Review and Herald, Vol. 16, No. 5. (6/19/1860)

Review and Herald

Jun 19, 1860

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 19, 1860

THE HOLY SABBATH OF THE LORD.

By B. F. Snook

BY B. F. SNOOK.

(Concluded.)

CHANGE OF.

WE come now to consider the last head of the above subject. As far as we have gone, the masses of Bible believers are with us. But we now step out upon grounds entirely in opposition to those who have heretofore agreed with us. The question for present consideration is one of great importance. Has the Sabbath been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week? The orthodox would say it has. They affirm. We deny. Here we will give a statement of their views and consider the arguments adduced as their proof.

1. As it is the law of nature that in general a due proportion of our time be set apart for the worship of God, so in his word by a positive, moral and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week. Standard of the Associate Reformed Church of North America. p. 127.

2. John Brown says, "In honor of his own resurrection, Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath, changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week." Bible Dictionary.

3. Prot. Epis. Church says, "The day is now changed from the seventh to the first day of the week in commemoration of our Lord's resurrection."

4. Adam Clarke, D. D. says, "The change of the Jewish into the Christian Sabbath, called the Lord's day, shows that Christ is not only the Lord, but also the truth and completion of it; for it seems to have been by an especial providence that this change has been made and acknowledged all over the Christian world." Com. on Matt. xii, 8.

5. It is further observed in this answer that the day which we call the seventh part of time was the seventh day of the week from the beginning of the world till the resurrection of Christ, but the day was changed by the substitution of another in its room. Ridgely's Body of Div. p. 346.

We have given the above citations to show the position occupied by the religious world. Next we will examine the evidence on which they rely for their proof that the Sabbath has been changed.

1. Dr. Ridgely says, "This change of the Sabbath appears from the example of Christ and his apostles who celebrated the first day of the week as a Sabbath after his resurrection." Body Div. p. 347. In proof of this statement he cites John xx, 19. "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst and saith unto them peace be unto you."

Well do we find anything in this to prove the Dr.'s statement. The word change is not in the verse, neither is the day on which they were assembled called the Sabbath. The leading terms of the Dr.'s argument are of home manufacture and do not occur in his proof text. But we will give him another chance. If we can find terms equivalent in meaning to "change," and "Sabbath," we will give them equal weight. The words alter, and rest, would be exactly synonymous with the above. But these we cannot find in the text. Therefore it comes short of proving what it was quoted to prove. Let us now critically analyze this declaration and see what it does teach.

1. It teaches that the disciples were assembled on the first day of the week.

2. That they were assembled for fear of the Jews. The Dr. says it was to commemorate the resurrection of Christ. Quite a difference between John and the Dr.!! No wonder; John was giving a plain statement of historical facts; but the Dr. wrote to serve a purpose, to sustain an unscriptural practice.

3. Jesus appeared and stood in their midst. Not one word do we find here to prove the change of the Sabbath.

4. He said, Peace be unto you. This proves that he blessed the apostles, but is no evidence that he blessed the day or appointed it to be kept and observed for any purpose.

He next brings verse 26 into court to testify for him. "And after eight days again his disciples were within and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut and stood in the midst and said, Peace be unto you." It really appears that the cause must be hard run for proof that hangs upon this text. The Dr. assumes that this meeting was on the first day of the week because he thinks it was just eight days from the preceding one. But the text says after eight days. If the text be true this meeting could not have been on a day earlier than the ninth, for after eight days cannot mean just eight. The text is definite proof that this meeting was not earlier than the ninth day, but affords no proof that it was on the first day of the week. Again, does this scripture afford any proof that they were assembled to commemorate the resurrection of Christ? We will see. The connection proves the opposite. He rather appeared to more fully develop the fact of his resurrection. This he did by proving to unbelieving Thomas that he had really risen from the dead. Verses 27, 28. This therefore like the preceding testimony affords the Dr. no proof whatever on any one point.

2. He says this change farther appears from the fact that the church met on the first day of the week. Acts xx, 7 is then brought forward and after all the torturing that it can be subject to it will not testify in behalf of the Dr. "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them ready to depart on the morrow and continued his speech until midnight." The fact that the church at Troas met on the first day of the week no more proves it to be the Sabbath than the fact that Christ was with his disciples forty days after his resurrection proves that each of those forty days was a Sabbath. But suppose it was the custom of the early church to meet on the first day of the week. Does that prove the change of the Sabbath? Does that give men the right to violate the law which says, The seventh day is the Sabbath? If so where does the proof occur? Again, if it was the custom of some of the early Christians to meet on the first day of the week is that any evidence that we should. But we think the meeting referred to above was an evening meeting. Verse 8 confirms this: And there were many lights in the upper chamber where they were gathered together. There would be no necessity of lights in a room in daylight, but there would be in the evening. The fact also of the young man going to sleep, &c. is good evidence that this was an evening meeting. But if not how could Paul preach till midnight? According to the Bible the day ends and begins with the setting of the sun. The above meeting was on Saturday night, which would be the commencement of the first day of the week or Sunday. This is the truth of this matter. Hence we have a good reason for the lights in the upper room. The young man perhaps became a little weary of Paul's long sermon and

like many now, in like circumstances, fell asleep. But unfortunately he fell down and was nearly killed. Paul restored him and they broke bread and conversed until break of day; and on Sunday morning he left them and started away on his long journey to Jerusalem; therefore this proves that Sunday is rather a day of labor than a day of rest.

1 Cor. xvi, 1, 2 is next brought out. "As I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye: upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." According to this the first day of the week is a day of business, in which the disciples are required to lay by them as they have been prospered. If Paul had been a good Sunday-keeper he never would have penned the above.

3. The Dr. next says, "This change further appears from the fact that there is a day mentioned in the New Testament which is styled the Lord's day. I was in the spirit on the Lord's day." Rev. i, 10. We admit that the Lord has a day yet; but we do not admit that that is any evidence of the change spoken of. We believe that the day of which the Son of man is Lord, is the Lord's day. He is Lord of the Sabbath day [Mark ii, 29], which is the seventh. Ex. xx, 9. Therefore the seventh and not the first day is the Lord's day.

We have now examined all the strongholds of Sunday-keepers, from which we come to the following conclusions. 1. Sunday is not a day of rest by any divine authority. 2. The primitive Christians did not rest upon it, neither did they regard it as a holy day. 3. There is no divine authority for keeping it in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. 4. The primitive Christians did not keep it in commemoration of the resurrection of Christ. 5. Those who work on the Sabbath and rest on Sunday act without any authority from God and sin against him. 6. The phrase, first day of the week, in all occurs eight times in the New Testament and is never applied to the Sabbath. 7. The phrase Sabbath or Sabbath day occurs in the New Testament 59 times and is never applied to the first day of the week or any other day.

Having now noticed the evidence brought forward to support the change of the Sabbath we will pass from this part of the subject. We are ready to admit that a change has been attempted and made, to a great extent; but we question the authority that made the change. Our opponents say, Christ did it; and we, in the absence of their proof, deny. We have proved in a previous article the perpetuity of the Lord's holy Sabbath throughout all time. We will next state that according to prophecy the law of God was to be changed, and a result of this change is a change of Sabbath time. Dan. vii, 8. And I considered the horns, and behold there came up among them another little horn before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and behold in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. Verse 25. And he shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall think to change times and laws. Dan. viii, 12. And it casts the truth to the ground. Dan. xi, 36. And the king shall do according to his will, and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods. These scriptures evidently speak of a power that should arise against God, oppose his law and trample it under foot, and make war against the saints. For mark, the one who does one of these deeds does all of them. Therefore if Christ changed the law and Sabbath, he exalted himself above God, spoke against him, and waged war against the saints.

But this does not harmonize with Isaiah: He will magnify the law and make it honorable. Chap. xlii, 21. Christ then exalted the law, and humbled himself [Phil. ii, 8]; and he obeyed the law in honor of his Father. John xv. But this law and time changer was to exalt himself. Paul

speaks of the same power. 2 Thess. ii, 3, 4: Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped; so that he as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.

According to Paul, this power will not only exalt himself above all that is called God and worshiped, but he will actually sit in the temple or place of God, and will show that he is God. Then there are at least two Gods; the true and false, even him whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders and all deceivableness of unrighteousness. Again the false god or antichrist is to oppose the true God. This he does by working himself into the temple of God, and changing his law. The true God has a code of laws. Deut. iv, 13. And he gave unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments. This is a perfect law. Ps. xix, 1. The law of the Lord is perfect. It cannot be added to nor diminished from. Deut. iv, 2. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. The false god will also have a code of laws. This code is made by changing, adding to and dividing the law of the true God. Has such a power arisen? All history responds, There has.

The papal power evidently fulfills this prophecy perfectly. The pope has exalted himself above God; has taken his place; has garbled the law of God, and torn from it the second commandment. To supply this deficiency in the number of commandments he has divided the tenth command, making two of it. And last, though not least, he has changed the fourth commandment from the seventh to the first day of the week. This he acknowledges: "In profaning Saturday they violate one of God's commandments, which he has never clearly abrogated: 'Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.'" Doct. Cat. p. 352. Again, "During the old law Saturday was the day sanctified, but the church, instructed by Jesus Christ and directed by the Spirit of God has substituted Sunday for Saturday; so we now sanctify the first, not the seventh day. Had the church power to do this? Certainly. The uniform, universal and perpetual tradition of all ages and nations attest the antiquity and consequently the divine assent to this change. Why did the church make this change? Because Christ rose from the dead on Sunday, and rested from the great work of redemption." Cath. Cat.

The foregoing is but a tithe of the evidence that might be adduced attesting the fact that the pope thus fills the description of Daniel and Paul. We have now before us two opposing powers. Each demands our worship. If we worship the true God we must obey his law, without a jot or tittle being displaced. He gave his own law as he desired it should be, and requires us to obey it just as it was proclaimed. But if we desire to worship the pope, the beast of Rev. xiii, 1–6, we can do it by only obeying his law. "Know ye not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto life." Rom. vi. Those who keep Sunday have no higher authority for their practice than the man of sin. Are they willing to continue in his service? If so, they must remember that the awful threat of the third angel will be realized by them to their exceeding great sorrow. Notwithstanding the abundance of our proof, many of them will try to prove by the Bible, that about which it is silent as the grave. Do they not know that every such effort only confirms Catholicism! Further, they, in so doing, acknowledge the right of the pope to change laws.

Having now proved that a law and Sabbath changing power was to arise, and having proved this to be the papal power, we will consider one more

question and then conclude. Some of our modern D. D.'s have made a discovery quite recently, seeing that they cannot sustain the old position of the change of the Sabbath. They now maintain that they are keeping the regular seventh day, the very day on which God rested. But we have proved that there has been a change in the day; and the world acknowledges it. But this change has no Bible authority; and they see it, and rather than renounce their erroneous practice, they will try to bolster up their Sunday-keeping from other sources. This is very unreasonable. All men who know anything, know that the Jews still keep the seventh day Sabbath commanded in Ex. xx, 9. This day is either the day on which God rested, or it is not. If not, then there is no command to keep the day on which he rested; and inasmuch as this class of Sunday-keepers are keeping the day on which God rested, they are doing that for which they have no command. But if this is the day on which he rested, and we keep it, then we have a command for our practice while they have not. Thus the darling Sunday must be sustained by other evidence than this, or go begging. We think our opposers would experience a much better time in keeping the Sabbath than in warring against it. Better live so as to say with David, I am a companion of all them that fear thee and keep thy precepts; or to say with Christ, I have kept thy commandments.

THE SABBATH.

By A. L. Wilkinson

HAIL, sacred day, divinely blessed, We joy at thy return; We would obey our God's behest, And from our labor turn. How sweet when six days' work is past, To turn from worldly care; And find a full and rich repast, In humble earnest prayer.

O Lord upon thy holy day, Give us thy Spirit's aid; O fill our hearts with love, we pray, On thee our thoughts be stayed. Help us to worship thee aright, Thy honor do we seek; Thy Sabbath, Lord, is our delight, Thy glory we bespeak.

And when we meet to worship thee, O may our thoughts be calm; O grant us Lord full liberty, Pour on us heavenly balm. Thou knowest all our cares and pains, Thou knowest all our feeble state; O grant us Lord refreshing rains, Our hearts with graces freight.

Lord we would faithful do thy will, Help us to keep thy day; Guide us to Zion's holy hill, O may we never stray. And when our labors here are past, May we all meet above; Then enter on the heavenly rest, And be with Him we love.

A. L. Wilkinson.

Owasso, Mich.

THE IMMORTALITY QUESTION.

By E. Lanphear

[The following is a portion of an article sent by Bro. E. Lanphear to the Sabbath Recorder. It was declined by that paper, and Bro. L. sends it to us. We are sorry the Recorder is unwilling to lay before its readers articles which are no more antiscriptural or unprofitable than the following.—Ed.]

Permit me to ask a few questions for the consideration of your readers.

1. What part of Adam did God address himself to when he said, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die;" soul, spirit, body, or the whole man just as he had made him?

2. Which told the truth, the Lord or the serpent? The Lord said to Adam in relation to eating the forbidden fruit, "Thou shalt surely die!" but the serpent said, "Thou shalt not surely die! &c. It seems to me that when my brethren say that man is immortal, and must live on through an endless eternity, either in happiness or misery, they confirm what the serpent said.

3. Did Adam ever get back into the garden after he was turned out, and eat of the tree of life? If he did not, how could he live forever? was not this the very reason why Christ was sent into the world; that man might come unto him and "have eternal life?" Is not "eternal life the gift of God through our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?" These are questions for my professed orthodox brethren to decide; ministers, of course, if lay members cannot be allowed to investigate for themselves. I never was really willing to come under priest rule, and be compelled to believe what they say, whether the Scriptures teach it or not, for the sake of being called a Seventh-day Baptist.

Again, if your theory is correct, and man cannot die, why the injunction, "Turn ye; for why will ye die?" Perhaps this was a mistake, and the passage should have read, turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye live in endless misery or torment? How is it with the text which speaks in relation to a certain class, on whom "the second death hath no power" if there is no second death?

I have heard preachers exhort people to "turn from the evil of their ways, and escape the death that never dies." I never learned of any such death by reading the Bible. I am inclined to believe that men talk and preach these things, more for effect than for the truth of them. It is said that a person can repeat a story until he gets to thinking that it is a reality: it may be so in relation to some of the doctrines preached. I have heard persons preach funeral sermons when

they would picture out "heaven" with the spirit, or living part, as they would call it, of the person dead perched on the tree of Paradise in "heaven," with the saints that had gone before him, singing praises to God and the Lamb, and calling for those left behind to come and be with them. Is this Bible doctrine? or is it preaching for effect that grace may abound? Shall men "sin that grace may abound? God forbid."

If we allow ourselves to construe the plain teachings of the Bible to mean something else in one case, why not in all cases where it conflicts with our convenience and education? Has not the Sunday observer as good a right to interpret Sabbath to mean Sunday as we have to say that death, die, &c., means life and to live?

I had intended to write at some length on the subjects above hinted at; but it seems that freedom of speech and of the press, is to be tolerated only with the favored ones in our denominational paper, especially on subjects hard to be disposed of. Sunday people will not allow Sabbath keepers to discuss the subject of the Sabbath through their periodicals; neither will they allow a Sabbatarian to enter their churches to lecture on the subject of the Sabbath any more than our professed Sabbatarians will the Adventists.

I once tried all the Sunday churches in my town to get a chance for a Sabbatarian to lecture, but all had an excuse; and that was, they did not think it profitable to have the people's minds stirred up to that subject. I finally succeeded in getting a chance for him to speak in a school-room in an academy where he gave two lectures, after which "he gave the ministers an invitation to reply." But they answered him "nary-a-bit."

The course taken by you and the publishing board, in relation to your correspondents that write on the subjects above referred to, reminds me of a circumstance that occurred years ago when I was a smaller boy than I am now. The circumstance was this: My Father gave me a chicken. I took much pains with it, and it grew up and made a fine looking blue rooster. I thought much of Blue Jacket as I used to call him. But I chanced to call at one of the neighbors one day and espied a very beautiful red chicken, or rooster, to which I took quite a fancy. My father finally consented to let me trade for it, and I brought him home. Of course the chickens wanted to fight; and at it they went in good earnest. My preference was to have Red Jacket whip; so when Blue Jacket was like to get the start I would catch him and hold him for Red Jacket to pick away upon awhile, thinking perhaps old Blue would give it up. But old Blue never would give it up; for he knew it was unfair. But I continued to bother him by tying his legs, &c., until both were so reduced they could fight no more. The result was, both chickens died. I have always thought that if I had given the blue chicken equal chance, he would soon have whipped out the other, and I should have saved the chickens.

It seems to me that you and the board are altogether in favor of the red chicken; live or die. Well this is human nature. I do not think it the best way to be always governed by this rule. If I should allow myself to be governed by human nature, I might say as I heard a man say in Wisconsin last fall. He said that "he had willed the publishing society $1000, but if they did not show fair play on these subjects he would alter his will." I am making quite a lengthy article of this. If you do not feel disposed to publish it, you will find enclosed postage stamps by which to return it to me by mail; also my reply to "J. M. T."

In concluding this article I wish to make one appeal to the common sense of every reader of the Recorder. Is the doctrine of the endless punishment of the wicked a consistent doctrine when compared with the plain teachings of the Bible, and God's goodness as represented therein? Man seems to have been placed here in the world without any volition on his part. His life is filled up with sorrows, griefs and pains. Rude

buffetings and often abuses are the portion of his cup. His bark is often driven aground upon the sands of sorrow, and its keel will ever and anon graze upon the reefs of disappointment. Clouds of adversity hang about his bow and the lightnings of calamity shiver his sails. He is "of few days and full of trouble." The Lord "knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust. As for man his days are as grass; as the flower of the field so he flourisheth; for the wind passeth over it and it is gone, and the place thereof shall know it no more. But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them." Man in his nature seems inclined to sin and will daily do so without a continual watch over himself. Thus the command "Watch and pray lest you enter into temptation."

There seem to be two roads placed before man. He must necessarily enter one or the other. Which is the most natural, according to his nature? "Enter ye in at the strait gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat; because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way which leadeth unto life and few there be that find it."

If now your theology is correct, man must suffer in endless torment in a lake of fire and brimstone for the finite acts of his mortal life. Is this consistent with the attributes of a merciful being? Is not God more merciful than man? Where would you find a man that would whip his child eternally because he had told him he would whip him if he ate of a certain tree in his garden? especially when the keenest boy in the neighborhood told him to do it, and that his father would not whip him? If such a man could be found would consistency allow it? Every man's dignity and humanity, although depraved in his nature, would abhor such a man. It is no wonder the nobleman of Sinai retorted upon the American missionary who went there to convert their heathen to worship the true God. He asked the missionary how long his God punished the wicked. The missionary answered, "eternally." "Then," said the nobleman, "you may worship your American God. I prefer ours; for our God does not punish the wicked but a thousand years." Consistency is a Jewel.

E. LANPHEAR.

SABBATH MUSING.

By E. Goodrich

AGAIN another week of toil, of care and anxiety is past and the Sabbath has begun. Darkness is shrouding the earth; all nature is hushed in silence to rest, and O my soul call in thy wanderings and commune with thy Maker. Pay the vows that thou hast made. Renew thy covenant with God and call upon him that thou mayest find grace to worship him acceptably; not in form only, but with reverence and godly fear. Call to mind his wonderful works of old, which out of chaos brought forth perfect order.

To-day is the Sabbath, the holy rest of God; a memorial of that rest in which God ceased from all his works which he had created and made, and by which he was refreshed. And O, what a beautiful day is this! The darkness is past, and the sun, bright king of day, with his darkness-dispelling, earth-reviving rays, rides forth as gloriously and majestically as when God said "Let there be light," and he was placed in the firmament to rule the day. Nature no longer remembers the cold frosty winter with his icy fetters, his winding sheet of snow, or his requiem of howling winds. But she has clothed herself in her own livery of purest green and looks as beautiful as when first decked by the hand of her Maker. Trees, plants and flowers shoot forth their tender branches, and open their lovely blossoms to the gaze of man, at the same time pointing him forward to a bountiful harvest.

How lovely and soul-enchanting the scene!

And how appropriate the day in which to remember the work of creation; the time when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy at beholding the display of divine power.

Arouse then, thou drowsy soul, and let the Sabbath of the Lord thy God be a delight unto thee. Let it ever bring to mind the creator of the heavens and the earth—thy Maker, and his right to rule the creatures that he hath made. And let the fourth commandment, the commandment that guards this sacred institution, and that contains and makes known the identity and character of the God we worship, the relation we sustain to him, and by which the other commandments are enforced; ever be sacred as the law of thy God.

E. GOODRICH. Edinboro, Pa.

THE AGE OF THEFT.

The poets have sung of the age of gold and of the age of iron; they have yet to sing of the AGE OF THEFT. There have been governments where men have bought and sold provinces; have bartered victories in battle; have betrayed their country when at peace to the foreigner for gold; have sold their influence and their votes for money or for office; the historian has marked the era when such venality has been common as times peculiar for the corruption of its public morals and its private manners, times when neither the men were brave nor the women virtuous. But our own day has a more peculiar and far baser character. The treachery and villainy which the past has taught has been bettered for our instruction, and the vulgar knavery of theft has become the peculiar vice of our public men. To influence an election by the purchase of votes; to buy a representative by the award of a contract; to secure the success of some particular policy by falsehood and treachery; and to cover up all under some dainty form of hypocritical speech;—in political corruptions of this sort we rival all, and perhaps surpass the venal men and measures of other times and other countries. But we excel especially in larceny. No mere round about way of politic speculation for political purpose; no subtle schemes of knavish statesmanship; no partisan rascality for a party’s needs satisfy our public officers. With a greed which the wretch who steals only for his bread never feels; with an appetite for burglary which he never knows who seeks for spoons and purses under the excitement of midnight robbery, the custodian of our public money clutches the gold intrusted to his care. Nature for him has no parallel.

“The sun’s a thief, and with his great attraction Robs the vast sea: the moon’s an arrant thief, And her pale fire she snatches from the sun: The sea’s a thief, whose liquid surge resolves The moon into salt tears: the earth’s a thief, That feeds and breeds by a composure stolen From general excrement: each thing’s a thief.”

But of all things that steal, there are none so shameless as our public men. Contracts with government are taken that the public may be made a prey; contracts are given that the opportunity of robbery may be afforded. Villainy stalks abroad with brazen front; men daily raise their heads which a felon’s cap should cover on change among their honest fellow men, and bow them weekly where their prayers are a bitter mockery. In the federal government, in State legislatures, in municipal affairs, hardly any man is supposed to enter with honest intentions. The best character that can be given to any candidate is, that he is so rich he does not need to steal; the worst qualification is, that he is so poor he cannot afford to run. The president authorizes the use of money, paid out professedly for public service, to be used to influence elections; members of congress are bribed directly with money thus obtained to carry or defeat a party measure; legislatures and State governments are bought at wholesale or by retail, at wholesale prices, as in Wisconsin, or at retail as in New York; cities are burdened with taxes which go not for the service of

tax-payers to clean their streets, to preserve their lives from pestilence or fire, but to fill the flaccid pockets of hungry officials.

One who has been a successful thief in private life is held by eminent commercial men as peculiarly qualified for the management of municipal affairs. Need we cite instances? Military stations, territorial bills, public printing, live-oak contracts, railroad projects, city frauds—a hundred instances of villainy and peculation will rise at the mere suggestion in the minds of the most careless reader of the public prints. At this moment a nine hours' wonder is talked over, a public fraud of years' standing, long known it is said, to heads of the government, and made public at last, not because the fraud is held as monstrous, but because the offender had been guilty of political insubordination.

"A democratic republic," said Mr. Buchanan, eighteen months ago, not long after he had encouraged the bribery of members to force the English bill through the house of representatives, "a democratic republic all agree, cannot long survive unless sustained by public virtue. When this is corrupted and the people become venal, there is a canker at the root of the tree of liberty, which must cause it to wither and die."

He only meant to round a sentence, but he rounded a truth.—Tribune.

ORGANIZATION.

By Editor

We wish it understood that we have nothing further to urge on this subject at present. We have called on those who might object to our suggestions to "write out a plan on which we as a people could act." But no one has yet suggested a plan relative to the matters we introduced; namely holding church property, such as our meeting-houses and Office of publication. We have no disposition to follow those who ramble from the points we have introduced.

As to "Making us a Name," we wish to say that it is an expression introduced by Bro. R. F. C., and that we have recommended no such work. We now suggest that we unanimously adopt the name Church of God, as a scriptural and appropriate name by which to be known.

We have not in former articles suggested the form of organization, for that was not the question under consideration. The question was whether we should hold church property legally or have things at loose ends. We have had no other idea than that the simplest form of organization possible, that would secure the object, would be best.

Now let it be distinctly understood that the following from Bro. R. F. C. is in perfect harmony with our position on this subject from the first.

Bro. White: As Bro. Andrews has written a few words in relation to an organization for the purpose of holding legally the property of the church, I would say that I earnestly desire that the best measures, that is such as God can approve, may be taken. It seems to me that the simplest way would be to organize a publishing association in Michigan, after which members might be united to it from several States.

I can see no real objection that I know of against individual churches organizing in a way that they may hold their meeting houses by law. The church at Parkville, for ought I know, may be right in the steps they have taken. It seems to me that in the apostles' days the several churches acted in business matters independent of each other, and that the combination of churches into bishopries gradually led to the great apostasy.

I would prefer that the church at Battle Creek should be entrusted with the Review Office, than that the church at large should combine in such a way as to produce something like the "great iron wheel" of Methodism.

I will still pray earnestly that the Lord will give wisdom in this matter, and believe that he will. Do not think that I wish to dictate. I only make suggestions and am determined to freely acquiesce in any measure that is in accordance to the evident will of God.

I remain yours in much love, R. F. C.

We think Bro. R. F. C.'s choice that the Battle Creek church hold the Office property rather than an organization like the "iron wheel of Methodism" is judicious. But there is no necessity for either. The Battle Creek church would decline such a position. Our meeting-house is still the legal property of S. T. Belden, and probably will be till our brethren abroad become free from their feelings of excited prejudice and become united upon a plan upon which we as a people can act, then this church will move forward in harmony with the body. J. W.

Continue reading: SECRET SOCIETIES