I trust that all the readers of the Review will consider the heading of this article as specially addressed to themselves individually, and that our ministers in particular will treasure it up and act upon it wherever they go.
I suppose that all are agreed that the circulation of the Review is calculated to disseminate light—to build up the believer in present truth, to sustain, comfort, and support the scattered ones, who are deprived of the association and counsel of those of like faith; and if not to convince, at least to create an inquiry in the minds of unbelievers as to whether these things are so.
If these are facts, are we not all interested in having its circulation increased? Yea more. Is it not our duty to do all in our power to extend its circulation? We have a glorious truth, a blessed truth. We have light that the world and the churches have not. Why hide it under a bushel? Rather let us elevate it, seek to increase its radiance so that others may be benefited by it. There are many honest ones in the churches who are now living up to all the light they have; and many honest worldlings who are disgusted with the teachings and practices of popular Christianity, who upon being presented with the truth will gladly embrace it. We are frequently in the receipt of letters from lonely ones who have embraced the truth, or whose attention has been called to the different subjects of our faith, by accidentally getting hold of a stray number of the Review, or by having a copy of it sent to them by a friend, who were thus induced to search the Scriptures and found to the joy and comfort of their souls that "these things were so." What a wide field for usefulness is then open before us. We who cannot preach the message, with our one talent, may by this means convert at least one sinner from the error of his ways, and thereby "save a soul from death and hide a multitude of sins."
The circulation of the Review is now only about 2800. It should be four or five thousand to enable the Association to publish it for the prices it is now published at. You will bear in mind that while paper has advanced more than fifty per cent., and labor and everything else used in its publication has advanced very materially, the subscription price of the Review remains the same. And the only way that it can be afforded for present prices is to increase the subscription list. Our list is now in a healthy condition. It has been thoroughly pruned since the formation of the Publishing Association and some seven or eight hundred dead or withered branches cut away at different times, so that our present list may be all considered as permanent paying subscribers with the exception of those copies that are sent to friends for investigation and to the scattered worthy poor, free.
It needs but a persevering united effort to increase our list to five thousand copies. We should have that number of subscribers, and if the proper effort is put forth, they can be raised in a few weeks. But in order to accomplish it there must be system and unity of action. It will not do to intrust so important a work to every one in general and no one in particular, for, according to the old adage, "what is everybody's business is nobody's business." We have a plan which we think will work admirably. It is this. Have the business done through, or by the aid of a committee. And as we have no chairman, and the people are not assembled, we will take the liberty to appoint the committee. And we hereby appoint each subscriber of the Review and every Sabbath-keeper, as a member of that committee—each one to act independently of the others; and each to consider the responsibility of raising the requisite number devolving upon their personal efforts; every member of the committee to report progress within one month after the date of their appointment; and further, none of the committee to be discharged until the requisite number of subscribers be made up.
It will readily be seen that if each member of the committee is faithful to the trust imposed upon him or her, there will be no difficulty in the matter, and the number would soon be raised.
If each subscriber, it would not be necessary for every reader, but if each household where the Review is taken would get one subscriber, only one, the result would be more than accomplished. Surely any one can do this, or at least can try. If you cannot get a brother or sister to take it at full price get some honest well disposed person to take it at half price for investigation.
A word to our ministers in relation to this matter. Some of them have done nobly during the past tent season. Bro. Cornell, Lawrence, and Van Horn, held only two tent-meetings in Michigan, and obtained seventy-five subscribers for the Review. Bro. Cornell told me that they frequently urged upon the new converts the necessity of taking the Review; told them that it was our itinerant preacher; that as we did not station our ministers as the nominal churches did, they must have the Review to keep them posted; and the result of these frequent urgent appeals was the number of subscribers above mentioned. And at Memphis, where there was not a single Review taken before they went there, there is now the largest number of subscribers on our list. Others may have pursued the same course, but if they did, they did not meet with the same success; perhaps some did not have so good fields to operate in. Others were visiting churches, where most of the brethren were taking the Review. We are willing to make all the allowances that can be made under the circumstances, but we think most of our ministers might obtain more subscribers if they would present the matter oftener and more urgently to the people.
Brethren, preachers, and people, we appeal to you again. Will you make the effort? Will you all lend a helping hand? We feel confident that all that is required is a united and persevering effort. In circulating the Review, we circulate our publications; for where the Review goes, orders for books soon follow. Shall we have the five thousand subscribers soon? It181would be very gratifying to the Publishing Association, and to the friends of the cause, and aside from this, would be the means of doing an incalculable amount of good, which eternity alone would unfold.
Time is short. Probation will soon close. The world has to be warned. We all can do something in our Master's vineyard. The question again comes home, Will we do it? Reader, will you make the effort? The future will answer.
We have made this appeal in good faith, believing that it will not be in vain, and that brethren will nobly and promptly respond to it. May the blessing of God rest upon this effort, as well as upon all efforts for the advancement of his cause.
E. S. W.
Living Soul.
By R. F. Cottrell
THAT man is said to be a living soul, is taken, by those who have already received the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, as an evidence of that doctrine. But to one not thus indoctrinated it is no evidence at all. It never suggested the idea to any one who had not the idea already. That man is called a living soul is not declaring that he is ever-living, or immortal. And when it is known that every animated being that breathes is called a living soul, by the same authority, it must be admitted that if by the application of the term to man, it proves him immortal, its application to brutes proves them immortal too. This is proving altogether too much, and hence it proves nothing to the point. It certainly never ought to be urged in proof of man's immortality by those who know the fact that the same Hebrew terms which are translated living soul in Gen. ii, 7, are applied to all creatures to which God gave life, in other places in the inspired narrative. A person's honesty might well be suspected, who, being acquainted with this fact, still urges this expression as a proof of the immortality of the soul.
Those who do not know that this is the truth, may easily ascertain that it is, and this without being able to read the Hebrew; for our translators have given, in the margin of Gen. i, 20, 30, the literal rendering of the original language.
This, then, proves no distinction between man and beast. We admit that there is a wide distinction, but it is not because one has a soul, or is a living soul, and the other not. All that live are living souls, that is, living persons or beings; and if we read the Hebrew scriptures in the original, we shall read of dead souls as well as living. This simply means dead persons, not dead immortal souls.
BREATH OF LIFE.
It is thought that because we are told that God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, that a never-dying principle was thus communicated to man, which was not given to the brute creation. This is easily shown to be a mistake.
Brutes have nostrils, as well as men. They have breath in their nostrils; and that breath serves to perpetuate the life which God gave them. In Ps. civ, speaking of the lower orders of animals, from "things creeping innumerable," up to "leviathan," "both small and great beasts," it is said, "Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled; thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created, and thou renewest the face of the earth."
This testimony harmonizes with the sentence passed upon man, Gen. iii, 19, "Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return," and also with Eccl. iii, 19, where, speaking of both man and beasts, it is said, "They have all one breath."
But had the language of Ps. civ, 30—"thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created"—been used in reference to man's creation instead of that of the lower orders of animals, I apprehend that our friends who advocate natural immortality, would take it as their strongest proof of their doctrine, and claim that the spirit of God was especially communicated to man in his creation, and that hence the soul or spirit of man is an emanation from God, and must exist as long as he exists. But the language being used with reference to beasts, and not to men, they make no use of the text.
In the record of the flood we read, Gen. vii, 21, "And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man; all in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died." This testimony proves that the breath of life is common to man and all the lower orders of animals; if it makes one immortal, it makes them all immortal; and until the ground is taken that all these beasts and creeping things are immortal, the breath of life in man's nostrils should never be adduced as a proof of his immortality.
The way is now open to look at a text which is supposed to teach that a man leaves the man at death, and goes to live with God. Eccl. xii, 7. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."
This is spoken of man in general; if it proves that one goes at death to dwell with God, it proves that all do; and none but Universalists and Spiritualists should claim it in support of their theory.
But let us examine and compare. In Ps. civ, already quoted, we read of the lower animals, "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created." In Gen. vii, 22, we find the term, breath of life, literally rendered from the Hebrew in the margin, "The breath of the spirit of life." Here, when dust returns to dust, it is said, "The spirit shall return to God who gave it." In Ps. civ it is said, "Thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust." Job, chap. xxxiv, 14, "If he [God] set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath, all flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust." Again, "All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils." Job xxvii, 3. Margin, "That is, the breath which God gave him. Gen. ii, 7." Where James represents the body without the spirit as being dead, the marginal reading for spirit, is breath. "The body without the breath is dead."
Whoever will compare these scriptures carefully and without prejudice, will readily discover that the breath of life, the spirit, and the spirit given by God, in these texts are one and the same thing, that it is common to man and beast, that it is said to be in their nostrils, because the life principle is sustained by breathing, and that at death God takes away their breath, or his spirit which was sent forth in their creation, and which is in their nostrils, and this is the return of the spirit to God who gave it.
But where goes the man? He was made of dust, he goes to dust. The dust returns to the earth "as it was." Says Job, "Man shall turn again unto dust."
R. F. COTTRELL.
The Atonement—Part II.
By J. H. W.
(Continued.)
THE DOCTRINE OF A TRINITY DEGRADES THE ATONEMENT.
I AM aware that many attach so much sanctity to the term "trinity," that it will appear like irreverence, in their eyes, to speak thus of that doctrine: but I write with feelings of reverence for every scripture doctrine and scripture fact, while I do not profess reverence for human opinions and inventions. I reverence the Scriptures, but not men's opinions of the Scriptures.
Many writers appear to think that the atonement, in respect to its dignity and efficacy, rests upon the doctrine of a trinity. But I fail to see any such connection. On the contrary the advocates of that doctrine really fall into the difficulty they seem anxious to avoid. And here it is curious to observe how the widest extremes meet in theology. The highest Trinitarians and lowest Unitarians meet and are perfectly united on the death of Christ,—the faith of both amounts to Socinianism. Unitarians believe that Christ was a prophet, an inspired teacher, but merely human; that his death was that of a human body only. Trinitarians182hold that "Christ" comprehends two natures; one that was merely human; the other, the second person in the trinity, who dwelt in the flesh for a brief period, but could not possibly suffer, or die: that the Christ that died was only the human nature in which the divinity had dwelt. Both classes have a human offering, and nothing more. No matter how exalted the pre-existent Son was; no matter how glorious, how powerful, or even eternal; if the manhood only died the sacrifice was only human. And so far as the vicarious death of Chirst is concerned, this is Socinianism. Thus I think the remark just that the doctrine of a trinity degrades the atonement, resting it solely on a human offering as a basis. A few quotations will show the correctness of this assertion.
"As God he obeyed all the requirements of the law, and made it honorable in the justification of sinners; as man, he bore its curse on the tree, and endured its penalty." Manual of Atonement, p. 25.
"The sufferings of Christ were endured in his human nature. Though possessing a divine nature, yet in that he could not suffer and die. His sufferings were endured in his human nature." Id. p. 88.
"It is no part of the doctrine of the atonement that the divine nature, in the person of the Saviour, suffered." Barnes on Atonement, p. 224.
"It was meet that the mediator should be man, that he might be capable of suffering death; for, as God, he could not die." Buck's Theol. Dict. Art. Mediator.
"Trinitarians do not hold to the sufferings or death of divinity." Mattison on the Trinity, p. 39.
"His mediation between God and man is chiefly in his human nature, in which alone he was capable of suffering and dying." Scott on 1 Tim. ii, 5.
"I know not any scripture, fairly interpreted, that states the Divine nature of our Lord to be begotten of God, or to be the Son of God." Clarke on Heb. i, 8.
"Is it to be wondered that the human body in which this fullness of the Godhead dwelt, and in which the punishment due to our sins was borne upon the tree, should be exalted above all human and all created things?" Id. on Phil. ii, 9.
Dr. Clarke says the apostle John doubtless directed his first letter against the heretics then abounding. Of them in his note on 1 John i, 8, he says; "The Gnostics even denied that Christ suffered: the Æon, or Divine Being that dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, according to them, left him when he was taken by the Jews," &c.
So far as that particular heresy of the Gnostics is concerned, it has become wide-spread and almost all-prevailing in the denominations of the present day.
I have already shown that the Son of God, who was in the beginning, by whom the worlds were made, suffered death for us; the oft-repeated declarations of theological writers that a mere human body died, are by the Scriptures, proved untrue. They take the doctrine of a trinity for their basis and assume that Christ is the second person in the trinity, and could not die. Again, they assume that death is not a cessation of life; and between the two unscriptural assumptions they involve themselves in numerous difficulties, and load the doctrine of the atonement with unreasonable contradictions. As the doctrine of a trinity is fundamental with so many, and is the cause of such radical errors being introduced into their views of the atonement, it may be permitted to notice it further.
In the "Manual of the Atonement," 1 Jno. v, 20, is quoted as containing most conclusive evidence of a trinity and of the Supreme Deity of Christ. It is there claimed that he is called "the true God and eternal life." The whole verse reads thus: "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." A person must be strongly wedded to a theory who can read this verse and not see the distinction therein contained between the true God and the Son of God. "We are in him that is true." How? "In his Son Jesus Christ." The distinction between Christ and the true God is most clearly shown by the Saviour's own words in John xvii, 3: "That they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Much stress is laid on Isa. ix, 6, as proving a trinity, which I have quoted and referred to our High Priest who shed his blood for us. The advocates of that theory will say that it refers to a trinity because Christ is called the everlasting Father. But for this reason, with others, I affirm that it can have no reference to a trinity. Is Christ the Father in the trinity? If so, how is he the Son? or if he is both father and son, how can there be a trinity? for a trinity is three persons. To recognize a trinity the distinction between the father and son must be preserved. Christ is called "the second person in the trinity;" but if this text proves a trinity or refers to it at all, it proves that he is not the second but the first. And if he is the first who is the second? It is very plain that this text has no reference to such a doctrine.
In seeking an explanation of this text we must bear in mind the work of Christ as brought to view in this and parallel passages. These words refer to the "child born," the "son given," who, as we have seen, bears the title of God subordinate to his Father. And if an apostle could call himself the father of those whom he had begotten in the gospel, (1 Cor. iv, 15; 1 Tim. i, 2; Tit. i, 4), how appropriately is this title applied to the Prince of Peace who is, in a peculiar sense, the everlasting father of all to whom he gives everlasting life. The New Jerusalem is called the Bride, the Lamb's wife; Rev. xxi; Christ of course is the Bridegroom, the husband. But Paul says Jerusalem above is our mother. Gal. iv. If so, why not her husband, the bridegroom, be our father? Surely there is nothing inappropriate in this. But, as the New Jerusalem is not the mother of the unregenerate, these being reckoned the children of the bondwoman, so Christ is not called their father. They are not his children, and he does not give them everlasting life. Therefore the title is applied to him in a subordinate and restricted sense. In its unrestricted and universal sense it applies only to the Supreme One, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."
John xii, 40, 41, has been supposed to prove the Supreme Deity of Christ, and therefore a trinity. "These things said Esaias, when he saw his [Christ's] glory, and spake of him." This refers to Isa. vi, which chapter speaks of "the King, the LORD [Jehovah] of hosts;" and it is thence inferred that Christ is that LORD of hosts. But those who quote this in such a manner should know (and some of them do know) that there are two words in Isa. vi, rendered Lord, just as there are in Psa. cx, 1, which says: "The LORD said unto my Lord." The first is Jehovah; the second Adonai;—the Father and Son. In Isa. vi, 3, 5, 12, Jehovah is used; in verses 1, 8, 11, Adonai is used. Now John xii, 40, is a quotation from Isa. vi, 10, which refers to Adonai, the Son, and not to Jehovah. Many have been misled by a wrong application of this text. Those who know the fact above stated cannot honestly use it as it has been used in theological controversies.
Jer. xxiii, 5, 6, is supposed to afford decisive proof of a trinity, in that "the Branch" which is raised up unto David shall be called Jehovah. Clarke, in his commentary gives the following rendering of this text, from Dr. Blayney: "And this is the name by which Jehovah shall call him, our righteousness." He adds:
"Dr. Blayney thus accounts for his translation:— Literally, according to the Hebrew idiom,—and this is his name by which Jehovah shall call our righteousness; a phrase exactly the same as, 'And Jehovah shall call him so,' which implies that God would make him such as he called him, that is, our righteousness, or the Author and Means of our salvation and acceptance. So that by the same metonomy Christ is said to 'have been made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.' 1 Cor. i, 30.
"I doubt not that some persons will be offended with me, for depriving them by this translation of a favorite argument for proving the Divinity of our Saviour from the Old Testament. But I cannot help it. I have done it with no ill design; but purely because I think, and am morally sure, that the text, as it stands, will not properly admit of any other construction. The Septuagint have so translated it before me in an age when there could not possibly be any idea or prejudice either for or against the forementioned doctrine,
—a doctrine which draws its decisive proofs from the New Testament only."
On this Dr. Clarke remarks: "I prefer the translation of Blayney to all others. . . . As to those who put the sense of their creed upon the words, they must be content, to stand out of the list of Hebrew critics. I believe Jesus to be Jehovah, but I doubt much whether this text calls him so."
And if this text does not call him so, he will find little ground for such belief. This shows the necessity of distinguishing between a criticism, and an opinion.
(To be Continued.)
Report from Bro. Byington.
By John Byington
BRO. WHITE: We had an interesting quarterly meeting at Charlotte, Sabbath and first-day, the 10th and 11th of October. Bro. Van Horn was with us. The season of the ordinances was very good. Three united with the church and I think others will soon. A committee was appointed to consult and report on building a meeting-house.
The 17th we were at Hillsdale. It was a meeting of much labor, but I think resulted in much good. Clouds that have hung heavily over the church for some time moved off, and the hopes of the church again revived. Brethren in Hillsdale, press together. Be kindly affectionate one toward another.
We spent the week in traveling with our team from Hillsdale to Memphis, where we find enough to be done. We met with the friends here for the first time on the Sabbath, three miles out of town, as no house could be had in the village. The school-house was full, and all interested. The friends have nearly all the materials together for a house and are at work on the frame. I learned soon after I arrived, that the same day the post master had received by mail slanderous reports from abroad; so the enemy is at work. Well, let the powers of darkness oppose. Truth is mighty and will triumph. Brethren, pray for Memphis.
JOHN BYINGTON.
Memphis, Mich., Oct. 25, 1863.
Meetings in Vt.
By D. T. Bourdeau
Bro. White: Since our labors closed with the tent, I have, by request of the Committee, attended quarterly meetings at Wolcott, Roxbury and Johnson.
At Wolcott the church were edified, and we trust benefited, while contemplating the subject of brotherly love, and while listening to a discourse by Bro. Hutchins from Heb. ii, 1-3. Most of the brethren and sisters readily backed up the word with their testimonies. Especially were we interested in Bro. E. Churchill's testimony, which evinced that he intended to be zealous in the worship of the Lord, and overcome with God's people.
On my way to the Roxbury meeting, my horse took fright at the sudden approach of the cars, and ran over me with the wagon, bruising my back and right hip badly. My wife was with me, and was left alone in the wagon, to ride after the horse, who ran with full speed over logs and through bushes, till he got to a rise of ground. My wife there seized her only opportunity to throw herself out of the wagon, and did not receive any serious injury. The horse then ran about a rod and took a leap about sixteen feet down a steep ledge (twelve feet perpendicular) without hurting himself or materially injuring the wagon. One of those who witnessed the whole scene said that an angel must have preserved my wife.
But to return to my case. I suffered extremely from acute pains in my back and hip, and moved with great difficulty. A physician was sent for, and said that I should be weeks and perhaps months in recovering. But I felt it duty to have recourse to the great Physician. I was prayed for at Bro. Pierce's, and was greatly blessed in body and in mind, insomuch that I walked through the room praising God for his goodness. A death blow was given to my difficulty, the fever was removed instantly, and a healthy feeling restored. I was enabled to speak to the church the next day. A Congregationalist preacher, and his mother, were present and endorsed our position on the moral law, and said that the Spirit of the Lord was with us. At Johnson the church, the youth, and some not identified with us, were greatly blessed. A backslider was reclaimed, and two persons for the first time gave in their testimonies.
Last Sabbath my brother and I met with the church at Bro. Wm. White's, Fairfield, and had a good meeting. Bro. Gregory from Ohio, and some of his relatives who reside in this section, were with us. Bro. G.'s warm testimony was appreciated by his friends, and the church. One of his relatives spoke in our meeting, for the first time.
I am now usually well. Praise the Lord! I would thank God for afflictions, knowing that they give me an insight into my character, and that they will, if rightly improved, help me in the attainment of every virtue.
D. T. Bourdeau.
Sabbath Meditations.—No. 2.
By J. Clarke
To the earnest Christian the Sabbath is a delight. He longs for its return and regrets its close. As its passing hours swiftly fly away, he is employed in holy thoughts and sacred pleasures.
Does he read the words of divine truth? His soul is full of hope and love and pure and holy joy. The vast and varied fields of truth lie open before him, some rendered familiar by frequent views, yet never tiresome or insipid. He always is discovering some hitherto unseen excellence, and as he extends his views, he discovers new realms of grandeur and beauty, in these to him yet unexplored regions.
Does he meditate? It is not the reverie of the visionary, nor the day dream of the fanatic; but his sanctified powers are confined to the regions of truth.
Confined did I say? Can that be confinement which opens the book of nature, unfolding its hidden graces? Can that be called confinement which opens the book of God and explains its mysteries, which lay buried in the rubbish of error, accumulating for almost nineteen centuries? Is that confinement which opens the portals of the soul, and lets in the light of heaven upon the darkened mind?
Yet by a seeming paradox it is so that by this confinement the Christian becomes a free man; and the closer the confinement, the greater the freedom. I do not expect the worldling will understand this. How wisdom sweetly fetters and prudently confines the soul.
Does the Christian attend the Sabbath meeting, or the Bible class? He is at home with those of like prospects and aims, like principles and virtues. Or does he write? he is glad for realities which flow along the even page.
Does he converse with Christian friends? How does his heart swell with gratitude to God for companions loving and true as they, frank, plain and sensible.
Is he alone with none of like faith within practicable distances, alone with God? How does he labor for more frequent and constant intercourse with Him who strengthened Elijah in the wilderness.
I have imagined that the Sabbath might be compared to a barometer, which indicates the state of the weather. Thus, as the mercury rises, we may expect certain changes, or as it falls, these changes are modified or reversed, as the case may be; at a certain point, fair weather, at another, storms, or calms, or winds, or hail, or snow. So with the Sabbath. Does the Sabbath observer hail it with joy? Is it his "weary soul's delight," "the solace of his careworn breast?" Is it to him too short for the pursuits of piety in which he is employed? Does he linger upon its borders, as upon the fair fields of Paradise, and regret its passing hours? Does he look back with delight upon sacred time thus hallowed, and forward with pleasing anticipation to the land of rest? Such an one may feel encouraged. For as the secular employments of the week call forth his energies, he feels strengthened to do valiantly for the truth, and his light begins to throw its bright and pure rays amid the darkness around.
On the other hand, does he rather tread heavily upon the borders of the Sabbath? Do worldly thoughts engross his mind and cool his fervor of divine love? Does he drowsily read and drowsily pray? And as he meditates, do worldly tendencies take the reins, and folly the spur? Do spiritual things seem to him rather insipid and tame, while the world looks large? Such a person, however correct his theory, is on perilous ground. Let the Sabbath so spent, so wasted, so183lost to him, be the means of alarming him, that he arouse from this death-like stupor.
As the barometer indicates a storm at hand, when the mercury rises to a certain point, so does the Sabbath thus unprofitably spent, indicate either a dangerous sleep, or some terrible self-deception.
J. CLARKE.
Definite Proof that no Time has been Lost.
By D. M. Canright
OPPOSERS often object to keeping the seventh-day Sabbath from the supposition that the record of time has been so lost and confused that we cannot tell when the real seventh day is. Such persons have to discard all history, the records of all nations, the testimony of the best authorities, and the stubborn facts of astronomy. It belongs to those who assert that time has been lost, to prove it. They readily acknowledge that the Son of God knew when the Sabbath-day was, and could have informed his disciples if they had been keeping the wrong day. He made no such correction; but on the other hand, he acknowledged that they were keeping the right day, by keeping the same himself.
From that time to this, the numerous civilized nations of the world have been noting dates, making records, and writing histories of every day, and month, and year. Upon comparison we find that they all perfectly agree; and yet the cry is, "Time has been lost!" Pray where, when, and how? Who will inform us? The best proof they can, or ever do, give, is their own ignorance of history.
I have heard men say, "If you will prove to me that Saturday is the seventh day of the week, I will keep it." But what do they call proof? What will they allow to be authority? "Oh! the Bible, to be sure; we found our faith upon the Bible alone." Indeed! Yes, they are very willing to discard even the fathers, and D. D.'s, yes, all secular authority on this point, and appeal only to the Bible, which from the nature of the case could not possibly say anything about it. Webster says, "Saturday. The seventh, or last, day of the week; the day of the Jewish Sabbath. Sunday. The first day of the week." Thomas Dick, Adam Clarke, and in fact all men who are allowed as authority on such things, testify to the same fact.
But that no time has been lost is conclusively proved, to my mind, from one fact in astronomy. It is thus stated in Smith's Illustrated Astronomy, p. 40:
"Eclipses attracted the particular attention of the Chaldeans, and by a series of observations extended through several centuries, they discovered a very important fact relating to eclipses, although they did not understand the cause.
"By comparing the records which had been made for a great length of time, they found that a certain period of time elapsed between eclipses of the same kind and magnitude; that is, if 18 years, 11 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes, were added to the time of the happening of any eclipse, it would show the time of the return of the same eclipse; the only differences would be that it would not happen at the same time in the day, and it would be a little greater or less than the previous eclipse. . . . It must be remembered that there are a number of eclipses in each year; the greatest number is seven, the least, two; but the eclipses which happen in any one cannot take place again until the expiration of 18 years, 11 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes."
Page 44. "After the sun, moon, and nodes, have been in a line of conjunction, they return nearly to the same position again in 223 lunations, or 18 years, 11 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes, when four leap-years are included, or one day less when five leap-years are included; consequently if to the meantime of any eclipse of the sun or moon we add 18 years, 11 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes, we shall have the meantime of the return of the same eclipse for a long period of time."
To prove this let us try an experiment. Turn to the almanac for the year 1820, and you will find the following: "Eclipse of the sun, Sept. 7th, invisible at Boston. Conjunction 9 h. 8 m. morning." Now to the date of this eclipse we will add 18 years, 11 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes. Thus, to the year 1820, 9th month, 7th day, 9 o'clock, 8 minutes, we add 18 years, 11 days, 7 hours, and 43 minutes, and we have the year 1838, Sept. 18th, 4 o'clock, and 51 minutes P. M. Now turn to the almanac for 1838, and you will see the following: "Sept. 18th there will be an annular eclipse of the sun as follows: Beginning at 3 h. 12 m. P. M. Greatest obscuration 4 h. 32 m. End 5 h. 43 m."
This, then, shows that that principle is correct. I might illustrate it by many other examples, as I have an abundance of them before me; but any one can do it by procuring the date of eclipses for a number of years.
But how does this prove that no time has been lost? It proves it thus: Suppose that between the first and 18th days of this month, by some unaccountable circumstance, we lose one day, or one day passes which we do not count. It is obvious that when the 18th does come it will be only the 17th according to our reckoning. So if between the years 1820 and 1838 we had lost one year, this eclipse would have occurred in Sept. 18, 1837, according to such reckoning, which would leave only 17, instead of 18, years, between the two occurrences of the same eclipse, which can never be. If we had lost only one day, the eclipse would have occurred on the 17th instead of the 18th of Sept. On the other hand, if we had gained one year, this eclipse would not have transpired till 1839; if we had gained one day, it would not have taken place, till the 19th of Sept. But this eclipse did occur on the 18th of Sept. 1838, just when it ought to; hence not an hour was either lost or gained between 1820 and 1838.
Now the same reasoning which proves that no time was lost or gained in this case, will also prove that none has been lost or gained from Christ's time to the present; for these eclipses have been diligently recorded from, and long before, that time to this. To make surety doubly sure, we can take several series of eclipses, and calculate them separately, and we will find that they all agree as one man.
We can reckon the other way if we choose. Thus, we find recorded an eclipse of the sun in 1841, July 18th, 9 h., and 11 m., morning. Subtracting from this date 18 years, 10 days (there being five leap-years between the two dates), 7 h., and 43 m., takes us back to 1823, July 8th, 1 h., 28 m., morning, where there should be an eclipse of the sun, if the record of time has been kept correctly. Turning to the almanac for 1823, I read, "The fourth eclipse will be of the sun, July, 8 day, near 3 h., in the morning." Again, taking 18 years, 11 days, 7 h., and 43 m., from this date, gives us 1805, June 26th, 5 h., 45 m., P. M., where this eclipse occurs again.
So we might continue to calculate back as far as we choose, and always find them recorded just where they ought to have occurred. This fact alone proves to a demonstration that not one day or hour has ever been lost.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
An Index of the Times.
THERE was a sight to be seen in broad daylight a few days ago, in front of the Presidential mansion, which gave those who witnessed it a shocking idea of the onward strides which the vice of intemperance has made in "good society" during the last few years. A woman clad in the richest and most fashionable garments, with diamonds flashing from her slender fingers in the slant Western sunshine, sat upon the stone balustrade, unable to proceed on her homeward walk without betraying herself. At last she rose and started on, swaying to and fro, and yet soon rested again, utterly unable to proceed. The carriage of a foreign minister passed by—the poor woman was noticed—and it turned, stopped, took in the lady, and carried her to her luxurious home. For the lady is wealthy and occupies a high social position, but she was drunk in the streets of Washington! Drunkenness prevails almost everywhere, in camp and court. It is that vice, above all others, that cripples the army. The poor soldier drinks, gets drunk, and is disgracefully punished for it.
The officer does the same thing, and is not even reprimanded. It would astound some of the sober, devout, people of the free States, to learn how many young men, officers in the army, have already been ruined by strong drink. The War Department is making every effort to prevent intoxicating liquors from going to the common soldiers, but why does it not prohibit drinking among officers? One half the brigadier-generals now on pay know far better how to swallow prodigious quantities of whisky than to manage a brigade of troops upon the field of battle. It is time that good men everywhere spoke out upon this subject.—Washington Correspondent of the N. Y. Independent.