Earlier text: GOD'S WORD IN THE HEART THE POWER OF TRUE REFORMTHE LOUD VOICE OF THE THIRD ANGEL.
By James White
We are now entering upon an interesting subject; at least, to us it is one of thrilling interest. For certain reasons, which we now design to give, we believe the third message will increase in strength, and close with far greater power than the first. We would first remark that it is said of the first message, and of the third, that they should be given with a "loud voice;" but of the second, it is not so declared. The first was given with energy and power, and produced great excitement upon the public mind; therefore it is said to be given with a loud voice. The second message, being local, given for the benefit of God's people who were looking for the second coming of his Son, is not said to be given with a loud voice. Fifty thousand believers in the speedy advent of Christ were brought out of the different churches under this message; but on others beside these it had but little influence. But of the third message it is said, "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice," &c. We shall conclude, then, that the third message will yet arrest public attention, be proclaimed with great energy and power, and produce great excitement, equal at least to that produced by the first message. But we solemnly believe that the work of the third angel will be far greater than the first, 1. Because of the nature of the message. How solemn!—how cutting!—how dreadful! It breaks upon the ear as follows:—"If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation," &c. It is true the first message relates to the judgment, and to the hour or period of the judgment; but it is not of so fearful import as the third. We believe the movement of the third angel will exceed that of the first, 2. Because of the work which it is to accomplish. The third message is to ripen the harvest of the earth. Let us take a view of the symbols of Rev. xiv, as illustrated on our Pictorial Charts. The first three angels symbolize the people of God occupying three positions. What next? The Son of man on a white cloud, "having on his head a golden crown, and in his hand a sharp sickle." See verse 14. Christ has then finished his work in the heavenly sanctuary, laid aside his priestly attire, and has on his kingly crown, and a sickle in his hand. It is evident then, that Christ's pleading for sinners, and the time of their probation closes with the work of the third message. While Christ is thus upon the white cloud, another angel, the fourth, comes out of the temple, "Crying with a loud voice to him that sat upon the cloud, 'Thrust in thy sickle and reap, for the time is come for thee to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe.'" This angel illustrates God's people as occupying a fourth position. But, mark! This angel does not follow the other three with a message of warning to man; but is represented as "crying with a loud voice to him that sat on the cloud," and illustrates the people of God offering an urgent, united prayer to the Son of man to thrust in his sickle, to destroy his enemies, to reap the harvest of the earth. It is the same as the day and night cry of the elect, of Luke xviii. This cry will be heard, and the elect will be avenged speedily by the Son of man thrusting in his sickle and reaping the earth. Then the saints are delivered out of their trouble, which is called the time of Jacob's trouble in Jer. xxx, 7. But in all this work connected with the fourth angel there is not one offer of mercy to sinners, neither one prayer for their salvation; but one united cry goes up to Christ on the white cloud to destroy them. The petition is, "Thrust in thy sickle and reap." The reason for this is given as follows: "For the harvest of the earth is ripe." The question now arises, What ripens the harvest of the earth? or what prepares men either to be translated to heaven, or to drink the wine of the wrath of God? Answer. The third angel's message. Yes, the third message is yet to be proclaimed everywhere with tremendous power, sufficient to arouse all to a decision, a final decision. The message then will be a test to all men. The third message bears the law of God,173but especially the trodden down Sabbath, on its front. Some may start back at the idea of the Sabbath and the law being a test. But we inquire, If the law of the great Jehovah is not a test to poor mortal men, what can be a test? Certainly, if it be not a test, there can be no such thing as a test, and we have no use for the word in our language. Prophetic times have been held by some as a test; but our difficulty with this position can be seen in the fact that some men, known to be vile, could understand the prophetic numbers as well as the most intelligent Adventist, and hundreds of holy men and women did not understand the prophecies, and some of them did not seem to possess intellect sufficient to understand them. But in the third message we have a test that all may comprehend. And how very consistent that just before the great God pours the vials of his unmingled wrath upon the wicked, he will test them by his law, which is so very plain and simple that all may know their duty in regard to it. The message bears the Sabbath in front. And how exceeding plain and definite is the fourth commandment guarding and enforcing the Sabbath! No one of the other nine is so explicit. Read the fourth commandment again, and notice; first, that we are commanded to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy; second, we are told that six days are given us to labor and obtain a livelihood, while the seventh day God has reserved to himself as his holy day, and that we must not labor on that day; third, the reason for the institution is given as follows:—"For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it." This commandment is so definite, and the duty required by it so very plain, that all may fully understand their duty respecting it. Those who really cannot understand it, may rest easy that they will have no accounts to settle at the bar of heaven, for God does not keep accounts with idiots. The reason why many do not understand the Sabbath question is not that they cannot, but because they do not wish to understand it. They seem to have no difficulty in understanding the other nine, notwithstanding the duties enjoined by them are not so plainly defined. But when they come to the fourth, where God has been so very particular to define our duty, they hesitate, say they cannot see their duty, and finally fall under a popular influence to break the law of God. Will not God be avenged on such a people as this? But the third message will be proclaimed with a loud voice, and honest men and women will be gathered by it, and prepared to stand on mount Zion, while those who reject it, will be worthy of God's wrath. The angel of Rev. xviii, 1-4, gives a warning to escape the plagues. It is given just before the last plagues are poured out. The third angel of Rev. xiv, is also a warning to escape the wrath of God, which is shown in chap. xv, 1, to be the seven last plagues. Both occupy the same period of time, and both symbolize the same great work, or each symbolize different parts of the same great work, preparatory to the plagues. We are now in the time of the third message, and the preparatory work for the loud cry of this message is going on. The work of the angel of chap. xviii, is future, for it is a message to escape the last plagues, and will introduce the loud cry of the third message. With this view we get an exalted idea of the extent and power of the closing work of the message. Rev. xviii, 1, 2: "And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power, and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird." Notice the terms which express the greatness of the work. The angel has "great power," the "earth was lightened with his glory," he "cried mightily with a strong voice." Be assured, dear reader, this glorious message will forget its feebleness soon; for the angel is to have great power, and cry "mightily" with a "strong voice." This work will not be finished up in a corner; for the earth is to be lightened with his glory. The subject before us is of thrilling interest. If our views are true, is it not time for us to look these great truthful facts square in the face, and be making up our minds and laying our plans for a vast work? Where are we now? is a natural and important inquiry. We are in the time of the third message, but the loud cry of the message is future. The first and second messages are in the past; but we have all the truth of those messages in the third. The second message, announcing the fall of Babylon was given fifteen years since, yet what was true of Babylon's fall in 1844, is true also in 1850. But Babylon has since her fall been filling up with spirits of devils, (spirit manifestations), and unclean birds, (popular converts), preparing the way for the message of Rev. xviii, 1, 2, declaring not only her fall, but her corruptions since her fall. The present then, is the time of preparation for the loud cry. The great truth of the message is being brought out and made plain. And now God is rolling upon his people the weight and importance of the subject of perfect unity of sentiment and spirit. He is making his people one according to the Bible standard of unity. When they shall fully reach that standard, then, and not till then, will he trust them with the loud cry. When the church shall stand united perfectly in spirit and sentiment, then they can take care of the thousands in Babylon and the world yet to be brought out by the loud cry. God will not suffer them to be brought out to be scattered, confused and destroyed by discordant sentiments and spirits. Here is the Bible standard of unity. Says Christ, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. Neither pray I for these alone; but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." John xvii, 17-21. Says Paul, "Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be like-minded one toward another according to Christ Jesus: that ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. xv, 5, 6. "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment." 1 Cor. i, 10. Says Peter, "Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another; love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous." 1 Peter iii, 8. "Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time." Chap. v, 5, 6. The work of Bible union is well begun among us, and is progressing gloriously. Thank God for religion that will convert both heads and hearts, so that we may be perfectly united in mind, judgment and spirit. Those who are seeking for perfect union on Bible truth are gathering with Christ, and preparing for the loud voice of the third angel. Those who are stupid to the subject are in danger, while those disposed to act independently of the church please Satan, wound their brethren, and are preparing for a fall.
J. W. THIRD SUNDAY EFFORT IN
BATTLE CREEK.
Our brethren generally will be interested to know how the Orthodoxy of this city are disposed to look upon us, or what efforts make against us. Two efforts against the Sabbath, have already been noticed. To these we have now to add a third. Mr. Odell of the Methodist church, took up against us on the 9th inst. To his effort we have made the following reply. At this late hour in the agitation of the Sabbath question, we naturally expect, when we hear an announcement of some fresh effort to be made towards the settlement of this controversy, that some new light at least will be shed upon the subject; for on what other ground can such an effort be justified? There is surely no virtue in simply repeating the stale and threadbare arguments for the common theory which have already been a thousand and one times refuted; and if a person has nothing more than this to do, it invariably leaves the impression that he is either himself ignorant of the state of the question, or presumes upon such ignorance in his hearers. Being present at the delivery of the sermon above referred to, we feel unwilling to let pass unnoticed some of the positions taken, or to leave uncorrected some of the statements made. Our object in this is to correct the misapprehension of any, who, being unacquainted with the other side of the question, may have been led unwarily to look upon unfounded assertion as Bible testimony, and unknowingly regard the most palpable misstatements as honest truth. With these remarks we introduce the reader to the positions taken and the strictures we have to offer thereon. The ground assumed was briefly this: 1. The fourth commandment is partly moral and partly ceremonial: The enforcement of the Sabbath institution is moral; the designation of the day is ceremonial, and may be changed at pleasure. 2. A seventh part of time is all that is required; and by the observance of any seventh day, the command is truly obeyed. 3. We cannot tell when the seventh day comes. 4. The rotundity of the earth, its revolution upon its axis, and the different localities of men, forbid their keeping the same time. 5. Christ and his apostles changed the day. 6. The change proved by ecclesiastical history. To these propositions we reply in order. 1. The division of the fourth commandment into two parts, moral and ceremonial, is wholly an unwarrantable act. Whoever will carefully read the fourth commandment, will see that the idea of an abstract institution is in no wise contemplated in that commandment. If part of it is moral, the whole most assuredly is. If not, how happens it that God has introduced into the very bosom of a moral decalogue, a command which is partly ceremonial, and just so far out of place? To contend for a ceremonial part of the fourth commandment, is being wise above what is written. Any reflecting mind can but see that there is no such thing as a Sabbath institution disconnected from the day. It was the day which was the special subject of God's regard and divine enactment. It was the day which he sanctified and blessed. It is the day which he commands to be kept holy. And without the day the institution does not exist. 2. A seventh part of our time only is required. Said the speaker, "It cannot be disputed that the command is truly obeyed by the seventh day, at whatever day the cycle may begin." And again, "The wording of the command does not enjoin the seventh day especially, but the Sabbath as an institution." "The seventh part of time and not the seventh day from the date of creation, is all that the Lord demands." "No specific time enjoined in the commandment," but "the expression is the most undefined." Well, if the Bible said anything of this kind, we might admit it. But when the Bible is silent upon the point, or rather, speaks directly to the contrary, as we shall by and by show, how much is human assertion supposed to be worth? We are confident that with every genuine Bible student it will shrink into its own appropriate compass. But there is one question to which, right here, we would like an answer. If it be true that one day is seven, and no day in particular, is all that is required, then it "cannot be disputed" that we who observe the seventh day, are as truly obeying the commandment, as any other class of people. Then pray tell us why all this ado about seventh-day Sabbath-keeping? If by keeping the seventh day, we are living in as strict accordance with the fourth commandment as yourselves, and that too, on your own admission, why all this enmity against the practice, and all these efforts to cast odium upon its advocates? Oh, but all the community should be agreed upon some particular day. Provided they should, so long as we disturb no one, no one has any ground of complaint. Consistency is a jewel everywhere; but especially so, on the Sunday side of the Sabbath question, where it is so rarely seen. Again: Will the seventh-part-of-time advocates tell us where they get their sacred time? It was conceded from the Methodist desk that man cannot make time holy by any act of his; and it is certain that God has not placed one day above another, if he has blessed only a seventh part of time and no day in particular. On this hypothesis, all days are alike, since the observance of any day of the week would equally meet the requirement of the law. Yet we were treated last Sunday to a quotation from one of the fathers, which spoke of Sunday as a sacred day. How did it come to be sacred? From whence did it derive its sanctity? We call for chapter and verse. But the 4th commandment is not so indefinite a thing as it is asserted to be. If a definite day is not pointed out by that commandment, we ask what language could do it? We are commanded to remember the Sabbath day; and then we are told what day the Sabbath is; it is the, not a, seventh day. And why? Because on the seventh day of the first week of time, God rested from the work of creation, and blessed and sanctified that day. Now it must be apparent to all that we are commanded to keep the very day of the week on which God rested, and on which he placed his blessing. We go back to creation, and inquire, Did God bless any particular day or no day in particular? To say that God rested on one day in seven, but no day in particular, and placed his blessing upon a seventh part of time, but no particular part, is utterly absurd; and hence, since we are commanded to rest upon the very day of the week upon which God rested and placed his blessing, to say that it only means one day in seven, but no day in particular, is utterly absurd also. 3. But we are told that we cannot tell which day is the seventh day. Said Mr. O., How do those who keep the seventh day know that it is the seventh day? Does the Bible tell them? "No. Who then? The Jewish fathers." And so he proposed to offset this tradition against that which upholds the Sunday as the Sabbath. Did he expect his hearers to accept this as a consistent parallel? When we say that Sunday-keeping is a traditional institution, we mean to affirm that the institution itself is supported only by tradition; that there is no other authority for setting apart that day as a day of rest. But on the other hand, should we concede that we are dependent on the Jewish fathers for our knowledge of the seventh day, it would only be an admission that we are dependent on them for the reckoning of the time, but not for the use which we are to make of the seventh day. This important distinction will be apparent to all; and it shows that the attempt to make it appear that the seventh day is equally dependent with the first, on tradition, is wholly abortive. But we are not dependent on the Jewish fathers for a knowledge of the true seventh day. We have already seen that the law requires the celebration of the seventh day of every week in regular succession from the first week of time. And when we come down to the time of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, we find the seventh day of the week pointed out unmistakably by the miracle of the manna. We pass on to the time of the first advent. No one can deny that Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, knew which the true seventh day was; and we find him observing the very day which the commandment enjoins. From that time to this we have the agreement of Jews, Christians and Mahomedians in the reckoning of the time. We have then the true seventh day, even if it had been lost in the patriarchal age, or during the bondage in Egypt, pointed out by173God himself in the wilderness of Sinai, acknowledged by Christ, and preserved by undoubted chronology ever since. Our knowledge is consequently as perfect as knowledge need be, that we have the true seventh day, dating from creation. 4. The world is round; therefore men cannot everywhere keep the same time. It is not a little amazing to hear observers of the first day use this argument against the seventh. They all doubtless believe that it is the duty of people the world over, to keep the first day of the week. Oh, yes. And people the world over, east, west, north, and south, have no trouble in keeping that day? None at all. But the moment we tell them that it is the seventh and not the first day which they are required to keep,—behold, the world is suddenly round, and men cannot everywhere keep the same time! therefore the seventh is not the day to be kept! What admirable logic! In using this argument (the reader will pardon the misnomer) the Elder reminds us of the anecdote of the woodman, who, having ascended a tree, became so earnestly engaged in topping the boughs, that he unconsciously cut off the one upon which he was standing! If a formal reply to this objection is deemed necessary, we answer that God probably knew, when he made the Sabbath and gave the law to guard its sanctity, that the world was round, and that it revolved on its axis, and that men would everywhere inhabit it, and that time would differ, east and west, and that the days and nights would vary in length north and south! If therefore God has given a Sabbath law of universal application, as we are all happily agreed that he has, it must be of course adapted to these circumstances. Hence no one has ever known us to contend that the commandment requires the same absolute hours the world over. Whoever spends his time in refuting such a supposition, is simply demolishing a man of straw of his own creation. The commandment requires the seventh day; and the day may be represented as traveling around the earth from east to west. It carries with it the sanction of law; and whenever and wherever it comes, it demands of us that during its hours, we cease from our secular employments, and engage in the special service of our Maker. Now unless we are willing to take the position that there are some portions of this mundane sphere where the seventh day of the week does not regularly occur, we must admit that there are no localities where the Sabbath may not be kept according to the commandment. But what about the time lost or gained by sailing around the world? We answer, it is only apparent, not real. Suppose two individuals whose ages were the same to an hour, should start from a certain point and travel, the one east and the other west, till they met on the other side of the globe. They would then be, it is claimed, in their reckoning, one day apart. But does any one suppose that by such a maneuver one of those individuals would become a day older than the other? If not, it is evident that no time absolutely is gained or lost, but only apparently. And such being the case, we apprehend it might be easily enough corrected. At any rate, whenever a practical illustration shall occur—when a person shall go round the earth east or west, and thereby gain or lose a day, and fail to have his reckoning corrected, and persist in plodding along a day behind or before the rest of the human race, it will be time to notice the matter further. Till then we need not trouble ourselves to speculate about what might be. 5. "Christ and his apostles changed the day." What? Were we not told at the first, that no particular day, but only a seventh part of our time was required by the fourth commandment? And can one day in seven but no day in particular, be changed to another day in seven but no day in particular? Is the Sabbatic institution thus "loose on the handle"? Or, when it was changed, was it changed from no day in particular to some day in particular? How shall we understand this slip-shod method of interpretation? A seventh-part-of-time theory may talk of obeying the fourth commandment by observing a different day from one previously kept; but for it to talk of changing the day is manifestly inconsistent; as there can be no such thing as a change of the day of the commandment, if there is no particular day enjoined in the commandment. But we can show from the nature of the case that a change is impossible. The Sabbath is a memorial of creation, a celebration of God's rest after his six days of labor. No other reason is anywhere given for the institution. Now any one must see that a weekly celebration of any event must be confined to the very day of the week on which the event occurred. Mark it. An event of one day in the week cannot be commemorated by observing another day of the week. The Sabbath is therefore fixed to the seventh day, on which God rested. If we keep Sunday to commemorate redemption, we have another day for another purpose; and consequently it is another institution. But, say you, Sunday commemorates creation and redemption both. Well, let us try it in a parallel case. Suppose a person should rise up and endeavor to make this nation believe they were celebrating the landing of the Pilgrims on the 22d of December, as well as their national independence, by observing the 4th of July. He would be hooted, and justly, too, from one end of the Union to the other for his inconsistency. Let equal justice be done on the Sabbath question, and we shall hear no more about resting on the first day of the week, to celebrate God's rest upon the seventh. "But redemption is greater than creation." How do you know? We call again for chapter and verse. Either event is above your comprehension or mine; and it has the appearance of presumption, at least, for us to undertake to decide which is the greater; and it is adding audacity to presumption, to venture then, on the strength of that decision, to change one of the fundamental laws of the Almighty. "But Christ rose from the dead on Sunday." Well, what has that to do with the fourth commandment? Any lawyer will tell us that the repeal of a law must be as explicit and as authoritative as its enactment. Now before the fourth commandment can be made to enforce the first day of the week, its exclusive reference to the seventh, must be repealed. The resurrection of Christ furnishes no such repeal, nor have we an account of any such repeal in all the inspired volume. "But Christ met with his disciples twice or thrice on the day of his resurrection." Well, in the name of reason, what of that! He was with them constantly before his crucifixion; and after that event he met with them once while they were fishing (see Jno. xxi, 1-6; rather inappropriate business for a Sabbath); and again he met with them on the day of his ascension, which, according to common computation, was Thursday. Is that too a Sabbath? And finally, Luke tells us in Acts i, 3, that he was seen of them forty days. Think of that! Forty consecutive Sabbaths! What a hallowed time that must have been! We speak on the supposition that a meeting between Christ and his disciples made the day holy on which it occurred, as our Sunday friends seem inclined to argue. But Pentecost is left yet; yes, that great day on which the "Christian Sabbath" was so signally honored. We only wish the reader to bear in mind a fact or two here: The ascension of Christ took place forty days after his resurrection; between the ascension and Pentecost, the fiftieth day, there were ten days. Pentecost falling upon the first day of the week, we ascertain by counting back that one first-day must have passed between the ascension and Pentecost. Now the significant question arises, Why was not the Holy Ghost poured out upon the first first-day after the ascension? If the design in that outpouring of the Spirit was simply to honor the Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, why was one Sabbath passed over in silence ere the Spirit was given? The answer is obvious: It was not God's design to honor the first day of the week, but only to mark the antitype of the feast of Pentecost. For this reason it was necessary to wait till the "Pentecost was fully come." So reads the record; and the sacred historian does not even condescend to notice the day of the week upon which it occurred. That had no connection with the matter. It is further urged that it was the custom of the disciples to meet on the first day of the week to break bread. Acts xx, 7. We answer that the Jews reckoned the day from evening to evening. See Kitto. This meeting of Paul's at Troas, therefore, took place on what would now be called Saturday evening. He continued his speech until midnight, broke bread, and spoke till break of day; and when the Sunday morning had fairly dawned, off he went afloat on his journey. It is susceptible of the clearest proof that this was Sunday; hence we conclude that Paul had no very great reverence for that day. 1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2, says nothing about "devotional worship," nor does it give any intimation of a public assembly, but simply orders that each one should lay by in store at home, &c. Rev. i, 10, does not tell us which day of the week the Lord's day is. They are therefore inconclusive. 6. The change proved by ecclesiastical history. The limits which we have assigned to this article, forbid our giving the quotations here which we would be glad to. We can only state that a small work has lately been published at this Office, which presents the matter in its true light. But three writers previous to the time of Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, are ever claimed as offering any testimony on this question. Of these, the epistle of Barnabas is a forgery, according to Mosheim, Neander, Milner, Kitto and Eusebius; the epistle of Pliny speaks of a "stated day," but does not intimate that it is the first day of the week; the testimony of Ignatius has been garbled, according to Kitto, the word, day, being interpolated, to make it read, "Lord's day," when no such idea is contained in the text; and Justin Martyr has been misrepresented, as he was a no-Sabbath man. That famous and hackneyed quotation, "Dominicum servasti? Hast thou kept the Lord's day?" &c., is also shown to be a forgery. What then was our astonishment, having been assured that the above named work in which these things are fully exposed, had been placed in the hands of the speaker—what was our astonishment to hear him coolly lay them before his audience as plain and honest truth! and then unhesitatingly assert that they who will state that this has been forged or altered, "will state or deny anything!" and that whoever "will not believe such testimony, will not believe anything!" The majority of the early fathers were no-Sabbath men. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Clement, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Athanasius, Cyril, Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustinus and Theodoretus, all agree that the Lord's day or day of the resurrection is an institution altogether independent of the decalogue, and entirely different from the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. To quote them, therefore, as enforcing Sunday from that commandment, betrays an unacquaintance with their views, or an intent to mislead. But could it be shown that all the fathers were unanimous in calling Sunday the Sabbath, that fact would be entitled to no particular weight with Protestants, so long as the writings of the "grandfathers," which alone are inspired—the New Testament itself—cannot be shown to contain a hint in its favor. The speaker having announced in the commencement of his discourse that he did not "enter upon the discussion to meet any individual, but for his personal gratification and the benefit of the congregation," we were sorry to see the effort end in an attempt to heap contumely upon those who conscientiously differ with him on this subject. The seventh-day Baptists said he, arose, and said wisdom was with them, and would perish with them; but the world minded no more about them than a large locomotive would about the barking of a "whiffet dog." And the Adventists arose, and have set time after time for the Lord to come, and failed in every instance. If Sabbath-keeping Adventists are included in this statement, we respectfully repel the falsehood. We have no connection with those who have been continually setting times since 1844, as every one at all conversant with our history well knows. And any man who considers truth of more value than 10 cts., may avoid the liability of thus misrepresenting us, by perusing the publication in which we give our reasons for the only times we have ever embraced or defended. But the audience were further told that failing in our Adventism, and bound to have something to sustain us, we had resurrected these old "rotten questions;"174namely, the seventh-day Sabbath and the mortality of man. The whole statement is false in fact, though we hope not intentionally so. Finally the occupant of the sacred desk, through the medium of an illustration we need not mention, asked his hearers if they would believe us if we should "tell them that the moon was made of green cheese." Friends, we ask you to bear in mind one fact here, and then the reverend gentleman's allusion may go for what it is worth. Remember that we never have asked any man to believe a thing because we said so. We ask no man to take our word for anything. Whatever we cannot bring chapter and verse for, you may reject with scorn. But while we grant you this liberty, we request you to take a similar course with others. Don't believe a thing on any man's mere assertion, even though he be an advocate of Sunday-keeping. Call for proof. Require chapter and verse. Do so in reference to the Sunday question. Depend upon it, if it is a Bible institution, the Bible will say something about it. God does not leave us in reference to our duty to him, to inferences and guess-work. Let no man then declaim you into a belief that that is a Bible institution, which the Bible knows nothing of. If Sunday-keeping is of divine origin, show us the "Thus saith the Lord" that supports it. Long enough we have been treated to assertions, assumptions, ambiguous circumlocutions, and that "which is just as good as law," and that which "amounts to almost a law." We want positive testimony. If there is a law for Sunday-keeping, produce it. We call for the statute. If it cannot be found, show us the man who can convict us of sin, in making it a secular day; for the apostle expressly says that "where no law is there is no transgression." Rom. iv, 15. And to make this a practical question, and induce some one to find the authority called for if such exists, we make the liberal offer appended to this paper. In conclusion we may be allowed to express our regret that we are such a "troublesome" people to Mr. O. He says, "There was a party from the first who kept the seventh day of the week; but they were always small and a trouble, just as all other Judaizing teachers have been." We might remind him that this is not the first time the righteous have been considered the troublers of Israel. Ahab looked upon Elijah in just such a light [1 Kings xviii. 17]; and the Jews thought it expedient to get rid of the troublesome Jesus by some means, even if it was by crucifixion; and Paul was called a "pestilent fellow" [Acts xxiv, 5]; and the "sect" to which he belonged was "everywhere spoken against." Acts xxviii, 22. As to the smallness of the party, we recollect that the Saviour somewhere speaks of a way which is narrow, and which few find, and one which is broad, wherein the multitude walk. We shall never be frightened nor ashamed on account of paucity of numbers; for God and his hosts are ever an "overwhelming majority."