Earlier text: General ArticlesAn Atonement Consistent with Reason.
By Editor
PERHAPS there never was a time when the idea expressed by Pope, "Whatever is, is right," was so distorted and carried to an absurd extreme, as it is at the present. Some say that every action, whatever its nature, is acceptable to God, because it is performed under his overruling hand. One well-known "reformer" says that such a thing as "sin, in the common acceptation of the term, does not exist." It is affirmed that sin cannot exist; that "there is no room in the universe for wrong to exist." We heard a some-what popular speaker declare that "what men call crimes are most valuable experiences in the march of human progress." And these statements are not made by wild fanatics alone; they are argued in their most plausible forms by men, and women, also, who pass in their communities for staid and sober people. But on examination we find that the propagators of these theories get them up to relieve the mind of a sense of responsibility. This class of moral philosophers always frame their theories to throw the blame of wrong, if any wrong exists, upon God, the Creator, and never to leave it upon themselves!. We trust the reader will pardon the relation of "a true story" which contains an argument in itself worthy of consideration. Two men, machinists, working in a railroad shop, were conversing on this subject. One contended that if he did wrong he was not responsible for the wrong, for, said he, "I act out the disposition that was given me. If I make a locomotive and it will not work, you do not blame the locomotive, you blame me for my faulty workmanship. Even so, if I do not answer the end of my being, it is not my fault. The blame attaches to my Maker, who made what I am." His friend replied: "Your illustration is just and forcible, provided you insist that your Maker gave you no more brains than you put into a locomotive!" The truth is that the possession of brains and will-power brings responsibility; and this responsibility necessarily attaches to creatures on our plane of being. If they who deny the existence of moral wrong would reflect a moment, they could not fail to perceive that their theory is really degrading to themselves. They are irresponsible if they are mere machines or unreasoning animals. But if they have the power to reason, to will, to choose, and have moral consciousness, a sense of right and wrong, responsibility must necessarily attend the use of these powers. And every one feels this responsibility; his conscience will not permit him to deny it, until he has seared his conscience, and blunted his moral sensibilities; that is to say, he has, in a greater or less degree, brutalized himself, and degraded his manhood, either by pernicious and false reasoning, or by an immoral life. And now, looking over the whole field of argument on this subject, we ask: Is it not a humiliating thought that a word is necessary to prove to any one that moral wrong exists? Must I stop to reason with a man, a human being, with all his faculties in exercise, to prove to him that it is wrong to steal, to murder, or to commit adultery? To argue the subject, nay, to admit that it is a debatable question, is an insult to the sense of mankind. The real question at issue is, How shall we dispose of the evil which exists? or, How shall criminals be rescued from the awful consequences of their violations of the law of Him who is infinitely just? We do not ask the reader, or our doubting friend, to consider the question as to whether the guilty might not be suffered to escape by overruling or suspending justice, or how they might stand before a finite being, or a judge who is comparatively just. The real question is, How shall they stand before the judgment seat where justice is maintained and vindicated on the scale of infinity? where every evil thought and intention is counted as an overt act of iniquity and rebellion against a righteous Government? This, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea of a Supreme Being, an Infinite One who is a moral Governor, whose perfections demand that He shall take cognizance of every offense against His authority; every invasion of the rights of His subjects. These are solemn questions, and demand our candid consideration. If God is infinitely just—and can he be otherwise?—if he will bring every work into judgment, and we shall have to meet our life records there, how shall we stand in His presence? It certainly becomes us to deal candidly with ourselves, and to understand, if possible, those principles of justice which must prevail in a wise and righteous government. Sin is everywhere, and in our own hearts. What shall be done in regard to it? We may indeed flatter ourselves that our sins have not been very great; we may persuade ourselves to believe that, compared to those of others, our lives have been quite creditable. But we must remember that wrong never appears odious to the habitual wrong-doer; therefore no one is competent to judge in his own case. The decision will not be made upon our actions as they look to us, but as they look to the Infinite Lawgiver and Judge. We will not be compared with our neighbor, in the Judgment, but with the law which is holy, and just, and good. The spirituality of that law we cannot comprehend, even as we cannot fathom the mind of its Author. We must stand in the light of Heaven's purity and glory. REQUIREMENTS OF THE MORAL SYSTEM.
The administration of government is a simple, easy, yes, a pleasant matter, where all the subjects are perfectly obedient. No such Government now exists on this earth; but every one can picture to himself how happy the State would be where there was no sin; no violation of the law; no invasion of rights; no denial or disregard of authority; no discord, but each seeking the peace and happiness of the other. Who would not pray, "Thy kingdom come," if its coming will introduce such a state of things? But when sin enters; everything is changed. New and strange relations are introduced. New interests spring up. New duties devolve upon both the Government and the criminal. The governor must then take steps to maintain the integrity of the law, the honor of the State, and thereby to protect the subjects from the consequences of wrong-doing. For every violation of the law is an invasion upon the rights and liberties of the citizens. As we shall notice more particularly hereafter, two parties then arise; one, pitying the criminal, pleading for mercy; the other, fearing for the safety of the State and the welfare of its subjects, pleading for justice. And such are the realities now before us. With such an unfortunate state of things we have to deal. Such difficulties and diverse interests are found everywhere upon the face of the earth. While we consider the requirements of a moral system in such a state of things, we must bear in mind that there is no moral Government on earth. That is to say, there is no Government on earth entirely of moral principles, or administered solely upon a moral basis. And, from the very nature of things, it is impossible that there shall be in the present state. No human government is administered with regard to the intentions of the subjects aside from their actions. No governor, no judge, no jury, has been able to "discern the thoughts and intents of the heart." Secret things are not, and cannot here, be brought into judgment. A moral system, or a moral Government, can be administered by God alone. All that we have said or shall say respecting a moral system, we say in reference to the rule and authority of God, who only can defend moral principles, and bring into judgment the violators of the spirit of law as well as the violators of its letter. But the principles of justice and of government we may understand, and are able to discern in regard to their requirements under various circumstances. According to the measure of our ability, we are under obligation to maintain these principles; and though we cannot discern the intents of the hearts of others, we are required to guard our own hearts, and to respect these principles in our lives. And however much we might shrink from the strict enforcement of these principles, we must bear in mind that it not only binds us, but it protects us; and we would have every reason to dread the results of a failure to uphold and enforce law. We deprecate tyranny, but it is seldom as blindly cruel as anarchy. We will now proceed, as briefly as possible, to examine some of the well-known and well-accepted claims and requirements of government. § I. SIN OUGHT TO BE PUNISHED.
Penalty gives force to the law, and without it, law is a nullity. And no matter what consequences may result from the violation of law, the criminal is not punished till the penalty is inflicted. We might find many cases in our courts where the accused has suffered consequences more severe than the punishment which the law inflicts; but the judge cannot regard these—his office is to see that the penalty prescribed by the law be inflicted. He who violates the law risks the penalty and the intermediate consequences. In behalf of the affirmation that the transgression of the law ought to be punished, the following reasons are offered:— 1. It injures the subjects of the Government. One great object of government is the good of its subjects. The imprisonment of the thief, the robber, and the murderer, answers a double purpose, punishing the crimes, and preventing their further preying upon our property and our lives. The same law that restrains the evil-doer, secures the rights of the well-doer. Hence, every violation of the law of a Government is an invasion of the rights of the subjects thereof. Its tendency will be more clearly seen if we imagine for a moment that the law be disregarded by not one only, but by many, or by all. Then all rights, all safeguards, would be trampled down, and the objects of government entirely defeated. This, of course, is the tendency of every transgression. 2. It brings contempt upon the Government. In case of war we have seen thousands offer their lives as a sacrifice to uphold the Government and maintain its honor. If it cannot secure respect, it cannot maintain its authority. And if authority be despised, no rights and privileges are safe. All the evils noticed in the preceding paragraph are involved in this. 3. It insults and abuses the Creator and Governor. So blinding is the influence of sin that men despise the authority of God, and insult him daily, without any apparent compunction. All violations of law are insults to, and abuse of, authority. Every individual has rights in his own sphere, and there is no right more sacred than that of the Supreme authority to claim the respect and reverence of the subjects. And if the Governor be not respected, his Government cannot be; and if that be not respected, of course the rights of the subjects under it will not be. Consider again, if this example were followed by all—by all the intelligences of the universe; if all the men on earth and all the angels in Heaven should unite in abusing and insulting the God of Heaven, his Government would be turned into one vast field of anarchy, and individual rights would no longer be recognized. No one could consent that God should suffer such a state of things to continue without making an effort to reclaim the Government, and to maintain and vindicate right laws. Of course all must agree that sin ought to be punished. § II. CAN THE SINNER BE CLEARED?
This question is of the greatest importance, and no one should pass it lightly. All would say at once that the sinner can be cleared; but of necessity something must be involved in securing his acquittal. It must appear to all that he cannot possibly be cleared unless one of the following things takes place:— 1. The law be suffered to be trampled upon with impunity. This, of course, should not be permitted, for reasons given above; and we may say, will not be permitted, if the executive has a proper sense of right and justice to himself and to his subjects, and requisite power to enforce his authority. But the divine, attributes must be a sufficient guarantee to guard this point. 2. The law be abolished. But this would be an acknowledgment of weakness or error on the part of the Government rather than evidence of wrong on the part of the transgressor. Or if the law were not acknowledged to be wrong, nor the Government in error, the case would be equally bad, presenting the pitiable spectacle of a Government abolishing a good law to accommodate a bad subject—one of rebellious tendencies. This would not be restraining sin; it would be rather favoring or licensing sin, and justifying the sinner in his evil course. And it would have a tendency to bring in all the evils of anarchy and ruin that we have considered as the unavoidable results of destroying governmental authority. To suppose that God would act thus is a libel on the wisdom and justice of the King of Heaven which we would not dare to utter. These suppositions are inadmissible. 3. The Governor pardon. This is a prerogative389that may, under proper restrictions and conditions, be safely exercised. Therefore we must accept this as the only alternative; as the only means whereby the sinner may escape the punishment of his crimes. The Sabbath-School.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
Lesson for Pacific Coast.—Sept. 8.
It is doubtful if there is any chapter in the Bible that has been the subject of more controversy, among a certain class, than the 15th chapter of Acts. By many it is considered as proving conclusively that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is not binding on Christians. Some may ask in surprise what warrant this chapter gives for such a conclusion, since the subject of the Sabbath is not discussed, and is only mentioned incidentally. The reply is that four things were enjoined upon the new converts as "necessary," verse 28, and the Sabbath not being one of them, it is therefore not to be observed. We have stated the case fairly, that all may judge of its soundness when contrasted with the truth on the matter. AND first, we ask, Who are they that bring this objection against the seventh-day Sabbath? Are they infidels, or those who do not believe that men should observe any day as a rest-day? Not as a rule. They are usually those who keep the first day of the week, a large part of whom claim Scripture authority for such a practice. Why, then, can they not see that if the seventh-day Sabbath is not binding, because of the silence of this council in regard to it, the Sunday is in an equally bad plight, for it is not hinted at as one of those "necessary things"? We have never been able to explain this inconsistency except on the ground that Sunday advocates seem to realize that consistency is incompatible with an active warfare against the Sabbath of the Lord. We conclude, therefore, that people do not really believe that this chapter affords any evidence against Sabbath-keeping. "Anything to beat" the "Saturday-Sabbath," is the idea; for having once put that out of sight, habit, early training, and public opinion, will lead people naturally enough to keep Sunday, in form, at least. Another point may be noticed here, which will show the short-sightedness of those who urge the decision of this council as a reason for not keeping the Lord's Sabbath. The apostolic letter to the converts from among the Gentiles closes thus: "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." It will be seen that no mention is here made of idolatry, of profanity, of disobedience to parents, of murder, nor of theft. Must we therefore conclude that these converts were granted license to commit all these sins? Is this the liberty of the gospel, to which they were admitted? However much any one despises the law of God, he cannot admit for a moment that the apostles would sanction the commission of any of the sins above enumerated. Then may we not also conclude that they would not sanction the violation of any part of the law, since it all is of equal authority? See Matt. 5:17-20; James 2:8-12. Our readers have doubtless by this time concluded that the law of God—the ten commandments—could not have been the subject of discussion; and that is exactly the truth. From verses 1 and 5 we learn that certain Jews troubled the churches that had been raised up among the Gentiles, teaching the members that they must be circumcised and keep "the law of Moses," if they would be saved. It was to settle this matter that this council was called. Both Scott and Barnes plainly state that the "Jewish ceremonies," or the "ceremonial law" was the subject of controversy. The speech of Peter proves that the perpetuity of the moral law was not called in question. He said that God "put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." Purifying their hearts from what? From sin, of course. And what is sin? "Sin is the transgression of the law." 1 John 3:4. But from what sins were they purified by this faith? Paul answers, in Rom. 3:23-25: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God." Christ's blood purifies from past sins, but does not grant indulgence for future sin. Peter, whose speech we are considering, spoke in another place on this wise: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 1 Peter 1:22. The law of God is the truth, Ps. 119:142; Jno. 17:17. We learn, then, that having been purged from past sins by the blood of Christ, we are, by the aid of the Spirit, to keep ourselves pure for the future by obeying the law of God. This is the testimony of those apostles who took part in this famous council. And further, the very fact that we are purified by faith, proves the perpetuity of the law of God; as Paul says, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Rom. 3:31. That is, the fact that we can get rid of sin in no other way but by the death of Christ, shows that the claims of the law of God cannot be abated in the least; for if it were possible to remit the claims of that law, that act would free mankind from sin, and make it unnecessary for Christ to die. "Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Verse 10. What was this yoke? The ceremonial law. The testimony of learned men has much weight with some, so we quote two comments on this verse:— "This did not relate merely to circumcision, but to the whole ceremonial law; which, though proper and useful for the time, required so many distinctions, burdensome purifications, expensive sacrifices, long journeys, and other things of a similar nature, that it was a very uneasy yoke, in every age, even to the inhabitants of the promised land, and still more to those Jews who resided in other countries."—Scott. "This does not refer to the moral law; that was of eternal obligation; but to the ritual law, which, through the multitude of its sacrifices, ordinances, etc., was exceedingly burdensome to the Jewish people."—Clarke. But we have the testimony of those apostles who took part in this discussion, that by this "yoke" they did not mean the moral law. Thus John says, "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous." 1 John 5:3. James says, "But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed." Jas. 1:25. See also chap. 2:8-12. A "law of liberty" is very different from a yoke of bondage. And Paul says, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man." Rom. 7:12, 22. These testimonies should be sufficient to settle this matter. It is asked "Why was a positive sin, the violation of the seventh commandment, included among the prohibited things, and no other sin?" We reply that none of the things prohibited pertained to the ceremonial law. They were all "necessary things," but the ceremonial law was not necessary. The partaking of meats offered to idols, if not in itself an evil, had the appearance of evil, which is always to be avoided. It would be a cause of stumbling to many, and more than all would, on account of associations, be a stepping-stone to idolatry. The eating of blood was forbidden to Noah, for both physical and moral reasons, and is as much wrong now as it ever was. Dr. Clarke enters into an extended argument to prove this point, but we have not the space. The same argument would exclude things strangled. As to fornication, so far was it from being accounted wrong by the Gentiles that it formed a part of their heathen worship, and was considered a virtue rather than a crime. So common was it that the converts from the Gentiles would not be apt to think of it as a violation of the law of God; hence they needed special warning on this point. Abstinence from these things which were so common among the Gentiles would separate them in a great measure from their old associations, and prevent their lapsing into idolatry. The law of God, in general, they would keep as a matter of course, as a necessary part of their Christian profession. "For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day." Verse 21. This mention of the Sabbath by James, although incidental, is conclusive as showing which day was regarded by him as the true Sabbath. The day on which the Jews read the law in the synagogues is spoken of as the Sabbath. That day, as every one admits, was what is now called Saturday. But James further says that the law was read every Sabbath-day; and since the Jews had only one regular day—the seventh-day—for worship and the reading of the law, it necessarily follows that James knew of no other Sabbath than the seventh-day of the week. And this statement, let it be remembered, was made in a Christian assembly, composed of apostles and elders, twenty years after the ascension of Christ. If the first day of the week is the Sabbath of the Christian dispensation, is it not strange that none of this assembly had learned of it during those twenty years? From a recent report, issued by the Young Men's Christian Association of Brooklyn, the announcement is quoted: "Less than one-tenth of our young men are in the churches and Sunday-schools; this statement is made after the most careful investigation." Where are the young men? The report answers: "In the city there are two thousand five hundred and sixty-seven licensed liquor saloons, and four hundred and ninety-one licensed billiard and pool-tables, besides hundreds of places where gambling and other vices are indulged in; the vast majority of the patrons are young men." The result of such a condition of things has only to be added to make the report complete: "In one of our largest State prisons two-thirds of the inmates are men, and two-thirds of these are under twenty-six years of age." Result of the Prize System.
WE clip the following little story from an exchange. It is quite appropriate in this time of "strike"s, and we recommend it to the consideration of those teachers and superintendents who depend on prizes to enable them to get up an interest. There is a moral to it:— A teacher, finding it difficult to obtain the prompt attendance of the boys in her class, resolved to adopt a plan which she felt sure would be successful. She said to the boys:— "Now I will give a bright penny to each one who will be in their places every Sunday." The plan seemed to work well until one Sunday not a boy appeared in his place. The teacher was surprised and somewhat discouraged that her plan had not succeeded. But the next day, while walking down street and thinking what to do next, she met one of the boys and said to him:— "Well, Johnnie, where were you yesterday?" "But why did you and the other boys not come to Sunday-school, and get your pennies?" "Oh, teacher, 'cause we've struck; we won't come for less than two cents now." We were not informed as to how long the strikers held out, or whether the advance was granted. If there is a species of punishment more execrable than another, it is that of making children learn Scripture as a penalty for their offenses. Rev. Charles Garrett, the President of the Wesleyan Conference, says he lately found in a school a boy who for some offense was ordered to learn a portion of Scripture, and above all chapters the fourteenth of John. And there the poor little fellow stood sobbing and murmuring as best he could, "Let not your heart be troubled." How can boys so treated love the Bible?—Baptist Weekly. In our article on the compromise of diverse interests by which the image to the beast will be made, we spoke of the two methods revealed in the prophecy of Rev. 13, in which the mark or sign of the beast will be received by two classes of people. One class receive it in the forehead, that is, intellectually, as an article of religious faith and duty. The other, in the hand, or in obedience to the civil authority, as the hand is always used as an emblem or symbol of power. The terrible curse threatened in Rev. 14:9-12, is to fall upon both classes, and we are not willing to be numbered with either. There is a way to escape that awful "wrath of God;" it is found in keeping "the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." Now we do not know how a person can break the fourth commandment and yet claim to keep the commandments of God, with any more reason and propriety than one can break the third or the eighth commandment and still claim to be a commandment-keeper. We present a few thoughts on this subject in the following paragraph to which we call especial attention. It is conceded that the Sabbath is a very important institution; the Lord himself declared its great importance by giving it as a sign whereby we may know that he is God. Ex. 31:13, 17; Eze. 20:12, 20. Of course the fourth commandment, which guards the institution and enforces its observance, is an important part of the law of God. But the Sabbath can be a sign of God as the Creator of the heavens and the earth only in its character of a commemorative institution. Now it must be confessed that its value as a memorial depends upon the identity of the day to be celebrated. The Lord carefully guarded this point by blessing and sanctifying the day on which he rested from all his work which he created and made. The commandment for its observance was placed in the very heart of the decalogue, and to preclude all possibility of doubt or mistake, he withheld manna on that day for the space of forty years, and wrought constantly recurring miracles for the same length of time, to guard the day from any necessity of being desecrated, and to teach his people the high esteem in which he held the day—the holy day—of his rest. But, to change the day is to destroy its commemorative character; to turn it aside from the use for which Jehovah gave it. This also must be conceded. Practically it is always acknowledged; for, when another day is chosen as a substitute for the Lord's rest, or Sabbath, it is always spoken of as commemorating another event, to which the commandment has no reference. That other day is not a sign whereby we may know Jehovah, the Creator of the heavens and the earth. We stand upon a great moral principle, from which we cannot afford to be removed. We plead for the integrity of the word of God. When we ask for authority for changing or destroying the memorial of Jehovah, the Creator of all, we are referred to "the Fathers," to "the history of the early church," or are met with inferences and reasonings of which the authors would be ashamed were it not that the object for which they reason is popular. They confess that they have no explicit warrant, no law, for their practice. We might readily fill this page with confessions to this effect from representative men of various denominations. But if they have no law for its observance, they are not keeping the commandment of God in its observance. Can this be denied? Richard Baxter once asked, "Is that obedience to God for which there is no commandment?" We repeat the question, and call upon Sunday-keepers to answer. We believe we are in the last days; the message of Rev. 14:9-12 is going to the ends of the earth; all nations, and kindreds, and tongues, and peoples, are fast receiving the warning. We cannot turn away from it; we must keep the commandment of God. Let those make void the commandment through their traditions who dare to; we dare not. But it is continually pressed upon us by those who are laboring to procure a religious amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to the universal enforcement of Sunday, that it will at most be an inconvenience to those who keep the seventh day, but it will work no hardship religiously, as they will not interfere with our keeping the seventh day; they only ask us to keep Sunday also. Very kind, indeed, of them! Suppose they were in China and there encountered a local law, which compelled every resident of the district to go to the temple and do homage to their particular Joss. They would, of course, say that was contrary to their religion, as the Bible commanded them to worship Jehovah. But the intelligent official politely informs them that this law does not interfere with their religion; it left them at perfect liberty to worship Jehovah, or any other God they saw fit; but this was a "law of the land"—a "police regulation"—merely requiring them to do homage to that Joss, and they must comply. It was not intended at all to interfere with their worship, but they must obey the law of the land or return to their own country. Would they be convinced? Would they think it any interference with their religion? There is a principle set forth in the Scriptures, aside from the plain reading of the fourth commandment, which forbids our listening to their proposals that we keep the Sunday with the permission to keep the Sabbath also. In the first place we do not ask permission of any power on earth to keep the seventh day. We are commanded from Heaven to keep it. Nor do we ask permission to work on the first day. The Lord of Heaven has also given us that. To the claim that it will not injure us to rest on Sunday also, we reply that it is no physical injury to a person to rest on any day of the week, provided he does not rest too much, so as to neglect his labor or injure his health. Nor will it ordinarily injure a person spiritually to cease from rest on any day of the week. So far, apparently, our friends are correct. But when we are told that we must rest on Sunday because it is 'the Christian Sabbath', and that it is established as a substitute for the seventh day, the day which is placed in God's commandment, then "we are not careful to answer" in the matter; we will not keep Sunday for any such reasons. We deny the statement that it is the Christian's Sabbath. We know it is substituted for the Lord's day, but it is of human origin—a human institution—doing violence to the commandment of God; and we must refuse to do homage to the power which gave it its Sabbatic character. Paul has distinctly laid down this principle for us. He gave the brethren liberty to eat what was set before them, asking no questions. But if it was distinctly said that it was an offering to idols of which they were invited to partake, then they should not touch it. Now we know that the Sunday first derived its character as a rest-day from the respect paid to Apollo, the sun-god, a heathen deity, while its professedly Christian character was given to it by "the man of sin." Presented to us as a religious institution, as a substitute for the seventh day, the Sabbath of the Lord God, we refuse to accept it, or to have anything to do with it. To recognize it in that character is an insult to the God of the Sabbath. It is setting aside his own memorial and exalting a religious innovation above it. We cannot, we dare not, unite even "with a multitude" to do such a thing. We must respect the authority of God, and keep his commandments, and reject everything which comes in conflict with them. Again, our Saviour says, "Ye cannot serve two masters." We cannot obey the law of God and obey a law which stands in direct opposition to his law. We know that worldly powers will accept such obedience as that, as the beast will be content if we receive his mark in the hand. A nominal observance of Sunday, such observance as an atheist can render, will answer the demands of these "National Reformers." But not so with God. He will not accept a division of worship. He must be worshiped "in spirit and in truth." He will not be mocked with professed obedience to his commandment while we change its terms to suit our convenience, or add something which neutralizes it. It would be well for the people of this generation if they would remember his words: "I the Lord thy God am a jealous God;" and "My glory will I not give to another." Now it appears to us that if the Sunday-enforcement advocates had proper regard for just reasoning, for the principles of Protestantism, and for the plain reading of the word of God, they would at once concede the reasonableness of our position, and the injustice of trying by law to compel us to a course of action which we so firmly believe will be doing homage to the image of the beast, against which the Lord has denounced such terrible wrath. Above all is their inconsistency—we might say their effrontery—shown in their denouncing us as siding with infidels because we will not aid them in enforcing their Sunday-Sabbath laws. Is it possible that they think we can be guilty of such hypocrisy, such treachery to the cause of God, as to believe that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and the only Sabbath of the Lord, and yet join them in exalting a human institution, an opposition Sabbath, above it? We read in the Scriptures of those who "feared the Lord and served their own gods," but we have no intention to be counted with them. But perhaps we ought not greatly to wonder that they ask us to act contrary to our profession, for they who profess so great esteem for the commandment of God while they practically make it void by their tradition, doing that which the commandment forbids and trampling upon that which the commandment requires, cannot be expected to appreciate consistency of faith and practice in others. God's service is a work of faith. Many have said that our position appears plausible and may be right, but they will wait and see if these things take place as we think the prophecy teaches. If they do come as predicted, then they will believe. But there will then be no call for belief. Paul says faith comes by the word of God, and is the evidence of things not seen. Rom. 10:17; Heb. 11:1. The people in Noah's time no longer doubted the truthfulness of his preaching when the flood came; but they had not faith. They saw; they knew; but knowledge thus gained could not benefit them. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." "What saith the Scriptures?" We beseech you, reader, not to turn away from the "sure word of prophecy" until it is too late. We shall speak again of the danger of putting away faith, and waiting to see before daring to trust the word of God. And we shall soon have something to say of the coming compromise in Europe.