Review and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 7. (8/4/1868)

Review and Herald

Aug 4, 1868

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 4, 1868

TEN POPULAR OBJECTIONS TO THE SABBATH ANSWERED.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.

1. Sunday commemorates the resurrection of Christ. 2. It commemorates the work of redemption. 3. All days are alike. 4. The earth is round. 5. The North Pole. 6. A seventh part of time will do. 7. The law has been abolished. 8. Sabbath has been changed. 9. Time has been lost. 10. Sunday is the true seventh day.

I PROPOSE now to notice and briefly answer several common objections to keeping the Sabbath of the Lord. Generally the first reason given by Sunday-keepers for keeping the first day of the week is,

1. That Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and that they keep that day to commemorate the resurrection. But I ask, who told them to do it, supposing he did rise that day? How do they know that God wishes them to keep the first day to commemorate his resurrection? God has never told them so; hence, how do they know that it will please him? But I find a strong objection to this position in the fact that God has given us an appropriate memorial by which to commemorate the resurrection of his Son. It is that of baptism. Christ died, and was buried in the earth. On the third day he came out of the earth—arose from the dead. Hence we have the ordinance of baptism. The believer in Christ goes down into the water, is buried in the water as Christ was in the earth, then he rises again from the water as Christ rose from the dead. This fitly commemorates the burial and resurrection of Christ. So it is stated in the Bible. Rom. vi, 3–5: “Know ye not that as many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so should we also walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.” Here Paul says that we are buried with Christ by baptism, and that we are planted together in the likeness of his death. In Col. ii, 12, he makes it still plainer. “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead.” Thus Paul says that we are buried with him in baptism and also risen with him. This is the definitely-appointed memorial of the resurrection of Christ. Then why should we seek to introduce another which God never mentioned? Who hath required this at your hands?

Another argument for the first day of the week, is,

2. That they keep that day to commemorate the work of redemption, which, they say, was completed on the first day of the week, when he rose from the dead; and as the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation, so it is appropriate that a day should be set apart to commemorate that event. Now allowing that redemption is greater than creation, and that it was completed on the day that Christ arose from the dead, how do we know that God wishes us to keep that day to commemorate this event? He has never told us so. Would he not have commanded us to keep that day if he had designed that we should do it? But who knows that the work of redemption is greater than the work of creation? God has nowhere said so.

But there is a still stronger objection against this position. Where is the proof that the work of redemption was finished on the day that Christ rose from the dead? It cannot be proved. In fact, if it was then finished, then all who have been born this side of that, are inevitably lost; for certainly they cannot be redeemed after redemption is completed. But we have proof from the word of God that the day of redemption is not come. Eph. iv, 30: “And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.” Then the day of redemption was yet future when Paul wrote this, A. D. 64, thirty-three years after the resurrection of Christ. Then when will the day of redemption come? I answer, not till Christ comes the second time, when he will redeem his people. In Luke xxi, 25–33, Christ gives the signs which were to precede his second advent. Then he tells his disciples thus, verse 20: “And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” This shows that redemption will take place at the second coming of Christ. This utterly explodes the idea of keeping the first day of the week to commemorate the work of redemption, which has not yet taken place.

When we urge men to keep the Lord’s Sabbath, after stating the above objections and finding that they cannot be sustained, they generally bring forward the following objection:

3. All days are alike. It makes no difference what day we keep if we only keep one to the Lord. But if this be true, it destroys both the positions examined above; for if the first day is to be observed to commemorate the work of redemption and the resurrection of Christ upon that day, then no other day will answer for this purpose. The foundation of this argument is found in Rom. xiv, 5: “One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” If this refers to the Sabbath at all, then it utterly does away with all Sabbaths. Any man who believes that God has a Sabbath day should never use this text as applying to the Sabbath. Let us examine it. “One man esteemeth one day above another.” I esteem Saturday above other days; you esteem Sunday above other days. Now Paul says, “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” that is, one day is just as good as the other, if we are only satisfied with it. But he does not stop there. “Another esteemeth every day alike.” Here is a man who keeps no Sabbath day. He works Saturday, Sunday, and every day. What will Paul do with him? Answer, Just the same as with the others. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” It is just as good, then, to keep no day at all as it is to keep a day. Now who believes that? The fact is, Paul is not referring to the Sabbath at all, but feast-days, and such like. See verses 1–6. But, says one, he says every day, and that certainly must include the Sabbath. I answer that that is not a necessary conclusion. The Sabbath was always a holy day, set apart from the others, which is not included when speaking of things which are only lawful to be done on working days. If a young man who was at work by the month should say, I have not lost an hour for six months, I have worked every day, no one would understand that he had worked on Sunday, for that is not a working day among the people. That the phrase, “every day,” does not always include the Sabbath day, may be seen from Ex. xvi, 4, 21, 27, 28. Verse 4. “Then said the Lord unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them whether they will walk in my law, or no.” In verse 21, it says that they gathered it every morning. Did this mean on the Sabbath day? It did not, as may be seen from verses 27, 28: “And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?” Then this any-day-Sabbath theory finds no aid nor comfort in Rom. xiv, 5.

4. A fourth objection against keeping the seventh day is supposed to be found in the fact, That the earth is round. When it is noon here, it is midnight on the opposite side of the globe. When they are keeping the Sabbath in Asia, we have several hours yet to work here before the Sabbath comes. Hence they say we do not all keep the same time. It is objected, that if you go around the world westward, you will lose one day, and that if you go eastward, you will gain a day, so that two persons traveling around the globe, when

they meet again at the place from whence they started, would be two days apart; and so it is concluded that we cannot keep the definite seventh day. Now, allowing this to be true, it destroys the first-day Sabbath as much as it does the seventh, for the first day of the week must be a definite day as well as the seventh; but some seem to think that the earth is perfectly round when the seventh day comes, but perfectly flat when the first day comes! But is there any real objection in this? The Jews keep the seventh day, and they are scattered to every part of the earth. They find no difficulty in keeping the definite seventh day. So there are Christians keeping the seventh day who dwell in all parts of the world. They find no trouble in this objection. Those who keep the first day of the week have gone to all parts of the earth, and around it, without finding any difficulty in keeping the definite day. From these facts, we conclude that this is an objection in theory only, and not in reality.

The Sabbath begins at evening, or sunset. Gen. i, 5; Lev. xxiii, 32; Deut. xvi, 6; Mark i, 32. When the sun sets in Asia, then the Sabbath commences there; when the sun sets here then the Sabbath commences here. We keep the Sabbath when it comes to us; they keep it when it comes to them. The time must begin somewhere. If we suppose it to begin in Asia first, then it begins here twelve hours later than it does on the opposite side of the earth. When it comes here, is it not the same day that started in Asia? Certainly it is. Then wherever we may be located on the earth, we are under obligation to keep the day when it comes to us, and not when it comes to somebody else. But is it the same definite day? Most certainly it is. The setting of the sun marks the commencement and ending of the day. A train going from Boston to Albany is the same train when it arrives at Albany that it was when it left Boston, although it arrives there several hours after it left Boston. It is observable that this objection never bothers any one only those who wish to evade keeping the day which God has named in the fourth commandment. God made the Sabbath in Eden, and gave it to man. Gen. ii, 1–3, and at the same time he made man and commanded him to multiply and replenish the earth, or fill it; and it was a round earth then as well as now. Could they not keep the Sabbath on all parts of the earth? If they could not, then certainly God was not unjust in requiring them to keep this day.

5. How can the Sabbath be kept at the north pole, where there is six months day and six months night? To this I answer that in the first place, there is no spot on the earth where the day is six months long, or the night either. Yet it is a fact that at the poles there are seasons of the year when the sun cannot be seen for several weeks or even months. Then again, there are seasons when the sun is above the horizon for several weeks at a time. Can they not therefore tell when each day begins and ends as well as we can here? Dr. Kane, and many others, have passed years in this region, and yet we never hear of their having any trouble about keeping the reckoning of the days there as correctly as we do here. In their Journals we read about their keeping Sunday for Sunday, even when they did not see the sun for weeks. How is this? If they could keep the first day there, why could not the Sabbath-keepers as easily keep the seventh day? But let us look at the facts a moment. When the sun is the farthest north, so that it may be seen above the horizon for several weeks, does it continue in the same position all the day? Certainly not. In the morning it appears in the east; at noon it appears in the south; at evening in the west; at midnight in the north. Thus, although the sun may be seen all the time, yet we can as readily tell there when it is morning, noon, evening, &c., as they can on any other part of the globe. What boy ten years old cannot tell by the position of the sun in the heavens nearly what time of day it is, whether it is ten o’clock, or noon, or two o’clock, or five o’clock? &c. So if we see the sun all the time, we could easily tell by its position in the heavens what time of the day it was. But, says one, supposing this is so, what would you do when the sun is out of sight, and does not appear for several weeks? How could you tell the days then? Well, sir, I read in Gen. i, 14–17, that God not only made the sun to rule the day, but the moon to rule the night. But suppose that the sun and moon should be out of sight for several days, then what? Then we have the stars left us, and there are so many of them that you could not get them all out of sight at a time; but particularly in the north, where you are so much troubled about finding the day, shines the north star. This is always visible in the extreme north, and it never changes its position. Each revolution of the earth causes an apparent revolution of the constellations around the north star; so that the revolutions of the earth are marked as accurately as by the sun. So we see that God has arranged it so that the day may be definitely marked wherever we are under the sun. It is my opinion that the objector finds more difficulty in keeping the day than he does in finding it.

6. A seventh part of time will do. Yes, that, I believe, if you only keep the right seventh. But it is urged, if we only keep any one seventh part of time, that will fulfill the commandment. The particular day is not material; it is the institution of the Sabbath that we should observe, rather than the particular day. Well, if this be so, then certainly we are not bound to keep the first day to commemorate the resurrection of Christ or the work of redemption, for another day would answer for this purpose. Yet we often find the same persons trying to prove both positions to be true, although each position tears down the other. But let us look at the commandment and see if it does not enjoin one particular day above all others. “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.” What are we to remember? The day, not any day, or some day, or a day, but it is the day that we are to remember. The is a definite article, making the day definite to which it is applied. To illustrate: If I say, I saw a man to-day, it may be any man in the human form; but if I say, I saw the man to-day, then it must be a particular man, about whom I had spoken before. So when God says, Remember the day, it marks it as a definite day. But what day is it? “Remember the Sabbath day.” Now, Sabbath means rest; Sabbath day, rest-day; hence God says, Remember the rest-day. Here are two adjectives pointing out what day we are to keep. Then we read on: “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” Oh, yes, says one, that is just what I do. I work six days and then rest the seventh day; that fulfills the commandment. But stop, let us read that again. “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, but the seventh day”—this marks it again as a definite day. It is the day that we are to rest upon, the seventh day—not an indefinite day. Note the following phrase which defines it beyond all controversy, “but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Sabbath means rest—the Sabbath day means the rest-day; and the Sabbath of the Lord is the rest-day of the Lord. Now mark, it is the Lord’s Sabbath that we are to keep, and not our Sabbath. We are not to labor six days and then rest on our Sabbath day, but we must rest on the Sabbath of the Lord. Now what day did God rest upon? The Lord has answered this so plainly that we can make no mistake: “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.” The Lord worked the first day, the second day, the third day, and so on for six days; then he rested on the seventh day. That made the day the Lord’s rest-day, or Sabbath day. Then he blessed and hallowed it, and it became the Lord’s holy Sabbath day. This is the day we are to keep. Now, can the Lord’s rest-day come on the first day of the week? It cannot, because God did not rest on that day. The Lord’s rest-day must come on the day upon which he did rest, and it can come on no other. Did he rest on the seventh day? He did. Was it not a particular, definite day? It was. Did he rest on the day, and no day in particular? No; it was the definite seventh day that he rested upon. Now we are commanded to keep the Lord’s rest-day. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” If, then, the Lord’s rest-day cannot come on a day upon which he did not rest, then the Lord’s Sabbath is unalterably fixed to the seventh day of the week. Does our resting upon any day make it the Lord’s rest-day, or Sabbath day? The idea is absurd.

We all know that it does not. We speak of the birthday of George Washington; now can his birthday come on any other day than the one upon which he was born? Certainly not. So with God’s Sabbath day. It is not simply a Sabbath that we are to keep, but we are to honor God by keeping his Sabbath day.

But, say one, if you conscientiously keep the seventh day I believe that that will be acceptable to God; it is holy time to you. If another man conscientiously keeps the first day, that will be just as acceptable; and so if any other man should keep the second day of the week, I think it would be just as acceptable to God. If I was where they all kept Tuesday I should keep it with them. But let us examine this position a moment. No man who believes that there is any Sabbath day to be kept will deny that there is one seventh part of the time that is holy or sanctified time. It is not all holy time; only one-seventh part of each week is holy time. All will agree to this. Now, Mr. A. keeps the seventh; that is one-seventh part of time. Mr. B. keeps the first day, which is another seventh part of time. Now, Mr. A. and Mr. B. together are keeping two-sevenths of the time; but is two-sevenths of the time holy time? Oh no, only one-seventh is. Then, certainly, only one of them can be keeping holy time. How is this? It is a perfect demonstration that one or the other is wrong. They are not both keeping holy time. Hence, this any-seventh-part-of-time theory will not stand the test.

Again, it is said that if Christians should pitch on this, or that, or any other day, it would thereby become a holy day. If this be so, it appears to me that the creature is dictating to the Creator,—that the creature is assuming to bring the Creator to his terms. We select a certain day for our Sabbath day, and then God must bless and hallow that day; then if we change our minds and select another day, the Creator must change his mind and bless and hallow that day, and so on. Thus the creature brings the Creator to his terms! This is arrogating to ourselves the authority of God. This will do very well for the Man of Sin, 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. He was to think himself able to change God’s law. Dan. vii, 25. Then if we would keep the Lord’s Sabbath, we must keep the day on which he rested. We may keep any other day, but it will be our Sabbath, and not the Lord’s.

7. The law has been abolished,—so it is told us. If this position is true, then there is no Sabbath now, because there is no other law for it except that in the ten commandments. Abolish that, and we are without any Sabbath. But Christ expressly declares that he did not come to destroy the law, and that not one jot or tittle of it should pass away while heaven and earth stands. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. v, 17–19. James agrees with this exactly; thus he says, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now, if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.” James ii, 10, 11. This shows that every one of the ten commandments are still binding upon Christians. Paul also has declared the same thing. Rom. iii, 31: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.”

8. The Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week. If this position be true, then the first day of the week is the Sabbath, and no other day of the week will do, and hence the seventh-part-of-time theory is not correct. Yet we often hear men arguing for both positions. But in order to have the Lord’s Sabbath day changed, it would first be necessary for the Lord to change the day of his rest, and rest

on the day to which the Sabbath was to be changed. Now, has God rested on the first day? There is no proof that he did. Has Christ rested on that day? This cannot be proved. Hence the first day of the week is not the rest-day, or Sabbath day of God, nor of Christ. If the Sabbath has been changed, why do we not have some direct account of it in the New Testament? But all know that there is none as far as the New Testament record goes, for the seventh is still styled the Sabbath day; and the first day, simply the first day of the week.

(Concluded next week.)

TRUST IN GOD.

What were there in this changing world To cling to, were the hope denied, The glorious promise to us given, That for our sakes' the Saviour died.

What object had the care-born soul, To struggle on thro' life alone, If, in its darkest hour, the eye Of faith could fail to view thy throne.

What were this life, a fading scene With more of grief and woe than joy, And death were but a constant pang, Our hours of comfort to destroy.

What were it all if Thou, our God, Were not our solace and our stay, Giving thy grace to guide and bless Our souls, in sorrow's darkening day.

Our God, our Father, blessed name, We love thy praises e'er to speak, In thee we trust, oh, give to us The Christian's spirit pure and meek.

FREEMASONRY.—V

By Rev. Charles G. Finney

Its Claim of Great Antiquity False.

BY REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY.

Having, as I think, satisfactorily shown that the publication of Freemasonry by Elder Bernard, in his “Light on Masonry,” and by Richardson, and others, is in all essential points truthful and correct, I proceed to notice the character of Masonry as it is thus revealed. But first I observe that, when it is said that these authors agree, and that different lodges agree, it is not intended, as I have intimated in a former number, that they are precisely alike in every word and syllable.

Nor is it intended that since these revelations Masons have not introduced new signs, pass-words, grips, etc., by which they know each other; for it is well known that the Grand Lodge of New York, to prevent book Masons from entering their lodges, and passing themselves as Masons everywhere, did introduce new pass-words, and signs by which Masons make themselves known to each other. But the thing intended is that these authors substantially agree in their revelations of Freemasonry; and that Freemasonry, in its principles and inculcations, is the same at present that it was when these revelations were made. In another place I shall have occasion to show that Freemasonry is a growth, and that nearly all the present degrees of Masonry have been formed and introduced since about the middle of the eighteenth century.

At present I remark that, on an examination of Bernard’s “Light on Masonry,” it will be seen that Freemasonry is an imposture, and a swindle.

This will appear in the following particulars:

1. Its claims to great antiquity are false. Every one at all acquainted with the claims of Freemasonry knows that it professes to have existed in the days of Solomon; and it is claimed that Solomon himself was a Freemason, and that John the Baptist, and John the Evangelist were Freemasons. Indeed, the writers frequently trace it back as coeval with the creation itself. Masons have claimed for their institution an antiquity antecedent to human government; and from this they have argued that they have a right to execute the penalties of their oaths, because Masonry is older than government. Now an examination will show that this claim is utterly false. Their own highest authorities now pronounce it to be false; and still these claims are kept up, and their oaths and ceremonies, and the whole structure of the institution, profess the greatest antiquity.

Solomon, for instance, figures as a Freemason everywhere in their ceremonies.

Their lodges are dedicated to St. John; and in the third degree there is a scene professed to have been enacted in the Temple, and at the building of the Temple of Solomon.

Now, all this, as I shall have occasion to show more fully hereafter, is utterly fallacious, a false pretence, and a swindle; because it is the obtaining of money from those who join them, under false pretences.

Steinbrenner, a great Masonic historian, after much research, with manifest candor, says that speculative Freemasonry—which is the only form of Freemasonry now existing—dates no further back than 1717. The article on Freemasonry in the new “American Encyclopedia” agrees with this statement of Steinbrenner. Indeed, all modern research on this subject has resulted in dating the commencement of Freemasonry, as it now exists, not far from the middle of the eighteenth century.

Dr. Dalcho, the compiler of the book of constitutions for South Carolina, says: “Neither Adam, nor Noah, nor Nimrod, nor Moses, nor Joshua, nor David, nor Solomon, nor Hiram, nor St. John the Baptist, nor St. John the Evangelist, were Freemasons. Hypothesis in history is absurd. There is no record, sacred or profane, to induce us to believe that those holy men were Freemasons; and our traditions do not go back to those days. To assert that they were Freemasons may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the wise.”

Now observe, this is a high authority, and should be conclusive with Masons, because it is one of their own leaders who affirms this. But, if this be true, what shall we think of the claims of Freemasonry itself? For every one who reads these revelations of Freemasonry will see that Solomon, and Hiram, and those ancient worthies, everywhere figure in these rites and ceremonies; so that, if these men were indeed not Masons, then Freemasonry is a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. What! has it come to this, that this boasted claim of antiquity, which everywhere lies at the foundation of Masonic rites, ceremonies, and pretensions, is now discovered to be false?

But, again, no one can read Bernard on Masonry through, or any of these authors, without perceiving the unmistakable evidence that most of the degrees in Masonry are of modern date. I do not know why so much stress should be laid on the antiquity of Masonry by those who embrace and adhere to it. It surely does not prove that it is of any value, or that it is true. Sin is of very ancient date, heathenism is of very ancient date, and most of the abominations that are in the world are of very ancient date; but this is no reason for embracing them, or regarding them as of any great importance.

But to certain minds there is a charm in the appearance and profession of antiquity; and young Masons are universally deceived in this respect, and led to believe that it is one of the most ancient of existing institutions, if not the very most so. Now, I would not object to Masonry because it is of modern origin; for this would not prove it to be false, if it did not profess to be of ancient origin. I notice this false pretence not because I think its being of recent date would prove it unworthy of notice, or of immoral character or tendency. But observe that its pretensions from first to last are that it is of very ancient date; and it is traced back to the days of inspiration, and is claimed to have been founded and patronized by inspired men.

What would Masonry be if all its claims of antiquity were stricken out? and if those degrees in Masonry, and those ceremonies and usages, were abolished that rest upon the claim that Solomon, that Hiram Abiff, and John the Evangelist, were Freemasons? What would remain of Freemasonry if all those claims found in the very body of the institution were stricken out? Why, their very lodges are dedicated to the holy order of St. John, and Zerubbabel, etc. But what had St. John to do with Freemasonry? Manifestly nothing. He never heard or thought of it. Nor did Solomon, or Zerubbabel.

And here let me say a word to young men who have been urged to unite with this fraternity, and who have been made to believe that the institution is so very ancient, that it was established and patronized by those holy men. My dear young men, you have been deceived. You have been imposed upon, as I was imposed upon. You have been made to believe a lie. They have drawn your money from you under false pretences that some very ancient mysteries were to be revealed to you; and that the institution was one established as far back, at least, as the days of Solomon, and that St. John was the patron of the institution. Now this, rely upon it, is but a pretence, a sham, an imposture, and a swindle. I beg you to believe me; and, if you will examine the subject for yourself, you will find it to be true.

Your own best historian, Steinbrenner, will teach you that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it is now universally known, dates no further back than the eighteenth century. And Dr. Dalcho, who is good authority with the brotherhood, as we have seen, repudiates the idea of its antiquity as that which “may make the vulgar stare, but will rather excite the contempt than the admiration of the wise.” I know that the Masons affirm that the institution, in its present form, is the descendant of a brotherhood of stone-masons, whose history may be traced back for some seven hundred years. But remember that Freemasonry, as you know it, and as it now exists, is not at all what it was among those simple artisans. The name is preserved, and some of its symbols, for the purpose of claiming for it great antiquity. But do not be deceived. If you will examine the subject for yourselves, you will find that modern Freemasonry is entirely another thing from that from which it claims to be descended. And when you hear ministers, or orators, on any occasion, claiming for speculative Freemasonry—which is the only form in which it now exists—a great antiquity, let it be settled, I pray you, in your minds that such claims are utterly false; and that those who make them are either grossly ignorant or intensely dishonest. King Solomon a stone-mason! Hiram a grand master of a grand lodge of stone-masons! Those men uniting in a lodge with a company of stone-masons! Does any one really believe the silly tale?

WHEN ANGRY DON'T WRITE.

When I was a young man, I taught school in——. Some act of discipline gave offense to a man living in the district. He showed his resentment by abusive language, misrepresented me, prejudiced some of my friends against me, and finally got me angry, which I suppose was what he wanted. I wrote a letter in pretty strong language.

That afternoon, after school, an old man, who was one of my best friends, came into the school-room. I told him what I had done, and showed him the letter. He listened patiently, read the letter, then put his hand on my shoulder, and said, “My young friend, when you are angry, don't write. Words spoken may be air: words written are things.”

I did not then think that I should make letter writing a great part of my life-work, but in the thousands of letters that I have had to write since then,—some of them under very trying circumstances,—the old man's words have been my guide, and they have kept me from writing when angry, from speaking when angry, and even from being angry.

I remember in my childhood, hearing an old minister say something to the effect that Satan goes up and down the world, starting theaters, gambling-hells, and drinking saloons, “seeking whom he may devour,” but when he comes across a church-quarrel, he says, “No need of me here. They’ll devour each other fast enough,” and leaves the Christians to do his work for him. As he walks through our literature, where he certainly does walk, inspiring trashy novels, glorifying vice, filling our political journals with heathen and profane allusions, and our literary ones with masked infidelity, when he finds the bitter spirit of the world brought by Christians into their writings, and religious journals made the vehicles of harsh epithets, may not he well say, “No need of me here; Christians are doing my work better than I could do it?”

So, as the cup of cold water given to our brethren is given to Christ, the sword with which we pierce our brethren pierces Christ.

“Why don’t you write a book in reply? you could beat him completely,” said one of his parishioners to an old New England divine, who had been attacked in print, with more fervor than grace, by a brother minister.

“Because,” the Christian man replied, “I don’t wish, when the Master comes, to be found beating my fellow servants.”—National Baptist.

Unnecessary Wants Bring Ruin

We are ruined, not by what we really want, but by what we think we do; therefore, never go abroad in search of your wants; if they be real wants, they will come home in search of you; for he that buys what he does not want, will soon want what he cannot buy.

False Humility

When a man’s conversation always turns upon himself, what he has experienced, and said, and done, set him down as a man of deep humility—if you can.

Seeking God and Finding Him

God will be sought, that he may be found of us; and he will be found, that he may be further sought of us.

Continue reading: Battle Creek Bible Class. July 18, 1868