Review and Herald, Vol. 38, No. 17. (10/10/1871)

Review and Herald

Oct 10, 1871

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Oct 10, 1871

EXAMINATION OF T. M. PREBLE'S FIRST-DAY SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

CHAPTER THIRD.

WHAT KIND OF A SABBATH GOD MADE AT CREATION.

We have studied Elder P.'s book to learn the origin of the Sabbath. We have found in it several truths of great importance. 1. God made the Sabbath at the close of his creative work. 2. He made it to commemorate that work. 3. It was made by his act of sanctifying the seventh day. 4. It was observed by the people of God for four thousand years. 5. The seventh day thus sanctified was the seventh day of the week.

But lest this array of facts should establish the authority of the seventh day upon too firm a basis, Eld. P. makes the following modifying statements in the form of questions. He frames “seven questions,” which he advances “to the reader.” These he evidently regards as unanswerable, except in the manner that himself would answer them; and in these questions he gives us very fully to understand his views of the Sabbath institution. His questions are numbered, and we will consider them in the order of their numbering. We answer his questions with the greater pleasure because we shall often have occasion to examine his book by means of questions, and perhaps shall sometime have occasion to address them directly to himself.

ELD. PREBLE'S FIRST QUESTION.

“Is there a passage in all the Bible to prove that the seventh day of the week is to be observed as the Sabbath? If so, where is it to be found? Understand us: The question is not whether the ‘seventh day’ following ‘six days shalt thou labor’ is to be observed; but the seventh day of the week.” p. 5.

Answer. 1. It is evident that Eld. P. holds that no testimony exists in the Bible to show that the seventh day of the week was ever to be observed as the Sabbath. 2. It is also evident that he holds the seventh day of the commandment to bear that title, not because it is the seventh day of the week, but as being the seventh day after six days of labor, no matter what day of the week constituted the first of the series. 3. And thus we get the exact question at issue between Eld. P. and ourselves concerning the nature of the Sabbath institution. He teaches that it is any day of the seven preceded by six days of labor. But we hold that it is the last day of a divinely appointed cycle of seven days. In other words, Eld. P. holds that God ordained one day in every seven as the Sabbath, but did not designate as such the last of the seven; whereas we hold that he appointed the seventh day of each week and no other day as his sacred memorial.

So much by way of defining the two positions. Now for a direct answer to the question, “Is there a passage in all the Bible to prove that the seventh day of the week is to be observed as the Sabbath?” We offer the following as our answer:

Gen. 2:3: “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”

1. The day on which God rested was certainly the definite seventh day, for only six days of time had preceded it.

2. God sanctified the seventh day BECAUSE that in it he had rested, whence it follows that the sanctification of the seventh day did not take place till the first seventh day of time had expired.

3. The act of sanctifying the seventh day is that of setting it apart, or appointing it to a holy use.

4. But that appointment could not relate to the day then past, but must relate to the seventh day for time to come, in memory of what he had done upon that first seventh day of time.

5. And now we come to two facts which are absolutely decisive in answering the question of Eld. P. (1.) The appointment of the seventh day to a holy use was the act whereby God gave existence to the Sabbath institution. (2.) It was also this very enactment of the Almighty which gave existence to the week itself as a measurement of time. God said, in substance, “Let the seventh day be devoted to holy rest in memory of my rest on that day from the work of creation.” The seventh day from that appointment was the first day thus set apart. That day was the seventh day of the week, and the second seventh day of time. And we conclude the argument from this text by the statement that the same appointment of the seventh day to a holy use which gave existence to the Sabbath, did also give existence to the cycle of seven days, known in the Bible as the week; and did by that very fact fix that institution upon the last day of that cycle.

Ex. 20:11. “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.”

1. This text is identical in meaning with Gen. 2:3, which has just been considered.

2. The day on which the Creator rested, was the seventh day of the first cycle of seven.

3. The day hallowed or sanctified is the seventh day of each recurring cycle of seven.

4. The sanctification of the seventh day gave existence to the cycle of seven days, by appointing the last day of that cycle to be hallowed in memory of the Creator's rest upon that day.

5. Whoever therefore denies the definite appointment of the seventh day of the week, does also deny the actual existence of definite weeks, for they exist only by virtue of the appointment of the seventh day to a holy use.

6. The day hallowed is the rest day of the Creator. This does not come at random upon any day of the seven, but must come upon the last day of each weekly cycle.

Ex. 16:22, 23: And it came to pass that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.”

1. The Sabbath was not appointed to commemorate the fall of the manna for six days, and its cessation on the seventh; but on the contrary the manna ceased to fall on the seventh day, because that day was the Sabbath.

2. It therefore follows that the numbering of the days in this chapter has reference to God's original appointment of the seventh day to a holy use, to which arrangement of the days, the fall of the manna was made to correspond.

3. The sixth day of this chapter is therefore the sixth day of the divinely appointed week; and the morrow, which was “the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord,” was not merely an indefinite seventh day after six days of toil, but was the definite seventh day of the week.

4. But we can here test Eld. P.'s doctrine that the seventh day to be observed as the Sabbath, is not the seventh day of the week, but a seventh day preceded by six days of labor. They could not gather the manna on any six days they pleased, for there was one day on which no manna fell. Nor could they, after attempting to fix their own six days for gathering manna, select the following as their seventh day, and hallow it as the Sabbath. For though the manna would keep over the seventh day of the week, it would putrefy if kept over any other day!

5. Observe further: the manna fell on six days; on the sixth day a double portion; on the seventh day there was none; the manna gathered on the sixth day was fit for use on the seventh day, though never thus preserved over any other day. Here were at least three wonderful miracles every week to point out the definite seventh day as the Sabbath. In one year there were 156, and in the forty years of the fall of the manna there were 6240!

6. Finally Gen. 2:3 sets apart to a holy use that day of the seven on which the Creator rested; Ex. 20:8–11, on the authority of that original appointment solemnly enjoins the observance of that rest day, still calling it the seventh day; while Ex. 16 shows beyond all dispute (1.) what day the true seventh day is; (2.) That God would have that day and no other.

Matt. 28:1. “In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,” etc.

Mark 16:1, 2: “And when the Sabbath was passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first day of the week,” etc.

1. There are seven days in a week.

2. The Sabbath is the last or seventh day of the New-Testament week; for the first day of the week is the day which comes next after the Sabbath.

Luke 23:56; 24:1: “And they returned and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment. Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre bringing the spices,” etc.

1. The persons who “kept the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” observed the very day ordained in the commandment.

2. The day enjoined in the commandment is there designated by two marks. (1.) It is the seventh day. (2.) It is the rest day of the Creator.

3. This seventh day on which the Creator rested, which was kept by those holy women in obedience to the fourth commandment, was the day next before the first day of the week.

4. As there are just seven days in each week, it is certain that the Sabbath of the fourth commandment is the seventh day of the New-Testament week; and the facts above cited show that the New-Testament week is identical with that week which God instituted when he set apart the seventh day to a holy use.

ELD. P.'S SECOND QUESTION.

“Is there a place in all the Bible but what shows clearly that the seventh day to be observed as the Sabbath, was always the seventh day following six days shalt thou labor—the day of the week not particularly specified? If such a passage is to be found, where is it?”

Answer. This question is a mere repetition of the question already answered. Both questions are directed to a single point, which is to create the impression that the seventh day which God sanctified to be observed by mankind as his Sabbath, is any day of the week which has been preceded by six days of labor. It is true that the law of God assigns six days for man's labor, but it is not true that it leaves the Sabbath as being merely one day in seven after six days of toil. 1. There is not one text which gives such an idea. 2. We have proved positively by several witnesses that this doctrine is absolutely false. This second question, which is merely the first question asked over, is only worthy of notice for its singular error of construction; its language implies that every verse of the entire Bible teaches that the Sabbath is simply any seventh day after six days of labor.

ELD. P.'S THIRD QUESTION.

“Is there a passage in the Bible to prove that the Lord ever sanctified but one seventh day of the week? and that, the day on which he rested? If such a passage is to be found, where is it?”

Answer. Here is a question that has a remarkable bearing upon those which go before it, and those which follow after it. Let us carefully consider it.

1. This question directly acknowledges that the day sanctified in Gen. 2:3 is the seventh day of the week.

2. In words, quoted from S. Bliss, and endorsed by himself, on page 143, he makes this very act of sanctifying the seventh day the act whereby God instituted the Sabbath. Thus we there read:

“The institution of the Sabbath was coeval with the creation. Gen. 2:3. ‘God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work.’ To sanctify in the sense of the word here used, is to separate, to set apart, or appoint to a holy, sacred, or religious use.”

3. Thus we have the original institution of the Sabbath, and find that it consisted in the appointment of the definite seventh day of the week to a holy use.

4. But we must not flatter ourselves with the hope of getting pure truth from our friend P. He has also error designed to neutralize all this. And so we learn from this question that though the Lord did sanctify the seventh day of the week, that sanctification was confined to the first seventh day of time.

5. Now, however, this is not all to the advantage of Eld. P. It is a fine thing indeed to kill the definite seventh day Sabbath at the moment when its existence began; but as God never made but one weekly Sabbath, and the act whereby he did this was that of sanctifying the seventh day of the week, it follows that the one-day-in-seven Sabbath never was instituted at all!

6. There is but one way that we can help our friend P. out of this difficulty. God made the Sabbath for mankind at the creation when he sanctified the seventh day of the week. That sanctification must have been two-fold. (1.) It related to one definite seventh day: the first seventh day of time. (2.) Thenceforward it related to one day in seven after six days of toil.

7. Though this is too absurd to merit serious refutation, yet some such idea as we have suggested is a necessity to the theory of Eld. P. (1.) He cannot deny that God did make the seventh day of the week the subject of his action when he instituted the Sabbath. (2.) But now unless he limits this action to the first seventh day of time, he has, surely against his will, the weekly Sabbath established upon the definite seventh day of the week. (3.) In order, therefore, to get in his one-day-in-seven Sabbath, he confines the act of sanctification to the first week of time, unless, as we conjecture, this sanctification after the first seventh day of the week, rested upon any day of the seven

which should be preceded by six days of labor!

ELD. P.'S FOURTH QUESTION.

“Is it not always the case that it is the Sabbath which was sanctified; the particular day of the week not specified? If this is not the case, point to chapter and verse which disproves it.”

Answer. 1. The third question did acknowledge that God sanctified the seventh day of the week, in the act recorded in Gen. 2:3. But with that acknowledgment was the statement that only one seventh day of the week was included in the act. This was intended to kill the seventh-day Sabbath; but how it would give life to the one-day-in-seven Sabbath was only conjectural.

2. But the present question gives us new light. Come to think, God never did sanctify the seventh day. It is always the case that it is the Sabbath which was sanctified; the particular day of the week not specified.

3. To this statement two facts are opposed. (1.) There is no place in the Bible which represents God's act of sanctification as bestowed upon the Sabbath. (2.) We have shown in the answer to the first question that God did set apart to a holy use the seventh day of the week.

4. There are just two places which record the act of sanctification which gave existence to the Sabbatic institution.

Gen. 2:3: “God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.”

Ex. 20:11: “Wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.”

Eld. P. confesses that the first of these texts relates to the definite seventh day. The second text is identical in meaning with the first; for the term Sabbath day is literally rest day; and the rest day of the Lord is the seventh day; for he rested on that day and no other. The truth is, it is always the case that it is the seventh day of the week which was sanctified. And it seems very strange that Eld. P. should say that it is the Sabbath, and never the seventh day, and this, too, when he had just admitted that the first of the two texts did relate to the definite seventh day, and no one can deny that the second one is exactly identical with the first.

Observe, it is the Sabbath day which Ex. 20:11 says God hallowed. The word Sabbath signifies rest. God did not sanctify the rest, but the rest day. And no term could so positively identify the seventh day of the week as that one which brings to view the day of the Creator's rest, and which excludes all the six days employed by him in the work of creation.

ELD. P.'S FIFTH QUESTION.

“Does Christ ever say that the seventh day of the week was made for man? If so, where?”

Answer. Christ did say, “The Sabbath was made for man.” Mark 2:27. And God the Father said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” Ex. 20:10. But to come a little closer, we mention two facts: 1. On page 143, Eld. P. teaches that the Sabbath was made by God's act of sanctifying the seventh day. (See the quotation in the answer to question third.) 2. And Eld. P. acknowledges in question third that the seventh day thus sanctified was the seventh day of the week. We have shown by positive testimony that the seventh day which God set apart to a holy use is the seventh day of the week. And we conclude our answer to the present question by saying that God made the Sabbath for man by setting apart to a holy use the seventh day of each week.

ELD. P.'S SIXTH QUESTION.

“If, then, it is the Sabbath that was made for man, and not the seventh day of the week, are not Christians observing the Sabbath when they rest on the first day of the week, it being really ‘the seventh day’ following six days of labor?”

Answer. Now we discover the reason why Eld. P. has labored so hard to dispose of the seventh day of the week. He has a seventh day of his own to bring forward. All these questions which we have been considering were framed for the purpose of giving the title of seventh day to the first day of the week. But we have shown that his entire chain of reasoning is false.

1. We have proved that the Sabbath which God made for man was made by the act of consecrating to a holy use the seventh day of each week.

2. The first day of the week is therefore not the “seventh day” of the commandment.

3. Eld. P.'s statement that it is “really the seventh day following six days of labor,” is capable of being urged in behalf of the Mohammedan Sabbath, which comes on the sixth day of the week, and is as true of the sixth day as of the first.

4. It is not the six days which men give to labor, but the six days which God thus employed, that we should count in determining the seventh day of the commandment.

ELD. P.'S SEVENTH QUESTION.

“If the Sabbath was made for man—all mankind—how can it be true that all mankind could keep the particular seventh day of the week, on which the Lord rested?”

Answer. This question is very blindly expressed. There is no difficulty in observing the very day of the week on which the Creator rested, which is the seventh or last day.

But the meaning probably is, “How can mankind keep the seventh day of the first week of time?” This question, thus taken, accords well with the statement in his third question that the Lord never “sanctified but one seventh day of the week, and that the day on which he rested.” If this be true, no man can keep the Sabbath unless he keeps the seventh day of the first week of time. And Eld. P. asks how mankind can keep that particular day. The reason why we cannot keep that seventh day is that it has gone out of existence. And this was the fact at the moment when God sanctified the seventh day. He sanctified it because that he had rested upon it. The sanctification did not take place till the rest was past. And when the rest was past the day was ended. If Eld. P. can tell how God can set apart to a holy use the seventh day of the first week of time, after that day had expired, then we can also tell how men can now devote that first seventh day to sacred purposes. The whole thing is an absurdity, as Eld. P. presents it. God's truth is reasonable and consistent.

1. The Sabbath is the memorial of the Creator's rest.

2. The seventh day is the Sabbath.

3. God ordained the Sabbath by setting apart the seventh day to a holy use because that he had used the first seventh day in resting from his work.

4. That appointment gave existence to the weekly Sabbath, as the fourth commandment testifies:

5. What God ordained, therefore, is that we hallow the seventh day of each week in memory of the fact that he rested from creation on the first seventh day of time.

It is not difficult to keep, each week, the day of the Creator's rest; for though that first rest day expired with his rest, his appointment of the seventh day to a holy use divided time into weeks, and each week brings as its last day the day of the Creator's rest.

These questions present a pitiable spectacle. Not one of them can be specified which does not plainly indicate a design to cast dust in the eyes of the reader. The judgment of the heart belongs to God. Yet we cannot be mistaken in the conclusion that these seven questions were framed for the purpose of dethroning the seventh day of the week, and of establishing in its place an indefinite one-day-in-seven Sabbath, under the mantle of which the first day of the week can become possessed of supreme power.

We conclude this article with the following statement of facts:

1. We have given each question a candid, truthful answer.

2. We have shown that there is no foundation in truth for the doctrine that the Sabbath is simply the seventh day after any six days of labor.

3. We have proved that the same act which ordained the Sabbath, gave existence also to the week as a measurement of time, and that the seventh or last day of each week is the divinely appointed Sabbath.

4. It remains for Eld. P. to explain how the sanctification of the definite seventh day of the week could give existence to his indefinite, one-day-in-seven Sabbath.

P. S. Correction. In the last paragraph of my second article in reply to Eld. P. in REVIEW No. 11, which reads, “But that all this sacred truth may be observed,” etc., instead of “observed” read obscured.

“IF NEED BE.” 1 PET. 1:6.

THREE gracious words. Not all for naught Is sorrow, grief, and pain. The heavy burdens that we bear Will not be borne in vain. Our heavenly Father knows our frame, He knows how weak we are, And every sigh and every tear He seeth from afar.

If daily cares oppress our heart, And earthly comforts flee; Does aught disturb our peace of mind, He knows it needs to be. And when the “need be” has fulfilled The end marked out by God, And we are brought to trust him more, He will remove the rod.

Oh, blessed thought! there's not a drop In all the cup of woe, That is not measured by his hand, And will not overflow. Then may we ever trust his love, And though severely tried, Remember that it needs to be, And in his strength abide. —Sel.

Coronation Day.

By C. Monroe

Oh, what a day! long foretold, now at hand! “Lo he comes,” Jesus comes, and is crowned “Lord of all.” Are we ready, all ready, for that day? Our hands, our heart, let us look at them and see if they are clean. Hands stained, not washed in the Saviour’s blood, cannot touch a crown of his nor do him honor. No, none but holy souls can enter those pure, celestial gates, the palace of the skies.

At the coronation of Alexander, emperor of Russia, at Moscow, 1801, Prince Paul Esterhazy was present and represented Charles V, emperor of Austria. His four Hungarian costumes were embroidered and covered with brilliants and costly pearls, valued at a million of dollars! And his carriages and liveries were not less rich.

The dress of “poor” Esterhazy (I dare not call him rich), may do for the coronation of earth’s proud, haughty princes, but not for the “meek and lowly Jesus.” No, all such dresses must be stripped off and hurled to the moles and to the bats, and men must be clad in robes prepared by Christ for the occasion, and washed in his most precious blood.

Brethren, have we been long looking for that day, and are we now looking sharper than ever? And do we see it at the door? Let us look at our hearts, our hands, again and again, and see how they look with the lamp of God, the Bible, shining upon them. Are they certainly clean, clean in the sight of God? This is it: not as seen by others, blind perhaps to their own, blind to the subtle nature and the amazing evil of sin; blind to the standard of God’s holiness, his terms of salvation. How dangerous trusting such eyes, as many do! The Son being one with the Father, is also of purer eyes than to behold evil, or to look on iniquity, is keen to detect sin, and hates it. No polluted hand can touch a crown of his, nor have a welcome there.

For my part, such is the view I have of sin that I deeply regret the commission of one sin that goes like a spear to his precious side; and how much more the sins of a lifetime! Let us then take up arms at once against every sin if, as yet, we have not so done, and be ripe and ready. Were it evidence of fitness for that day, I could say to men, It is a day of days, of all others the sweetest, best; when I can so well show my love and gratitude, in concert, to crown him Lord of all. This privilege, this beatitude, I expect soon, with all the saints to realize.

But, oh! poor sinner, what will become of you who have no lot or portion there? It grieves us sore to leave you here to perish in your sins. The thought is too shocking to support. “Oh! turn ye, for why will ye die?” Damnation is dreadful! Salvation is glorious, and worthy a last desperate struggle to obtain; and will you make it, and make it now? “The time is short,” and what we do, any of us, must be done quickly.

Brethren, let us awake and put on the coronation garment, and be ready, all ready, when our returning Lord shall come, to hail him with transports of joy unspeakable; to join the heavenly hosts and “crown him Lord of all.” C. MONROE.

The Lasting Influence of a Good Man

THE influence of a good man is an everlasting blessing. The deeds of his kindness fall upon the heart imperceptibly, like the gentle dews of a summer night; but fruit and flowers spring up in waste places, to show us that the celestial visitant has passed that away.

How to Trust Him.

“But I don’t know how to trust Christ for my Saviour,” said a young girl. “I hear what is said, but I don’t understand how it is: I do not see the way.” “Do you feel,” said one who had addressed her, “that you are a sinner and in danger of being lost?”

“I do feel; I feel I am condemned for dreadful sins.”

“And what can you do for yourself in the case?”

“Oh! I cannot do anything. I have tried, and tried; but I get no better.”

“Jesus says to such as you, ‘believe in me; trust me; cast your sins upon me.’”

“I would if I could; but when I try, it does not seem as if he received me: I am always afraid he does not. Oh! I do not know how to believe and trust.”

“Let me illustrate faith to you: The other day a little boy climbed a ladder to the roof of a house. It was an unsafe place, and his mother hastened to call him down.

The roof was slippery, and his little feet slid in the descent; so he crept to the edge, where his friends stood anxious for his safety. Mr. O. reached up his arms, ‘Now, Willie, jump, and I will catch you.’ Willie looked at the stoned pavement below, and drew back. But Mr. O. tried to persuade him, but the child was afraid to trust.

“‘Willie,’ said the mother, Mr. O. says he will certainly catch you; does he not always tell the truth?”

“‘Oh, yes! he says true,’ Willie answered.

“‘Now obey, Willie,’ said the mother, ‘don’t make him wait; he is all ready.’

“The boy trembled; but there was no other way, and he leaped from the roof. His trust in Mr. O. was faith; and when he was clasped in a pair of strong arms, he did not doubt that he was there; he was not afraid to rest. Christ tells us to cast ourselves upon him just so, and believe that he receives us.”

“Is that the way?” asked the young girl, “do you trust Christ so?”

“Yes, just in that way; simply and wholly as Willie threw himself into Mr. O.’s arms. Cannot you do so, believing that he does his part as fully as you trust me?”

“I never saw the way so clearly before. Yes, I can trust him; I do believe him. I will cast myself upon him, sin and all. O, I am so glad!”

And the face that had been shadowed with doubt and discouragement lighted up with a new-born joy.—Christian Banner.

Imitate Christ.

By H. Hunter

Let Christians, when they are tempted to be proud, or to act contrary to the example of the Lord Jesus, suppose him once more addressing them, individually, in such terms as these: “How ill does pride or haughtiness become thee, O my disciple! when thy master was meek and lowly, and so much debased himself? Was he so poor? Blush, then, to think that thou art ashamed of poverty, or so anxious to avoid it. Did I not condescend to wash the feet of my apostles? and can you reckon the meanest office for charity, self-denial, or condescension, beneath you? Did I affect state or grandeur, and can you be vain of costly furniture and apparel? When you hear me, in my word, ascribing all the glory to God, will you seek and delight in the applause of mortals? If I pleased not myself, do you deserve the name of my disciple, when seeking to please yourself? Did the most outrageous insults and injustices only excite my pity, and not provoke me to anger; and shall disrespect, affronts, or even injuries, blow up my servants to sinful passion, resentment and revenge? Did I drink of my cup of unmingled bitterness without repining? And shall a small drop of gall, in affliction or disappointment, cause thee to murmur or complain? Why, oh! why, has the example of your Master so little influence upon your temper and conduct? Remember me, and be humble, patient, and mortified, to self and the world.—H. Hunter.

How to Break Down a Church.

I. Discourage the Pastor.—(1) By attending only one Sabbath service. (2) By neglecting prayer (and other) meetings. (3) Criticise your minister freely, praise him sparingly, censure him plentifully, pray for him little or none. (4) Withhold your co-operation generally.

II. Discourage your Fellow-members. (1) By observing the foregoing directions. (2) Complain about every thing they do or leave undone. (3) Place yourself at the head of a clique, and by their aid keep the church constantly in hot water. (4) Meanwhile complain of the bad treatment you are receiving. (5) Be as much like Diotrephes, and as little like Paul as you can. (6) Encourage suspicion, and study the whole art of scheming.

III. Destroy the confidence of the community. (1) Observe the foregoing directions, and (2) Tell people you are in the church by force of circumstances, and have no respect for the way in which business is conducted. (3) Publish the faults of your brethren, taking care to magnify them. (4) Make no effort to induce people to attend the church. (5) Take no part in any Christian work. Publish your want of faith in the church; and prophesy that it will fail, go down, blow up, never can succeed.

By observing these directions faithfully, you may have the satisfaction, if the church is not unusually vigorous, of witnessing the fulfillment of your predictions.

Decay of Faculties as God's Mercy

Not the least of God's mercies is the apparent decay of the faculties by age, as a provision for death; it is the ripening of the apple, that it may fall without violence.

The Liquor Traffic.

OF all the evils that curse this earth, the use of intoxicating drinks is one of the worst. And there are few persons who have more than the faintest idea of the terrible magnitude of this rapidly increasing scourge. Many of the following startling facts were embodied in an article in the N. Y. Examiner & Chronicle for April 16, 1868; and others are compiled from sources believed to be substantially correct. They are worthy of the candid attention of every thinking man and woman in the land.

“The latest statistics concerning the increasing production of alcoholic liquors in the United States, are positively frightful. In 1850, the total value of the spirituous and malt liquors manufactured in this country, was about twenty-one and a-half millions of dollars. Ten years later, in 1860, the production had increased to forty-one and a-half millions.

The increase since 1850 is terrible. About two hundred and forty millions of gallons of intoxicating liquors were produced in 1867, or more than six gallons for each man, woman, and child, in the United States. And as the consumption of alcohol for illuminating, industrial, and medicinal purposes, has largely decreased since the imposition of heavy taxes upon it, the demand for drinking purposes must exceed anything ever known before. Distilleries have increased from 1,193 in 1860, to 3,000 in 1867.

About one hundred and thirty thousand liquor dealing establishments pay government license; 9,820 being in the wholesale and 120,000 in the retail trade. If each establishment occupied a separate house, they would require every building in the city and county of Philadelphia, and twenty thousand houses besides, or enough for another city of 100,000 people; giving one liquor shop to every fifty-three families in this country. These liquor shops, if a frontage of twenty feet were allowed to each of them, would form a solid row of buildings more than four hundred and ninety-two miles long—a distance greater than the railroad route from Boston to Washington by way of New York and Philadelphia. Allowing three attendants to each liquor shop, we have an army of three hundred and ninety thousand persons, a population greater than that of either of the States of Vermont or New Hampshire, or the cities of Boston, Brooklyn, or Baltimore, engaged in this destructive traffic.

The receipts for liquors sold at retail in the United States and territories during the year ending June 30, 1867, as calculated from official returns, by Hon. D. A. Wells, Special Commissioner of the Revenue, amount to one billion, four hundred and eighty-three millions, four hundred and ninety-one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-five dollars ($1,483,491,865), or forty-three dollars for each man, woman, and child, in the country; or nearly one-eighth of the entire annual sales of merchandise of every kind, by dealers, auctioneers and brokers, during the same time; or more than all the gold produced west of the Rocky Mountains in the twenty years from 1848 to 1868; or more than ten times the value of all the church property in the country in 1860; or more than the total value of all the railroads in the United States in 1867, those in Pennsylvania excepted; or more than one-half the entire national debt of the United States!

And these statistics by no means express the pecuniary damage caused by this overrunning curse. These tell what is paid for the intoxicating draught, so far as honest returns are made; but who shall estimate the loss of time, health, property, life, peace, comfort, and salvation, which results from this infernal thing? Surely such facts as have been stated abundantly justify the words of Senator Wilson, who says “In this country, and, in this age of light, we have an army of five hundred thousand drunkards; fifty thousand of this army annually sink into a drunkard’s grave. An army of half a million drunkards in Christian America! How fearful the thought! How appalling the spectacle!” And what a comment on the zeal of Christian America, is the fact that the entire church property in the nation would not pay the price of the liquor drank here in six weeks’ time!

Carefully prepared statistics for the State of New York in 1863 and 1866, show in that State 21,242 licensed liquor shops, 6,750 churches, and 11,552 school-houses. With 18,302 school-houses and churches, many of them closed the greater portion of the time, and 21,242 liquor shops running day and night, and often Sundays; with thirty-three thousand ministers and educators, and sixty-three thousand drunkard-makers to oppose them; what wonder that the world rolls on to ruin?—what wonder that the drunken are careless of danger and fearless of doom?—what wonder if there are few saved, in a land where a million of souls die every year, and many millions more are living carelessly, and unprepared for the Great Day?

And more than this: sixty evangelical clergymen, headed by the Rev. Albert Barnes, have in a recent pamphlet, testified that the conversion of the world to Christ was far more rapid during the first three centuries than it is to-day—that the average gain of orthodox churches in the United States for twenty-five years past is only one and a-half members per year—that for eight years past, and probably for thirty years past, since 1837, the gain by conversion and profession is but one member each year (the churches of all the other evangelical orders being no more than this also); that many churches, in cities especially, lose more by death from year to year than they add by profession, and are sustained chiefly by additions by letter—that sixty-one churches in the nine principal cities of New England in one year, 1864, lost more by death than they gained upon profession—that the body of orthodox churches in Connecticut lost in five years, ending 1864, four hundred and eighty by death more than they gained by new converts to Christ—and finally, that in all churches where the ordinary means are relied on, without special effort, and revival, they “barely hold their own from year to year.” And if we survey the world in the aggregate, if we count up the missionary operations of England, Holland, Switzerland, Prussia, and America, and inquire what they are doing to evangelize the world, and what evil men, led on by Satan, are doing to be-devilize it, how stands the record? The amount heretofore annually contributed and appropriated in England to send the light of life to the benighted, is but two and a-half or three millions—a sum only equal to the expenses of the Queen and royal family; a sum not exceeding the annual gifts of idolaters at Kale’s Temple in Calcutta; the donations of one heathen temple equal to those of Christian England! And to the god Tabacum, and the king Alcohol, England pays a hundred-fold more tribute than to Christ.—From “Few Saved, or, The Awful Condition of the World.”

Bismark and the Roman Catholic Church.

The German government is rapidly following up its hostile policy toward the Catholic church. That policy, it is now quite evident, has not been adopted in consequence merely of the zeal of the ultramontane bishops in dealing with the German Catholics opposed to the infallibility dogma, but is undoubtedly the result of far-sighted and comprehensive statesmanship. The undisguised hostility which the proceedings of the Œcumenical Council excited in Germany, and the strenuous opposition with which the efforts of the ultramontane bishops met in the most intelligent districts of Germany, must have satisfied the Chancellor that a separation of the ultramontane and the liberal Catholics had become inevitable, and that, when it should occur, the interests of Germany required it to take sides with the liberals and to oppose to the best of its powers the schemes of the ultramontanes.

Prince Bismark has often been called the political Luther of the nineteenth century. The enthusiasm which his new policy in regard to the ultramontane movements of the German bishops has excited in all parts of Germany, and the haste with which the South-German governments have imitated the example he has set them in throwing down the gauntlet to the Roman Catholic church, shows very plainly that he fully comprehends the tendency of the German mind in regard to the great religious question which now agitates the country, and that he may add to the fame of having restored the unity of Germany that of establishing a German church, independent of the holy see at Rome, and repudiating the recent dogmas which the Vatican has grafted upon the Catholic creed.—Sel.

Continue reading: STAND FOR THE RIGHT