Example, commit his cause to Him who judgeth righteously.

Platform Talk and Public Acts

By Editor

Platform Talk and Public Acts.—There is much said with reference to the modern progressive spirit of Roman Catholics; and the New York Sun is doing yeoman service for the Church of Rome in praising her liberality. In a recent issue it has this item:—

The Roman Catholic mayor of Montreal, in his speech welcoming the Christian Endeavor Convention to that town, said that at this time the forces of Christian faith need to be united against religious skepticism, the common foe of all. When, last week, a Baptist Church at Long Island City offered the use of its house of worship to the priest of a neighboring Roman Catholic Church which had been destroyed by fire, the Baptist pastor said: "We are here for doing good, and I hope to see the day when all churches will join hands in one common object, the glory of God and the salvation of souls." The Roman Catholic pastor, in accepting the generous proffer, wrote that it "tends to send us a long step forward in the direction of that universal brotherhood for which we are all striving." The existence and the public expression of such sentiments indicate a progress toward Christian unity which now appears for the first time since Christendom was divided into the great opposing camps of Catholicism and Protestantism.

But the real feeling of Roman Catholics in Montreal was shown a few days later, when the Endeavorers were placed almost at the very mercy of a Roman Catholic mob, those composing it having become enraged over a speech by an East Indian, who likened Romanism to heathenism. The mayor was talking for policy's sake; the people were acting out their real feelings and principles. And the unfortunate orator of the occasion has been apologized for and condemned most heartily by some of the weak-kneed Protestant press ever since for telling what was doubtless a wholesome, if not a relishable, truth.

The second instance shows, indeed, marvelous condescension on the part of the Baptist, but it would have argued a thousand-fold more for a spirit of union on the part of Romanists if they kindly loaned one of their churches to the Baptists or some other Protestant denomination. Yes, indeed, the Roman Catholic looks forward to that time of universal brotherhood, but that brotherhood to him must be in the Church of Rome, and he saw the Baptist taking the long step. The way Catholics feel is well expressed by the following, which appeared in the Catholic News of some time since:—

The Rev. Charles A. Briggs has just come out the worse for a tussle with the inspired prophets. This should prevent him from making vast prophecies as the following: "That in time Protestants and Roman Catholics would be united, work under one standard creed, and break down the barriers which have in a great degree hindered the evangelization of the world." We hear a great deal of "union" and "unity," etc., from the Protestant end of the bargain. It takes two to make a bargain, and if the Protestants are one, then the Catholics are not the other. There is only one creed, and that is our creed. If the Protestants accept that, they are not Protestants. There is only one chance of unity, and that is the total annexation. Our Protestant friends will do well to learn that fact.

The trouble is that Protestants are Protestants no longer. Rome is the same.

"SUNDAY AND THE FAIR."

By Editor

UNDER the above heading the Examiner of July 30 has the following editorial on the efforts already making for the closing of the proposed Midwinter Fair in San Francisco. We commend its good sense, especially the portions italicized, to our readers:—

In the controversy between the Presbyterian ministers and the Christian Endeavorers as to which body is entitled to the honor of having first demanded a Sunday-closing rule for the Midwinter Exposition, we should be inclined to award the prize, on general principles, to the Endeavorers. They are young and active, and they have taken the idea of suppressing all elevating and instructing recreations on the first day of the week as their peculiar specialty. They are opposed to Sunday newspapers and Sunday mails, and no doubt nothing would please them better than to see Golden Gate Park surrounded by a high iron fence, as the Botanical Garden at Washington is, with every opening tightly closed from sunset on Saturday evening until after breakfast on Monday morning.

But our friends of the Christian Endeavor Society are not quite as careful as they should be to make all their statements strictly accurate. For instance, in their Alameda County resolutions they call upon all "law-abiding citizens of the Pacific Coast" to see that the "Lord's day" is respected by closing the gates of the Fair. The plain implication here is that there is some law in California prescribing a certain mode of observing the "Lord's day." The truth is, as our Endeavorer friends doubtless know, if they stop to think, that there is no such law in this State, and, furthermore, that the one which formerly existed was repealed in obedience to the mandate of a popular majority of 23,000. Any action not criminal in itself is lawful on Sunday, just as on any other day. Moreover, when we did have a Sunday law, it was not one for the observance of the "Lord's day," and its advocates were careful not to defend it on any such ground. It was a law for the protection of a civil day of rest, and even that was decided by the people to be something for the judgment of the individual, and not for legislative interference.

Our esteemed contemporary, the Pacific Endeavorer, expresses the hope that "the result of the opening of the World's Fair in Chicago will demonstrate that our Fair cannot be a success on that day." We fear that no such limitation is possible. San Francisco is not Chicago, nor any other city but itself. Our people are accustomed to consider Sunday their chief day of recreation. What Eastern people may or may not do does not concern us. The Park is thronged every Sunday with families, who go there to enjoy the air and hear the music. There is probably not one of these thousands who would hesitate to go a few steps farther and enter the Fair if it were open. Eighteen thousand people have crowded themselves into the baseball grounds on Sunday. Is it likely that they would scrupulously refrain from looking at an international exposition? The trains and boats take as many excursionists into the country every Sunday as would be likely to visit the Fair on any day of the week.

The two great obstacles to successful Sunday opening in Chicago were the contract with the government, whose repudiation carried the stigma of bad faith, and the failure of the management to give as good a display on Sundays as on week days. People to whom fifty cents meant a good deal did not care to pay a full admission fee for half a show, especially when they were given a chance to see everything at night.

The Pacific Endeavorer adds that "it is hoped that the people of California will begin in the right way to prevent this violation of the laws of God and our fair land." There is the same misconception here that we have noted in the case of the Alameda County resolutions,—there is no "law of our fair land" that would be violated by opening the gates of the Midwinter Fair on Sundays, and if there be any such "law of God," no secular tribunal has been given jurisdiction to enforce it.

The people of California have won a proud distinction among the inhabitants of less-favored parts of the world for their proficiency in the gentle art of minding their own business. Each goes [or is allowed to go, so far as man is concerned] to heaven in his own way. One pays a clergyman to instruct him in righteousness, another gets his sermon from the birds and trees, another from the Sunday newspapers. All dwell together in harmony and brotherly love. We hope that this happy state of things may continue to prevail undisturbed.

The Christian Statesman’s Legislative Desires

By Editor

THE following is the earnest desire of the soul of the Christian Statesman (August 5) in regard to the present session of Congress:—

We hope the following will be reintroduced and passed: the constitutional amendments against sectarian appropriations; the "Sunday Rest Bill" for the District of Columbia and the other for the whole country (a bill against the Sunday deliveries of ice passed the house in last Congress was favorably reported in the Senate, and new laws against the Louisiana Lottery in its new location, and a new amendment to the Constitution to protect every man in his right to Sabbath as a day of freedom for worship and from work.

We are not responsible for the construction or punctuation of the above sentence. We would simply remark, however, with reference to the last part, that every man has now his right to a day of rest, "of freedom for worship and from work," if he is only man enough to demand it or take it. "He may lose his place;" yes, but can he not afford to for manhood's sake? And if he be a true worshiper, can he not trust God?

A Sign of the Times

By Editor

A Sign of the Times.—The Advance of July 27 has an article entitled "A Sign of the Times." It discusses the subject of "retreats" taken by Catholic priests from time to time, and thinks that it would be a good thing for the overdriven Protestant pastor to go apart into a quiet place, and rest, and think, and pray." And doubtless it would. But the writer gives a hint of modern religious union in his article when he tells of eighteen ministers who met together in an Iowa town. He says:—

The gathering was not of one party, as lines are commonly drawn. Some would be ranked as conservatives, some, new theology men; one, Rev. S. M. Crothers, of St. Paul, is a Unitarian; and there was no conscious avoidance of any burning question, but rather the most perfect freedom of debate; but there was unbroken unity in the company, because these men, each in his own way, had reached that conception of Christian doctrine wherein lies "the peace of the church."

It just struck us that the Bible idea of unity presented only one way, and that not our way, but God's way—Christ "the way." The peace of the church respects Him "who is our peace."

Church and State Affairs

By Editor

The following from the Jewish Exponent is worthy of consideration at the present juncture of Church and State affairs:—

Bishop Taylor has no hesitancy in sending his appeal for the maltreated Christians, natives, and others in Africa direct to the State department. In due time we shall proceed to bulldoze the little fellows. And Russia still poses as our friend and ally, and a highly Christian nation! Not a word against its criminal atrocities on a helpless nation!

Useful Employment and Order

"Lose no time; be always employed in something useful, but avoid all unnecessary action. Let all your things have their places; let your part of your business have its time; resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve."

CHRIST AS PROPHET.

By Editor

THE BEARING OF THE SUBJECT ON RELIGIOUS LEGISLATION.

JUST now we are repeatedly met at every turn and from every quarter with a demand for legislation on moral and religious questions, or for legislation on a moral or religious basis. The special demand in this respect is for Sunday laws. Where such laws already exist, their rigid enforcement is demanded. Where they are weak or mild, more stringent laws with adequate penalties are demanded. And where no such laws exist, as in California, both their enactment and enforcement are demanded. This demand in nearly all cases comes from professed Christians. The majority of those who make this demand we concede to be sincere and earnest men and women, believing that it would be for the advancement of Christ's cause and the glory of his name that their demand be complied with on the part of the civil powers. If this be true, we will find, no doubt, ample reason for such a position in what the New Testament reveals concerning Christ in some one of his offices or relations to the race. In this paper we wish briefly to consider him in his relations of Prophet, Priest, and King. What relation did he sustain to civil laws? What relation did he design his followers to sustain? What saith the Scriptures?

CHRIST THE TEACHER.

His coming as a prophet is predicted through Moses. Referring to the request of Israel that God should not in his majesty speak to them any more (Ex. 20: 19), Moses declares that God would send to them on earth a teacher who would represent Him. He says:—

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." Deut. 18: 18, 19.

That this prophecy applied to Christ is shown by Peter in Acts 3: 22, 23. In verse 26 he gives the purpose of sending Christ, namely, "To bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." This was the object of Christ's coming. It was to dethrone sin in the heart and place himself there instead by the voluntary will of the individual. John 7: 17. How was Christ related to civil government? What may we learn from his teaching and example?

1. Though Creator of all things (John 1: 1-3), there was no portion of earth possessed by Christ. He declares: "Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head." Luke 9: 58. He not only possessed nothing, but he absolutely refused to accept of office when the people were ready to force it upon him. "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone." John 6: 15. Further than this, Christ expressly declares that he could not of right reign over this world in its present condition. In reply to the question of Pilate, "Art thou the King of the Jews?" Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews." John 18: 36. That he was a king, that he was born for that purpose, Christ declares in the next verse; but that kingdom was future (as will be noticed later); his mission as teacher was to bear witness unto the truth, and not to build himself up in any way.

2. Consistently with what he said to Pilate were his instructions to his disciples. First, when Christ declared that he should suffer and be crucified, Peter, who had imbibed the idea of a temporal kingdom ruled by Christ, rebuked him. What was Jesus' reply to the zealous disciple?

"He turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offense [R. V., "stumbling block"] unto me; for thou savorest [mindest] not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Matt. 16: 22, 23.

And then Jesus lays down the very foundation principle of all true Christian life and work in the following words: "If any man will come after me, let him DENY HIMSELF, and take up his cross, and follow me."

Secondly, when John and James desired the first places in what they supposed would be Christ's earthly kingdom, Jesus thus addressed his disciples:—

"Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; and whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." Matt. 20: 25-28.

Christ, therefore, came not to rule, but to serve, not to seek for the high places of earth, but to minister to the needy.

Thirdly, when Jesus was slighted by the Samaritans who would not receive him, James and John thought to avenge the insult, as the servants of an earthly king naturally would; and they inquired of him: "Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." Luke 9: 51-56.

It, therefore, is not the Spirit of Christ which actuates men to call down curses upon the heads of those who may commit, or seem to commit, sin.

Fourthly, when Peter, at the time of Christ's arrest, drew the sword and wounded one who came to apprehend his Master, Jesus said, "Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?" "Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" Matt. 26: 52, 53; John 18: 11. As Christ's kingdom was not of this world, his servants had no right to promote his kingdom by any earthly means or power.

3. Christ, while here, possessed no power as a judge. On one occasion, when a multitude were gathered around him, "one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me." But Jesus replied, "Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" (Luke 12: 13, 14), as much as to say, "I have no right to judge you; that is not my province." But as he is no respecter of persons, if he is not a judge of one, he is not of another. And this he expressly declares: "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not; for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." John 12: 47. That was Christ's doctrine. He came not to judge, did not judge. Are those Christ's servants who assume authority which he did not exercise? Are those Christ's servants who presume to sit in judgment upon men who will not perform their interpretation of Christ's words, when Christ would not judge those who rejected his words? Are those Christ's servants who seek to punish men by civil law for violation of religious dogmas, when Christ would not even condemn those who rejected his teaching, but left it all to God and the great day? Are those Christ's servants who, instead of leaving it to God, put themselves in God's place and presume to condemn, and execute judgment?

4. Christ ever taught that his kingdom was at that time future. While he was born heir to the throne of David (John 18: 37; Luke 1: 32), it was necessary that he should go away, receive for himself a kingdom (Luke 19: 12), and return to take it. This kingdom will Christ possess when he comes the second time. Thus Jesus speaks: "When the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory." Matt. 25: 31. And therefore he taught his disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come." He therefore had no connection with civil laws while here, nor did he rule only as he was enthroned voluntarily in the hearts of men.

To summarize: The Scriptures teach: (1) That Christ in his mission to this earth at the first advent came to teach God's will, to minister unto men, to live our example, and to die to redeem us from sin. (2) That he possessed not so much as a place to lay his head; that he would not be made king; that his kingdom was not of this world. (3) He showed by his instructions to his disciples that the path of self-denial was "the path to glory" and to God; that his disciples should not seek greatness by ruling, but by serving; that when they sought to execute judgment on those who rejected Christ, they were not possessed of the Spirit of Christ; and his warm-hearted disciple was rebuked for lifting a sword in the Master's defense. (4) That

Christ's kingdom was yet future, and would not be set up till he come again. From these we conclude that so far as Christ's teaching and example are concerned, Christians have no right to compel, coerce, or condemn men by civil law or to civil penalties for violation of any religious observances whatsoever. "As He is, so are we in this world."

Christ as Priest and King we will consider in the future.

LIFE'S TOOLS.

By L. B. Walford

BY L. B. WALFORD.

A MAN is wanted for the Lord? Life, take thy tools, and make this man. Hew him, and shape, and mould, and form— On ancient lines. Thou know'st the plan.

Thine ax?—Affliction. Chisel?—Care. Thy gnawing saw?—The fretting strain Of ceaseless toil. Thy mallet's blows?— The humbled hope—the bitter pain.

Life, do thy work. But ere it close, With tenderer skill the task pursue,— Smooth gently o'er the rugged edge, And softly touch with evening dew.

What's here? A simpleton? A babe? A block?—Nay, such he came to thee. But, wrought by Life into a man, He passes to eternity.

—Independent.

SUNDAY MEETING AT TROAS.

By William Covert

BY ELDER WILLIAM COVERT.

BECAUSE Paul held one meeting at Troas upon the first day of the week and there broke bread with the disciples, it is claimed that the day must have been the Sabbath day for Christians at that time, or at least it must have been their regular day for holding weekly meetings. But the chief difficulty with the whole scope of Sunday argument is that it is made up of assumption instead of being based on reason or Scripture.

The evidence is quite clear that one meeting was held upon the first day of the week, and that Paul preached unto them, being ready to depart on the morrow. See Acts 20: 7. If there had been a divine appointment setting apart that particular day for that purpose and also an abrogation of the Sabbath commandment which enjoined the observance of the seventh day, all clearly stated in the word of God, then it might at first seem that the church at Troas were living according to these appointments. But as these facts do not exist, we must seek another explanation for the text.

The instruction given for breaking bread is "as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. 11: 23-26. The truth is that the resurrection of Christ is not shown in the communion at all, but it is his death that is shown. If therefore any should urge any particular time in the week above another as being more significant of the point of faith that is shown in the rite of communion, then undoubtedly the crucifixion day would have the preference. Christ, the great Head of the church, instituted the ordinance on the evening of his betrayal. This would again place it on the crucifixion day. Must not this day then be the Christian Sabbath, especially since we have redemption through his blood?

The church at Jerusalem did at one period of her history break bread every day. Acts 2: 46. Was not every day therefore the Sabbath? According to the reasoning of those who try to defend the Sunday, every day was observed as the Sabbath and that by apostolic example. The position that example is equal to a precept must therefore be surrendered, because it proves too much.

We wish the reader to notice particularly that this act of breaking bread took place between midnight and daybreak. It is stated in verses 7-11 (Acts 20) that Paul continued his speech until midnight, and that there were many lights in the upper chamber where the meeting was held, that in a window a young man was seated who was overcome with sleep because of the long discourse, and that he fell down from the third loft and was thought to be dead. This accident arrested the discourse, and Paul went down, and the young man was restored. After this break in the meeting, the bread was broken. Then Paul continued his meeting till break of day, and departed.

Now we wish to ask, Did Paul hold this long service during parts of two days? or was the entire meeting held on the first day of the week? According to the way time is reckoned at the present, the first day of the week terminated at midnight, and the breaking of bread occurred after midnight, which brought it upon Monday. Shall we therefore observe Monday as the Christian Sabbath? But if the Bible method of reckoning the day was then adhered to by Luke, who reported this occurrence, the time employed in the breaking of bread, as well as the time of the entire service, and as well as all the day following till sundown, constituted the first day of the week. This is so because the Bible manner of reckoning days was from sunset to sunset. See Gen. 1: 5. The evening came before the morning. "From even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths." Lev. 23: 32. "At even when the sun did set." Mark 1: 32. The setting of the sun brought in a new day.

The first day of the week would therefore begin with the setting of the sun on Sabbath evening, and end with the setting of the sun Sunday evening. At Troas the church desired to hold a farewell meeting with Paul before he left for Jerusalem. The Sabbath was past and Luke and his companion started around the cape with the vessel, while Paul remained through the night with the church, the arrangement being that early Sunday morning Paul would start on foot to meet the brethren with the vessel at Assos. The distance for Paul to walk was about nineteen and one-half miles, while the route by water was more than twice as far. But when they met at Assos, they tarried not, even though it was Sunday, but sailed for Mitylene, a city on the island of Lesbro, situated perhaps fifty miles further on toward the end of their journey. Thus it turns out that the scripture that is most of all relied on to prove Sunday observance proves positively that it was not so observed.

This is the only instance of a religious meeting being held upon the first day of the week recorded in the entire word of God, and this one shows positively that Paul's companions in labor spent the entire twenty-four hours of that day in travel, and Paul himself spent all the light part of the same day in the same business.

But some have asked, "If it was not designed to teach that the first day should be religiously observed, why then was it mentioned in this connection?" We can see one purpose, at least, that is met by this record, and that is it proves positively that Sunday was not sacredly observed by the apostles and their colaborers. Everyone who loves the Sabbath of the Lord, and is acquainted with the teachings of the Bible, is glad of the proof given in Acts 20: 7-14 that Sunday was not kept.

A CARDINAL DOCTRINE.

By Christian Advocate

ONE of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible is the second coming of Christ. This doctrine intensified and quickened the hopes of the primitive church. The apostle Paul interweaves it into his exhortations and warnings. It entered into the heart and life of the early church. It was conspicuous by the frequency of reference to it; it is conspicuous now by its absence. The party of premillenarians have taken it into their possession as though it was their exclusive right. The doctrine belongs to the whole church, and the church must be aroused from the stupor which long waiting has induced, and embrace with joyous anticipation the coming of the Lord.—Christian Advocate.

Continue reading: SOME SIGNS OF CHRIST'S COMING