Review and Herald, Vol. 25, No. 4. (12/20/1864)

Review and Herald

Dec 20, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 20, 1864

Authenticity of the Scriptures.

By John Norton Loughborough

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ELD. J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, OF BATTLE CREEK, MICH., AND E. O. DARLING OF ROCKTON, ILLS.

THE following correspondence was commenced in the winter of 1861, but was stopped after my fourth letter. Mr. Darling never responded to letters three and four. I present this correspondence for the Review, hoping it may do some good. Most of the statements of matters of fact are copied from Horne and others, but are greatly condensed in my letters.

J. N. Loughborough.

Mr. Darling's First Letter.

BROTHER: Although I do not lay any particular claim to your friendship, above the claim that each and every individual has one upon another, I take the liberty to address you at this time, and in this manner, for the following reasons: While your tent meetings were in progress at Lee's Grove (Harrison, Ills.), owing to the distance and poor health, I was unable to attend but two, and heard you preach but one evening; but judging from this and from the testimony of those who heard your course, I infer that you dared not only meet the orthodox opposition on their chosen ground and behind their great Theological "earthwork," the Bible, but if I am correctly informed, even invited their officers into your own tent where they might behold "the sword of the Spirit" brandished with such dexterity that they generally, after a few strategic maneuvers, thought it policy to retire rather than risk a general engagement. Judging from all this, I conclude that you at least think that you believe what you profess to believe. This is a compliment I do not, I can not, accord to preachers generally. Believing you are honest, I am anxious to learn the claims, if any, that your philosophy has upon my reason, and obtain a few of the arguments with which you convince and convert a free thinking reasoner to a belief in the infallibility of the Bible, and that yours is the only rational and truthful exposition of the same. Briefly, then, the request I have to make is, that at your earliest convenience, consistent with your other duties, you will, by correspondence in the form of answers to questions, or otherwise if you choose, sustain what, if I understand you, you would probably term, the claims of the Bible.

Yours for a knowledge of the truth.

E. O. Darling.

Rockton, Sept. 10, 1861.

Response.

MR. E. O. DARLING, Dear Sir: Your letter came duly to hand, being forwarded from Davis, Ill., to Battle Creek. The letter did not reach Davis until we had left with the tent. I hope this will be a sufficient excuse for my apparent delay. I don't know but I shall accept your offer to correspond on the authenticity of the Scriptures for a while, at least, if we can get at it in some fair way, and have some just principles by which to try our reasonings. I know of no other way to reason but from cause to effect, and that we cannot do without some principles from which to reason.

Neither can we do it without some standard by which to try our work. You say, in speaking of my book on the Saint's Inheritance, which you are reading, that you cannot "believe anything that is not affirmed, or at least is not contradicted by my reason." I cannot reason without some groundwork on which to reason. I might say a thing does not agree with facts. But to say it does not agree with reason is folly, for reason cannot work without facts to work upon. As Hume says:—"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." I am willing you should ask questions, but in answering, I shall ask some questions too. I shall say no more at present, as I am in great haste, and I hope when I receive some of your questions, to be more at liberty. Please address me at Battle Creek at your earliest convenience.

Yours truly,

J. N. Loughborough.

Battle Creek, Sept. 30, 1861.

Mr. Darling's Second Letter.

BRO.: You say you don't know but you shall accept my invitation to correspond "if we can get at it in some fair way, and have some just principles—some standard by which to try our reasoning." Now, while I think that it would be well enough for us, if we can without consuming too much time, to have a few established principles for a foundation, for our eternal welfare, I cannot see the need of any standard outside and besides that standard or principle that judges of standards, the understanding. Or, to state it another way, for us to correspond as I requested, I cannot see why we need any other standard than this, any more than an audience, when you go before it to speak the same matter, subject to the same questioning; unless it be that in that case, "The Book," principles or no principles, is presumed to be the standard, which I suppose is not strictly the case. But I am not too old, nor unwilling to learn more on this subject. What have you to propose here? Referring to a certain portion of my letter, you make me say that "I believed nothing that is not affirmed, or at least is not contradicted by reason," very near as I said it. And then you say that you were not aware that reason itself ever affirmed anything; that you supposed reasoning was "drawing certain conclusions from certain known or inferred causes and facts." Thank you, this definition is undoubtedly correct, but I think also, that if certain conclusions—children of reason—may affirm and confirm, or contradict assertions, it cannot be so very incorrect as to totally obscure the sense to speak of reason as doing it. Here also you seem to take exceptions to the manner in which I refer to your book. But when I said that it "proved little or nothing to me" &c, I supposed that you would readily understand that the reason of this was because it is impossible for me to take as authority, or standard, the mere assertions of Bible writers, to which you almost invariably, as I presume you intended, refer me. If you can get over that standard question, I have some propositions to offer, and would be pleased to hear any from you. I don't see as I can say any more until that standard question is settled, which I trust will receive your attention at your earliest convenience.

Truly yours,

E. O. Darling.

Rockton, Nov. 18, 1861.

Response No. 2.

MR. DARLING, Dear Sir: Your letter of Nov. 18th I received a few days since on returning home from a short trip in Michigan. I embrace this opportunity to answer, although at a late date from the writing of your letter, thinking the old adage true in this case, "Better late than never." You say in regard to my remark about having some standard by which to try our reasoning, "I cannot see that we need any other standard than our own understanding any more than does an audience when you go before it to speak the same matter, subject to the same questioning." I don't know but you are right in this matter. There is, however, a slight difference between this and my preaching to an audience on the same subject. No particular difference between our correspondence and a public discussion on the same subject however. In entering a public discussion, it is necessary for the disputants to understand the source from which their proofs may be derived. But I presume you and I shall have no great difference on that score. I don't know as I just understand your meaning on the subject of standards. You speak of judging all matters by "our understanding." To judge matters by our understanding without any principles or facts, would be equivalent to judging by our impressions. But I will not take advantage of your language, as I suppose you mean we are to judge of matters after getting all the light we can from facts. If you conclude with me, to let the standard question rest for the present as it now stands, we will pass on to the debate. As you first proposed to discuss this matter, saying you wished to ask some questions on the authenticity of the Scriptures, it will be no more than you can expect that I should wait for you to lead out. I trust this will not be construed by you as an unwillingness on my part to try and impart all the light in my power. I of course shall be better prepared to appreciate and help your difficulties when I get your questions, which I suppose, as a matter of course, will involve our points of difference. I trust in the future I shall be able to answer more promptly than heretofore.

I remain yours with respect,

J. N. Loughborough.

Battle Creek, Dec. 19, 1861.

Mr. Darling's Third Letter.

MR. LOUGHBOROUGH, My dear Sir: Yours of Dec. 19th came duly to hand to which I will now reply. As you evince no disposition to protract preliminaries, I will at once proceed to the subject of this correspondence. Passing with you, then, for the present, over the little debate as to whether there is or ought to be any difference between this correspondence and a public discussion of this matter, I will notice for explanation, the next, where, after quoting my language on standards, you say that you don't know as you just understand my meaning when I say that "I cannot see the need of any standard outside of, and besides, that standard which judges all standards—our understanding," and say that to judge of matters by our understanding without any principles or facts, would be almost equivalent to judging by our impressions! But you generously conclude that I mean we are to judge of matters after getting all the light we can from facts, &c. Yes, if we are wise we shall get all the light we can from facts and principles, and make use of it when forming our judgment. But the idea I wished to convey was and is, that before a standard is comprehended by the mind, that mind cannot know whether that standard is true or false, and hence is to us a last and insufficient guide. After that mind comprehends the standard, what better is the standard, even if discovered to be true, to try mental operations by, than the understanding? This, you will perceive, if true at all, is as true of the comparatively unenlightened, as of the enlightened mind.

I will now introduce a very few of the afore mentioned questions. Some of these I have before asked, and heard asked often, and as often have heard them answered by anything but explanations. Hence, I trust you will not think it all unmitigated egotism, should I speak as though I thought some of them inexplicable. First, then, the Bible, its externals. When, where, and how was it compiled? Were these several books, now comprising the Bible, in whole or in part, culled from a collection of manuscripts, and if so, by whom, and what authority? And have we any evidence that these compilers, for the time, at least, were by any means made infallible judges of the matters before them? Were these compilations the work of more than one session, and if it was, when and where the others? And of these manuscripts, how, and where, were they preserved previous to these compilations? In other words, were they, at that time, genuine, and have they, since such compilation, been kept beyond the reach of all possible alteration? Were they, in whole or in part, regarded and used by the people as infallible standards by which to try their reasonings, especially on moral subjects, previous to such compilations?

Next, the Bible, its internals. Is it, as a whole, in its matter, essentially different from any and every other book or books of which we have any knowledge? If so, in what does that difference consist? Was it in a more direct manner than any other book composed by an omniscient, omnipotent and all-good Being, so that in its every narration of fact, and every precept enjoined, it can be depended upon as strictly true, so clear, concise, and plain, that to a moderately well-balanced mind, prior to all theological tinkering, it would be a "safe guide to follow?" In a word, is it, as we generally understand that phrase, "plenarily inspired?" If you say that is so inspired, I of course, can only ask, what and where the evidence? If it is not thus inspired, and is simply a record of, and for, alleged facts and phenomena, then in what sense is it entitled to the appellation of "God's Word," "Holy Bible," &c., any more than is Edmund's Spiritualism, or the Apocrypha to the Old and New Testaments?

These, and similar questions, together with scores of others arising from these, must, I think, of necessity, in every mind, be settled somehow before all doubts can be removed; and all doubts must be removed before a real confiding happiness can be attained. And for that kind of happiness I long and trust and ask prayer of deeds and deep desire of all who wish me well.

Yours with respect,

E. O. Darling.

Rockton, Ill., Jan. 2, 1862.

Response No. 3.

MR. E. O. DARLING, My dear Sir: Your letter of Jan. 2nd is before me, and I hasten to reply. Your preliminaries I have no need to notice, as we have both spoken freely on the subject contained in them.

The first point that arrests my attention is something you say on the standard question again. You say: "The idea I wished to convey was, and is, that before a standard is comprehended by the mind, that mind cannot know whether that standard is true or false; and hence is to us a last and insufficient guide. After that mind comprehends the standard, what better is the standard, even if discovered to be true, to try mental operations by, than the understanding?"

I conceive there is quite a considerable difference. We are dependent for our ideas primarily of everything, on a revelation of some kind: reason itself will never teach us any thing, not even our own name. We must learn it by testimony from others. This becomes more especially the case in reference to events remote from us. Now if I find by carefully trying a book of history, that it records truth on points that I am acquainted with, and succeed in establishing its truthfulness, I take its testimony as true on things which I know nothing about, because I, forsooth, have established it as a true record. It is true, it may take more to convince one man of the truth of a document, than another; but it is not necessary to convince him of the truth of that document, that he should know by actual experience all that is mentioned in the document. If we have established the credibility of a work by the testimony of others writers, whom we may have before proved to be credible, and men of truth, we take the testimony of such men on things of which, by "our own understanding" we know nothing, only what we receive from testimony of others. So, in such a case, that work becomes a standard of facts to us on such subjects as those on which the said work may testify.

But I now come to your question. And I would say,

I am sorry any one should have treated those questions as though they could not be answered. But I know there has been a disposition with some, to meet all such questions with the remark: "Oh, you are an Infidel!" I hope to be able to treat all your questions with candor, and to look them squarely in the face every time. In this letter, I will examine your questions on the externals of the Bible. You ask, "When, where, and how was it compiled? If you mean to ask in this question, when the Old and New Testaments were first bound into one book, I am not prepared to answer your question any further than this, that immediately after this Council of Laodicea (A. D. 364) they were bound into one book. Previous to that time, the New Testament was found in three books, called the Gospel, containing the four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the apostle, containing the Acts, and a part of the epistles we now have. The rest of the books were found in another volume, called the second volume of the apostle, which contained the remaining epistles of our New Testament, and the book of Revelation. Just when they were put into these three divisions, I am not prepared to say now, but as you will see by after testimony, it must have been at a very early date. You are probably aware of the fact that the Ancients had their writings on rolls of parchment, and not in books as we have at the present time, and yet that their writings were always called by them books. See Herodotus, book vi, chap. iv. The Old Testament also existed previous to that Council in three books, called Moses, Psalms, and the Prophets.

But I suppose you mean to ask, when were the books of the Old and New Testaments arranged in the order in which we now have them? I conceive your question to have more especial reference to the credibility of the Bible; for if it was not written till two or three hundred years after the days of Christ, it will materially affect its matters of fact stated. As Paine says: "The first question, however, upon the books of the New Testament, as upon those of the Old, is, are they genuine? Were they written by the persons to whom they are ascribed? For it is upon this ground only, that the strange things related therein have been credited." Age of Reason, Mendum's Boston edition, p. 159. It must have been at a very early date, that the books of the New Testament were arranged. And that early arrangement was the same as that of those which are now regarded as canonical. Eusebius says, that previous to his time, (315) "We find writers giving lists of the books of the New Testament, or rather books which they regarded as sacred." And these lists of books which he refers to, are the same as those now called the New Testament. He says: "These writings were collected and arranged by John the evangelist before his death."

To answer, then, your question, I will commence with the book nearest to our own time, and then take notice of the one more remote. If we show that the New Testament was written in the time of the apostles, and by the apostles, it goes far toward establishing the truth of what we have, professing to be their writings. And especially is this the case if we can get testimony from other writers of the same time, and find that they, instead of contradicting what these books contain, confirm their testimony. Mr. Hobbes, Mr. Chubb, and Lord Bolingbroke, all noted infidels, do not pretend to deny but what Christ lived in the very time in which the New Testament says he lived. As Hobbes says: "The books of the New Testament are as ancient as the times of the apostles; and they were written by persons who lived in those times, some of whom saw the things which they relate." He says still further, that he has "no doubt but the books of the New Testament, as we now have them, are the true registers of those things which were said and done by the apostles and prophets." See Hobbes' Leviathan, p. 203. Chubb's works, Vol. ii, pp. 41, 43. Bolingbroke's works, Vol. v, p. 91. They undertook to get rid of the conclusion we would naturally think they would arrive at, by saying these wonders were done by Egyptian magic. To answer fully your first questions, as several of them involve this point, I will put two or three of them together. You say, "Were these several books now composing the Bible in whole or in part, culled from a collection of MSS., and if so, by whom, and by what authority? And have we any evidence that these compilers for the time at least, were by any means made infallible judges of the matters before them? and were these compilations the work of more than one session, and if so, when and where the others?"

Here are several questions, but the answer to the one point before us will answer all these questions. I know the view is taken by some, (as I heard a Spiritualist lecturer say last week), that there were three Councils in the fourth century, to settle the canon of the Scriptures, namely, the Council of Nice, the Council of Krut, and the Council of Laodicea. But I affirm that these Councils were not for the settlement of the canon of the Scriptures, but for altogether a different matter. If you are in any way acquainted with the Councils of the fourth century, you are aware that the great subject before them was the doctrine of the trinity. In the Council Nice, (325) which was the first Council in the fourth century, the Scriptures were referred to as authority on the subject under dispute; and no one is mentioned as raising a question as to the canonical authority of the books quoted. Is it likely that a Council composed of those who held views so at variance with each other, would at once adopt books as authority in the settlement of their disputed points, without the best of evidence that they were the genuine productions of the apostles? Should we not expect if it was a fact, that the matter had not yet been settled as to what books were written by the apostles, that the great dispute would be on that point in the first place, instead of their all readily yielding assent to the documents quoted? Prior to the time of the assembling of the Council of Nice, seven lists of the books of the New Testament were made out which agree exactly with ours. Six others were made out which agree with ours, with the exception that they were not satisfied with the book of Revelation, thinking it contained views which favored too much a sect called the Millenarians. But Eusebius says in his list, which agrees also with the present list, that "the book of Revelation was questioned by some, but was generally received, and is not to be doubted." Lardner Vol. ii, p. 368 . Before the close of the second century, early Christian writers had made comments on the New Testament, and referred to every book we now have in the New Testament as genuine productions of the apostles. These commentators have quoted so copiously from the New Testament that their writings contain every verse in the New Testament except 26. But I will admit that at the time of some of the later councils, the excitement had run so high on the subject of the trinity that some had, in order to maintain their favorite tenets, forged epistles, and these epistles were challenged and investigated. But if there had not been as yet a collection of books which were understood to be sacred, there would have been no way for them to determine the question of the authenticity of those books. They could only be guided aright in their decisions by comparing these productions with the New Testament. These forged books were found to teach sentiments which did not agree with the New Testament. They were also shown to be forgeries of the 4th century, and these are the very productions referred to by Mosheim and others, which were written and ascribed to certain of the apostles.

If we go to the second century we there find Origen. He was born within less than 100 years of the time of the Apostles. He made out a list of the books of the New Testament in the year 210 A. D. "This list contains no other books than those of our sacred volume, and includes all that are now received except the epistles of James and Jude, which could not have been omitted by design, as in other places in his works he expressly acknowledges them as a part of the sacred canon."—M'Ilvaine's Evidences, p. 69.

Those that Love His Appearing.

By C. M. Willis

How oft we look up, as we see the day nearing, And long for the time when His coming we'll see; How the hearts of those thrill who love His appearing, When he comes without sin, all His captives to free.

But while in the light of His promise we're basking, Rejoicing in hope of the mansions above, This heart-searching question each one should be asking, In His coming, what is there, I earnestly love?

We had dear cherished forms, to the church-yard we bore them, With anguish which none but the mourner can tell; When our Lord comes again he says he'll restore them— Is this why we love his appearing so well?

We have breasted the waves of life's turbulent river, We have gleaned earthly treasures to see them decay, We have seen our hopes crumble in ruins forever, While time marred our idols and swept them away.

When hopes one by one, by the tempest are riven, Our hearts all enshrouded by sorrow and gloom; We long to escape to some more quiet haven; 'Tis then we cry out, "Come, Lord, quickly come!"

But it is not for these we should love his appearing; Though rough be our path way and gloomy the grave, There is something beyond, and the thought, oh, how cheering! Our Saviour hath died fallen sinners to save.

He died to redeem, view him suffering and bleeding, He rose in great majesty, mighty to save; At his Father's right hand hear him now interceding, Victorious o'er death, o'er hell, and the grave.

With hearts filled with love, let us fall down before him, Begin here the harmony never to end; And love his appearing, because we adore him, And long to be with him, our Saviour and Friend. C. M. WILLIS. Charlotte, Mich.

Indecision.

NEVER be undecided. Never if you can avoid it, be infirm of purpose. Always make up your mind to follow a certain course, after due deliberation, and then, when you have arrived at a decision, cling to it. Do not permit trifling circumstantial influences to interfere with your just conclusions. As Brutus did when he condemned his son Titus to death, so should you. Consequences are everything. Do right, and the consequences will not, in the end of matters, be disastrous to you. Do right! But strive, every day of your life, to discover wherein right exists, and of what it is constituted. They who yield to accustomed indecision, will ever be unprosperous, and, of course, unhappy.

The Highlander's Prayer.

ONE can not live in the habit of prayer without acquiring familiarity with the spirit of devotion which indicates to others that he is a praying man. A true Christian can generally infer, both from the language and the manner of nominal prayer, whether the suppliant is in the habit of frequent communion with God. The best illustration of this is given by Hugh Miller, in his great work on the "Headship of Christ:"

A Scotch Highlander, who served in the first disastrous war with the American colonies, was brought before the commanding officer one evening, charged with the capital offense of being in communication with the enemy. The charge could not well be preferred at a more dangerous time. Only a few weeks had elapsed since the execution of Major Andre, and the indignation of the British, exasperated almost to madness by the event, had not yet cooled down. There was, however, no direct proof against the Highlander. He had been seen in the grey of the twilight stealing out from a clump of underwood that bordered on one of the huge forests which at that period covered much the greater part of the United Provinces, and which, in the immediate neighborhood of the British, swarmed with the troops of Washington. All the rest was mere inference and conjecture. The poor man's defense was summed up in a few words. He had stolen away from his fellows, he said, to spend an hour in private prayer.

"Have you been in the habit of spending hours in private prayer?" sternly asked the officer, himself a Scotchman and a Presbyterian.

The Highlander replied in the affirmative.

"Theu" said the other, drawing out his watch, "never in all your life had you more need of prayer than now; kneel down, sir, and pray aloud, that we may all hear you."

The Highlander, in the expectation of instant death, knelt down. His prayer was that of one long acquainted with the appropriate language in which the Christian addresses his God. It breathed of imminent peril, and earnestly implored the divine interposition in the threatened danger,—the help of Him who, in times of extremity, is strong to deliver. It exhibited in short, a man who, thoroughly conversant with the scheme of redemption, and fully impressed with the necessity of a personal interest in the advantages which it secures, had made the business of salvation the work of many a solitary hour, and had in consequence, acquired much fluency in expressing all his various wants as they occurred and his thoughts and wishes as they arose.

"You may go," sir said the officer as he concluded, "you have, I dare say, not been in correspondence with the enemy to-night."

"His statement," he continued, addressing himself to the other officers, is undoubtedly correct. No one could have prayed so without a long apprenticeship; fellows who have never attended drill always get on ill at review."

Let Me Go.

Let me go where saints are going, To the mansions of the blest— Let me go where my Redeemer Has prepared his people's rest. I would gain the realms of brightness, Where they dwell forever more; I would join the friends that wait me Over on the other shore:—

Chorus—Let me go, 'tis Jesus calls me, Let me gain the realms of day; Bear me o'er, on angel pinions; Longs my soul to be away.

Let me go, why should I tarry? What has earth to bind me here? What but cares and toils and sorrows? What but death and pain and fear? Let me go for hopes most cherished Blasted round me often lie! Oh! I've gathered brightest flowers But to see them fade and die. Let me go, &c.

Let me go where tears and sighing Are forever more unknown; Where the joyous songs of glory, Call me to a happier home. Let me go, I'd cease this dying, I would gain life's fairer plains; Let me join the myriad harpers, Let me chant their rapturous strains. Let me go, &c.

Let me go, there is a glory That my soul hath longed to know; I am thirsting for the waters Which from crystal fountains flow; There is where the angels tarry, There the saved forever throng, There the brightness wearies never, There I'll sing redemption's song. Let me go, &c.,

A Secret for Mothers.

MR. and Mrs. Ashton, with their numerous family of sons and daughters, came to the Lord's table an unbroken circle. I never witnessed the blessed sight without asking myself, "What secret influence has been owned of God by these precious results? One day I said to the youngest daughter, a child of twelve years, "Do you ever forget Jesus?"

"Oh! no," she replied, "we can none of us at home ever forget Him, for mother talks to us of Jesus every day. He is ever with us."

Oh! mothers, take to your heart the precious secret of that family's bliss. The mother, ever abiding in Jesus made his name a household word, his presence ever acknowledged, ever felt. "She speaks to us of Jesus every day!" Mother, is it true of you? Do your lips and life daily, hourly, breathe the knowledge and love of Jesus into the hearts of the little ones at your knee? Is Jesus a name which your baby often hears, and early lisps? Trust not that formal counsels, invitations and prayers will be owned and blessed of God in the salvation of your children. The ever-abiding, ever-pleading, outbreathing, outspeaking love of Jesus, alone shall prevail. Giving yourself, and your little ones, unto God to be saved by the blood of Jesus alone, according to His everlasting covenant to you and to your children, trust him unwaveringly to keep His word. So shall you be sustained in your work of Christian culture, not alone by hope and faith, but by the blessed assurance that God will make your labors effectual unto salvation, by His converting and saving grace.—Congregationalist.

Recipe for Pickling Grievances.

TAKE a quarter of an ounce of Grievance. (N. B.—Some say a grain is sufficient, as in this recipe everything depends on the cooking. I have even been told it has been successful without any of the solid ingredient at all, but I only give what I have tried.) Bruise and pound it thoroughly, so that every particle of the fiber is laid bare. Season it with a good sprinkling of your Own Merits. Let it stand some hours, adding from time to time alternately a pinch of the Unrequited Delinquencies of Others, and their Undeserved Blessings. In the evening boil it in water from the Well of Pride, leaving it to simmer all night. The next morning strain from it all remnants of your own Well-deserved Trials, bottle it, and cork it tightly from the fresh air, which is fatal to it, securing the cork with parchment written over with the Generous Commendations of your acquaintances, and the Unjust Attacks of your best friends. This pickle is warranted to keep for years. If it should fail, it must be either from some defect of care in the straining, or because the vessel in which it was boiled had not been previously carefully rinsed from all remains of your own Undeserved Blessings. If it should lose any of its sharpness, you have only to boil the whole carefully over again in water from the same well, and you will find the flavor recover all its first acidity and pungency. Let no cooks attempt this recipe to whom the time is of any value, as all depends on the leisure bestowed on the preparation.—The Family Treasury.

The Heroism of Patient Endurance

THAT man is certainly a hero, whom fortune has dealt with severely, who patiently endures and smothers his grief and does his duty with an unruffled brow and a cheerful mien.

SPANISH PROVERBS.

ThE sage ere he iu debt would rise, A supper to himself denies.

What you have time to do to-day, Until to-morrow ne'er delay.

The looking-glass will tell to thee What friends deny, although they see.

Questions and Answers.

By Editor

We have received the following questions from Wm. P. Stewart, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

Question. In the Greek of Matt. xxviii, 1, the word, "Sabbaths," occurs twice. In the first instance it is translated "Sabbath," in the second, "the first day of the week." Do you approve of this translation? If you do, why? If you do not, then how would you translate it?

Answer. We do most heartily approve of the translation "first day of the week" in Matt. xxviii, 1, and its parallel passages. And the reason for this is, because the word Sabbaton after a numeral adjective is to be translated, week. And in every instance where the expression first day of the week occurs in the New Testament, this word, Sabbaton, does follow a numeral adjective, and in every such instance all authorities say that it is to be translated week, and that the numeral adjective marks the day of the week. See Religious Encyclopedia, Liddell and Scott, Robinson and Greenfield.

Ques. If the first day of the week is not to be kept as a holy rest, why is it invariably called Sabbath in the New Testament, except in Rev. i, 10?

Ans. If the first day of the week is to be kept as a holy rest, why is it not even once called Sabbath? for we have seen in the reply to the first question, that instead of being invariably called Sabbath it is not once so called. Nor does Rev. i, 10, refer to the first day of the week; if it does, and if the term "Lord's day" had become, as some contend, the usual designation for the first day of the week, at that time, why does not John, the writer of the Revelation, in his gospel which was written after the Revelation, call it the Lord's day, instead of simply first day of the week, when contrasting it with the Sabbath? The only day called the Lord's day any where in the Bible, is the seventh day of the week; and this day is in numerous instances emphatically designated in such a way as to show us that it belongs in a peculiar and absolute sense to the Lord. Not only is the first day never so designated; but while no repeal of the original law for the seventh day can be found, and no transfer of the blessing once pronounced upon it to any other day, no record can be produced of any blessing ever having been attached to first-day observance, nor any law for such observance.

Ques. Why is it said that the wicked go into everlasting punishment, Matt. xxv, 46, if your view of their destruction is correct?

Ans. Because everlasting death is everlasting punishment. The misunderstanding that arises on this text is occasioned by confounding the term punishment with conscious misery, whereas it does not necessarily mean such. Death is punishment. It is everlasting punishment if there is to be no release from it. Just as Paul in Heb. vi, 2, speaks of "eternal judgment"; not a judgment which is eternally going on, but one, the decisions of which are final, or eternal.

Question. If the keeping of the first day of the week is the mark of the beast now, why was it not in the days of Luther, or at any time before the sounding of the third angel's message?

Ans. Because they did not keep it as an act of obedience to the beast. Neither do we say that people keep it thus now, hence our theory accuses no one of yet having the mark of the beast in the sense of that message, and of being exposed to its threatening. But that message contemplates a time when the Sunday institution will be enforced in a special manner in opposition to the commandments of God; and enforced in such a way that none can yield to it without becoming worshipers of the beast. Such will then have received the mark, and become exposed to the threatened wrath.

Continue reading: Still in the Dark