Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 15.

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH

Review and Herald

Mar 11, 1862

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 11, 1862

HISTORY OF THE SABBATH.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

SABBATH DURING THE MINISTRY OF THE APOSTLES.

Soon after writing his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul visited Troas. In the record of this visit occurs the last instance in which the first day of the week is mentioned in the New Testament:
"And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. 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. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. And there sat in a window a certain young man named Eutychus, being fallen into a deep sleep; and as Paul was long preaching, he sank down with sleep and fell down from the third loft, and was taken up dead. And Paul went down and fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not yourselves; for his life is in him. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed. And they brought the young man alive, and were not a little comforted. And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afloat." Acts xx, 6–13.
This scripture is supposed to furnish a sixth pillar for the first-day temple. The argument may be concisely stated thus: This testimony shows that the first day of the week was appropriated by the apostolic church to meetings for the breaking of bread in honor of Christ's resurrection upon that day; from which it is reasonable to conclude that this day had become the Christian Sabbath.
If this proposition could be established as an undoubted truth, the change of the Sabbath would not follow as a necessary conclusion; it would even then amount only to a plausible conjecture. The following facts will aid us in judging of the truthfulness of this argument for the change of the Sabbath: 1. That this is the only instance of a religious meeting upon the first day of the week recorded in the New Testament. 2. That no stress can be laid upon the expression, "when the disciples came together," as proving that meetings for the purpose of breaking bread were held on each first day of the week; for there is nothing in the original answering to the word "when;" the whole phrase being translated from three words, the perfect passive participle, synēgmenōn, "being assembled," and, tōn mathētōn "the disciples;" the sacred writer simply stating the gathering of the disciples on this occasion. Thus Prof. Whiting renders the phrase: "The disciples being assembled." And Sawyer has it: "We being assembled." 3. That the ordinance of breaking bread was not appointed to commemorate the resurrection of Christ, but to keep in memory his death upon the cross. 1 Cor. xi, 23–26. The act of breaking bread therefore upon the first day of the week, is not a commemoration of Christ's resurrection. 4. That as the breaking of bread commemorates our Lord's crucifixion, and was instituted on the evening with which the crucifixion day began, on which occasion Jesus himself and all the apostles were present, Matt. xxvi, it is evident that the day of the crucifixion presents greater claims to the celebration of this ordinance than does the day of the resurrection. 5. But as our Lord designated no day for the celebration of this ordinance, and as the apostolic church at Jerusalem are recorded to have celebrated it daily, Acts ii, 42–46, it is evidently presumption to argue the change of the Sabbath from a single instance of its celebration upon the first day of the week. 6. That this instance of breaking bread upon first-day, was with evident reference to the immediate and final departure of Paul. 7. For it is a remarkable fact that this, the only instance of a religious meeting on the first-day recorded in the New Testament, was a night meeting. This is proved by the fact that many lights were burning in that assembly, and that Paul preached till midnight. 8. And from this fact follows the important consequence that this first-day meeting was upon Saturday night. For the days of the week being reckoned from evening to evening, and evening being at sunset, it is seen that the first day of the week begins Saturday night at sunset, and ends at sunset on Sunday. A night meeting therefore upon the first day of the week could be only upon Saturday night. 9. Paul therefore preached until midnight of Saturday night—for the disciples held a night meeting at the close of the Sabbath, because he was to leave in the morning—then being interrupted by the fall of the young man, he went down and healed him; then went up and attended to the breaking of bread; and at break of day on Sunday morning he departed. 10. Thus are we furnished with conclusive evidence that Paul and his companions resumed their journey toward Jerusalem on the morning of the first day of the week; they taking ship to Assos, and he being pleased to go on foot. This fact is an incidental proof of Paul's regard for the Sabbath, in that he waited till it was past before resuming his journey; and it is a positive proof that he knew nothing of what in modern times is called the Christian Sabbath. 11. This narrative was written by Luke at least thirty years after the alleged change of the Sabbath. It is worthy of notice that Luke omits all titles of sacredness, simply designating the day in question, as the first day of the week. This is in admirable keeping with the fact that in his gospel, when recording the very event which is said to have changed the Sabbath, he not only omits the slightest hint of that fact, but designates the day itself by its secular title of first day of the week, and at the same time designates the previous day as the Christian Sabbath, i. e., on Saturday evening, and consequently resumed his journey on Sunday morning. (Commentary on Acts, pp. 329, 330.) But he endeavors to shield the first-day Sabbath from this fatal admission by suggesting that Luke probably reckoned time according to the Pagan method, rather than by that which is ordained in the Scriptures!
Kitto, in noting the fact that this was an evening meeting, speaks thus: "It has from this last circumstance been inferred that the assembly commenced after sunset on the Sabbath, at which hour the first day of the week had commenced, according to the Jewish reckoning [John's Bib. Antig., sec. 398], which would hardly agree with the idea of a commemoration of the resurrection."—Cyc. of Bib. Lit., article, Lord's Day.
And Prynne, whose testimony relative to redemption as an argument for the change of the Sabbath has been already quoted, thus states this point: "Because the text saith there were many lights in the upper room where they were gathered together, and that Paul preached till midnight, . . . this meeting of the disciples at Troas began at evening. The sole doubt will be what evening this was. For my own part I conceive clearly that it was upon Saturday night, as we falsely call it, and not the coming Sunday night. . . . Because St. Luke records that it was upon the first day of the week when this meeting was, therefore it must needs be on the Saturday, not on our Sunday evening, since Sunday evening in St. Luke's and the Scripture account was no part of the first, but of the second day; the day ever beginning and ending at evening."
Prynne notices the objection drawn from the phrase, "ready to depart on the morrow," as indicating that his departure was not on the same day of the week with his night meeting. The substance of his answer is this: If the fact be kept in mind that the days of the week are reckoned from evening to evening, the following texts, in which in the night, the morning is spoken of as the morrow, will show at once that another day of the week is not necessarily intended by the phrase in question. 1 Sam. xix, 11; Esth. ii, 14; Zeph. iii, 3; Acts xxiii, 31, 32. Diss. on the Lord's Day Sab., pp. 36–41, 1632.
cording to the commandment. Luke xxiii, 56; xxiv, 1.
The same year that Paul visited Troas, he wrote as follows to the church at Rome:
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things; another who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgeth another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." Rom. xiv, 1–6.
These words have often been quoted to show that the observance of the fourth commandment is now a matter of indifference; each individual being at liberty to set his pleasure in the matter. So extraordinary a doctrine should be thoroughly tested before being adopted. For as it pleased God to ordain the Sabbath before the fall of man, and to give it a place in his code of ten commandments, thus making it a part of that law to which the great atonement relates; and as the Lord Jesus during his ministry spent much time in explaining its merciful design, and took care to provide against its desecration at the flight of his people from the land of Judea, which was ten years in the future when these words were written by Paul; and as the fourth commandment itself is expressly recognized after the crucifixion of Christ; if under these circumstances we could suppose it to be consistent with truth that the Most High should abrogate the Sabbath, we certainly should expect that abrogation to be stated in explicit language. Yet neither the Sabbath nor the fourth commandment are here named. That they are not referred to in this language of Paul, the following reasons will show:
1. Such a view would make the observance of one of the ten commandments a matter of indifference; whereas James shows that to violate one of them is to transgress the whole. James ii, 8–12. 2. It directly contradicts what Paul had previously written in this epistle; for in treating of the law of ten commandments, he styles it holy, spiritual, just and good; and states that sin—the transgression of the law—by the commandment becomes "EXCEEDING SINFUL." Rom. vii, 12, 13; 1 John iii, 4, 5. 3. Because that Paul in the same epistle affirms the perpetuity of that law which caused our Lord to lay down his life for sinful men; Rom. iii; which we have seen before was the ten commandments. 4. Because that Paul in this case not only did not name the Sabbath and the fourth commandment, but certainly was not treating of the moral law. 5. Because that the topic under consideration which leads him to speak as he does of the days in question was that of eating all kinds of food, or of refraining from certain things. 6. Because that the fourth commandment did not stand associated with precepts of such a kind, but with moral laws exclusively. Ex. xx. 7. Because that in the ceremonial law associated with the precepts concerning meats, was a large number of festivals, entirely distinct from the Sabbath of the Lord. 8. Because that the church of Rome, which began probably with those Jews that were present from Rome on the day of pentecost, had many Jewish members in its communion, as may be gathered from the epistle itself; Acts ii, 1–11; Rom. ii, 17; iv, 1; vii, 1; and would therefore be deeply interested in the decision of this question relative to the ceremonial law; the Jewish members feeling conscientious in observing the distinctions, the Gentile members feeling no such scruples. Hence the admirable counsel of Paul exactly meeting the case of both classes. 9. Nor can the expression, "every day," be claimed as decisive proof that the Sabbath of the Lord is included. At the very time when the Sabbath was formally committed to the Hebrews, just such expressions were used, although only the six working days were intended. Thus it was said: "The people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day;" and the narrative says "they gathered it every morning." Yet when some of them went out to gather on the Sabbath, God says, "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" The Sabbath being a great truth, plainly stated and many times repeated, it is manifest that Paul in the expression, "every day," speaks of the six working days among which a distinction had existed precisely co-eval with that respecting meats; and that he manifestly excepts that day which from the beginning God had reserved unto himself. Just as when Paul quotes and applies to Jesus the words of David, "All things are put under him," he adds: "It is manifest that he is excepted which did put all things under him." 1 Cor. xv, 27; Ps. viii. 10. And lastly, in the words of John, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day," Rev. i, 10; written many years after this epistle of Paul, we have an absolute proof that in the gospel dispensation one day is still claimed by the Most High as his own.
About ten years after this epistle was written, occurred the memorable flight of the people of God that were in the land of Judea. It was not in the winter; for it occurred just after the feast of tabernacles, sometime in October. And it was not upon the Sabbath; for Josephus, who speaks of the sudden withdrawal of the Roman army after it had, by encompassing the city, given the very signal for flight which our Lord promised his people, tells us that the Jews rushed out of the city in pursuit of the retreating Romans, which was at the very time when our Lord's injunction of instant flight became imperative upon the disciples. The historian does not intimate that the Jews thus pursued the Romans upon the Sabbath, although he carefully notes the fact that a few days previous to this event they did, in their rage, utterly forget the Sabbath, and rush out to fight the Romans upon that day. These providential circumstances in the flight of the disciples being made dependent upon their asking such interposition at the hand of God, it is evident that the disciples did not forget the prayer which the Saviour taught them relative to this event; and that as a consequence the Sabbath of the Lord was not forgotten by them. And it was the Lord Jesus in his tender care for his people, and in his watchful care for the Sabbath, showed that he was alike the Lord of his people and the Lord of the Sabbath.
Twenty-six years after the destruction of Jerusalem the book of Revelation was committed to the beloved disciple. It bears the following deeply interesting date as to place and time:
"I John, who also am your brother and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called PATMOS, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on THE LORD'S DAY, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; and, What thou seest, write in a book." Rev. i, 9–11.
This book is dated in the isle of Patmos, and upon the Lord's day. The place, the day and the individual have each a real existence, and not merely a symbolical or mystical one. Thus John almost at the close of the first century, and long after those texts were written which are now adduced to prove that no distinction in days exists, shows that the Lord's day has as real an existence, as has the isle of Patmos, or as had the beloved disciple himself.
What day then is intended by this designation? Several answers have been returned to this question. 1. It is the gospel dispensation. 2. It is the day of judgment. 3. It is the first day of the week. 4. It is the Sabbath of the Lord. The first answer cannot be the true one; for it not only renders the day a mystical term, but it involves the absurdity of representing John as writing to Christians sixty-five years after the death of Christ that the vision which he had just had, was seen by him in the gospel dispensation: as though it were possible for them to be ignorant of the fact that if he had a vision at all he must have had it in the existing dispensation.
Nor can the second answer be admitted as the truth. For while it is true that John might have a vision concerning the day of judgment, it is impossible that he should have a vision on that day when it was yet future. If it be no more than an absurdity to represent John as dating his vision in the isle of Patmos, on the gospel dispensation, it becomes a positive untruth, if he is made to say that he was in vision at Patmos on the day of judgment.
The third answer, that the Lord's day is the first day of the week, is now almost universally received as the truth. The text under examination is brought forward with an air of triumph as completing the temple of first-day sacredness, and proving beyond all doubt that that day is indeed the Christian Sabbath. Yet as we have examined this temple with peculiar carefulness, we have discovered that the foundation on which it rests is a thing of the imagination only; and that the pillars by which it is supported exist only in the minds of those who worship at its shrine. It remains to be seen whether the dome which is supposed to be furnished by this text is more real than the pillars on which it rests.
That the first day of the week has no claim to the title of Lord's day, the following facts will show: 1. That as this text does not define the term Lord's day, we must look elsewhere in the Bible for the evidence that shows the first day to be entitled to such a designation. 2. That Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul, the other sacred writers who mention the day, use no other designation for it than first day of the week, a name to which it was entitled as one of the six working days. Yet three of these writers mention it at the very time when it is said to have become the Lord's day; and two of them mention it also some thirty years after that event. 3. That while it is claimed that the Spirit of inspiration, by simply leaving John to use the term Lord's day, though he did in no wise connect the first day of the week therewith, did design to fix this as the proper title of the first day of the week, it is a remarkable fact that after John returned from the isle of Patmos he wrote his gospel; and in that gospel he twice mentioned the first day of the week; yet in each of these instances where it is certain that first-day is intended, no other designation is used than plain first day of the week. This is a most convincing proof that John did not regard the first day of the week as entitled to this name, or any other, expressive of sacredness. 4. What still further decides the point against the first day of the week, is the fact that neither the Father nor the Son have ever claimed the first day in any higher sense than they have each of the six days given to man for labor. 5. And what completes the chain of evidence against the claim of first-day to this title, is the fact that the testimony adduced by first-day advocates to prove that it has been adopted by the Most High in place of that day which he once claimed as his, having been examined, is found to have no such meaning or intent. In setting aside the third answer also, as not being in accordance with truth, the first day of the week may be properly dismissed with it, as having no claim to our regard as a scriptural institution.
That the Lord's day is the Bible Sabbath admits of clear and certain proof. The argument stands thus: When God gave to man six days of the week for labor, he did expressly reserve unto himself the seventh, on which he placed his blessing in memory of his own act of resting upon that day, and thenceward through the Bible has ever claimed it as his holy day. As he has never put away this sacred day and chosen another, the Sabbath of the Lord is still his holy day. These facts may be traced in the following Scriptures. At the close of the Creator's rest it is said:
"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." Gen. ii, 3.
After the children of Israel had reached the wilderness of Sin, Moses said to them on the sixth day:
“To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.” Ex. xvi, 23.
In giving the ten commandments the Law-giver thus stated his claim to this day:
“The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . . . 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.” Ex. xx, 8–11.
He gives to man the six days on which himself had labored; he reserves as his own that day upon which he had rested from all his work. About eight hundred years after this, God spoke by Isaiah as follows:
“If thou turn away thy foot from THE SABBATH from doing thy pleasure on MY HOLY DAY, . . . then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth.” Isa. lviii, 13, 14.
This testimony is perfectly explicit; the Lord's day is the ancient Sabbath of the Bible. The Lord Jesus puts forth the following claim:
“The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” Mark ii, 27, 28.
Thus whether it be the Father or the Son whose title is involved, the only day that can be called “the Lord's day” is the Sabbath of the great Creator. And here at the close of the Bible history of the Sabbath, two facts of deep interest are presented: 1. That John expressly recognizes the existence of the Lord's day at the very close of the first century. 2. That it pleased the Lord of the Sabbath to place a signal honor upon his own day in that he selected it as the one on which to give that revelation to John, which himself alone had been worthy to receive from the Father.
J. N. A.
(To be Continued.)

A PRAYER.

By S. Elmer

GIVER of every perfect gift, Maker of all things here, Our hearts in grateful prayer we lift, Assured that thou art near.
Thy tender care has led us on, Thy word has been our stay; Still let the light that shines therefrom Illuminate our way,
To scatter error from the mind, And let the truth impart A holy, sanctifying power, On every willing heart.
Although we are unworthy, Lord, To press our suit to thee, Yet think upon the Saviour's prayer, Made in Gethsemane.
When darkness gathers round our way, And foes our steps assail, Then let that prayer once offered up In our behalf, prevail.
Unite us to the living vine, And make us one in thee; So shall the wondering world discern Who thy disciples be. S. ELMER. Ashfield, Mass.

THE DEAD SEA.

ENTRANCE OF THE JORDAN INTO THE DEAD SEA.

Lieut. Lynch, who explored the Jordan with care, from its source to the Dead Sea, has said: “Everything said in the Bible about the Sea and the Jordan, we believe to be fully verified by our observations.” Now, we have glanced at the truth regarding the stream, and all that remains is to exemplify it concerning the Sea.
In the river between the Lake of Galilee and the Dead Sea, the voyager on the Jordan plunges down no fewer than twenty-seven threatening rapids, besides a great many smaller ones. As the former sea is above three hundred feet below the level of the Mediterranean, and the latter more than thirteen hundred, the difference between the two is the measure of the descent; but as the distance, though in reality only sixty miles, is about two hundred by water, in consequence of the windings of the river, there are some portions of the Jordan sufficiently sluggish. Approaching the Sea, the river is from a hundred and twenty to a hundred and fifty feet wide, and twelve feet deep. Cane-brakes, tamarisk-trees, and various others, line the shore. The river gradually widens to two hundred and forty feet and upwards. Several islands are near its embauchure; and where the stream actually joins the sea it is a hundred and eighty yards, or five hundred and forty feet wide, and three feet deep.
We are now, then, on the nauseous waters of the Sea of Lot, for so the Arabs call this sheet of water. Portions of it at least were once “even as the garden of the Lord;” but now the scene is one of unmixed desolation. The air is tainted with noxious exhalations; and even the foliage of the cane, (generally a light green,) is tawny near this sea. Except the cane-brakes, which appear near some of the streams, there are spots where no vestige of vegetation can be traced. Barren mountains, precipices which overhang the sea sometimes to the hight of twelve hundred or fifteen hundred feet; fragments of rocks precipitated to the beach, and blackened by the deposits of the place; trees washed down by the Jordan, but now lying blasted and dead along the margin of this region of death; the sullen, lead-colored waters, in which no microscope can detect a trace of life; the bare, bluff mountains on the east side; the hills of Moab, and other scenes far more than classical; above all, the associations of the sea with Sodom and Gomorrah; all render this basin so sad and so sombre in appearance, as to depress even the most jubilant mind. At the sight of “such calcined barrenness,” we can well justify the application so often made of the lines— > But here, above, around, below, > In mountain or in glen, > Nor tree, nor plant nor shrub, nor flower, > Nor aught of vegetative power > The wearied eye may ken: > But all is rocks at random thrown— > Black waves, bare crags, and banks of stone.
What a contrast between the present aspect of the Sea of Lot, and the appearance of the neighborhood when he chose it as his pasture-ground and heritage, though it proved one of woe!
And yet there are spots of unusual beauty at no great distance—fragments spared, as if to show how exquisite once was the whole. The nabk, or thorn-tree called by the Arabs dhom, the osher or apple of Sodom, the tamarisk, the oleander, as well as some other trees, are found at some spots; and the osher seems to deserve description, as we are now amid the scenes which are deemed its home. The blossom is of a delicate purple, small, bell-shaped, and grows in large clusters. The leaf is oblong, thick, smooth, and of a dark green hue. The branches are tortuous, and the fruit which is about the size of a small lemon, with the color of an apple, is dry, and easily broken, like a puff-ball. Hence its peculiar character, as if all ashes within.
We do not tarry to describe the masses of bitumen sometimes thrown up from the bottom, remains of the slime pits of old; or the absence of an outlet for the waters of the Jordan; nor do we dwell on the two plains now ascertained to form the bottom of the sea, the one thirteen hundred feet deep, where the bed of the river once lay, the other about thirteen, where as some argue, the cities of the plain formerly stood; neither do we describe the salt pillar of Sodom—that is, Sodom; we only say, that of all dreary scenes, this is one of the most awful and depressing. Taken in connection with its history, and viewed in the light of the Bible, it is more desolate than the great Zahara—the land as well as the sea seems dead. Fetid exhalations, leafless wastes, the earth seared, the waters salt, the sky brass; behold a picture of this sublime desolation—this most solemn of witnesses for God.
The conclusion of the whole matter is this: If a man’s mind be open to conviction, the aspect of this Sea must fasten conviction on his mind. One who explored all its coasts, and fathomed its depths, and cleared up some of its mysteries, has said: “We entered upon this sea with conflicting opinions. One of the party was skeptical, and another, I think, a professed unbeliever in the Mosaic account. After twenty-two days’ close investigation, if I am not mistaken, we are unanimous in the conviction of the truth of the Scriptural account of the cities of the plain.” The facts observed tally so completely with the truths recorded, the whole condition of the wondrous region is so unique, the very structure or form of the rocks is at some places so peculiar, that the mind is forced to accept of some great catastrophe, perhaps more than one, to explain what it beholds.

GIVING THE HEART TO CHRIST.

By Cuyler

“I don’t want to read this article.” Well, my friend, then turn to the spicy editorials, to the summary of war news and the proceedings of the somewhat bewildered legislators at Washington. Read over the list of the married and of the dead. In this latter list, one of these days, somebody will read your own name. When you have gone over the other more attractive columns, then sit down with me, and answer the plain affectionate question—Have you given Christ your heart?
1. This phrase you understand perfectly well in its every-day applications. You know well what is meant when the trustful maiden in the auroral morn of her love gives her heart to him who pledges his strong arm to support and guide her through the life-journey. From that moment, his interests are hers. She gives up many a pleasure for him, or finds a higher pleasure in putting herself out of the way in order to make him happy. In his fame she glories; in his success she rejoices. And if the tempest of adversity darken wildly on his path, she hangs like an ever-beaming star, far beyond the reach of howling storm or engulfing wave. Sever every tie—strip away every other possession—bereave her of other friends, she is still rich, and her joy dieth not as long as she can live for him and love him to whom she hath given her faithful heart.
Now just what this ingenuous girl does for her lover, what the miser does for his rusting gold, the hungry student for his books, and the thirsty sensualist for his cup,—what the enthusiast of science does for his telescope, his blow-pipe, or his herbarium, you are to do for your Lord and Savior. You are to give him the foremost place in your heart. When we speak of the “heart” spiritually, we refer to the very seat and source of all the purposes, all the determinations, all the affections, the likings and the dislikings, in the man. Thence flow the issues of life. Thence come the longings for holiness or the ungodly hate of everything lovely and of good report. Thence come the noble resolves—the lofty aspirations; thence the evil thoughts, the pride, the malice, the unbelief. The heart right, all is right. But while the heart remains away from Christ, it is impossible to please God—impossible to make any headway toward a religious life or toward heaven. Then, as the first step, give Jesus Christ your heart.
2. “How am I to do it?” “My heart is stubborn.” So it is; more than you think for. But Christ can subdue its strong-necked waywardness. “I cannot change my heart. It is beyond my power.” We admit that; Jesus Christ does not ask you to convert yourself. He simply asks you to give him your heart. He can change it. And he will too most assuredly just as soon as you, in entire sincerity and penitence, commit your soul unreservedly into his hands. This you are to do solemnly, with a fervent appeal to the Holy Spirit for his aid. You had better do it alone in the solitude of your closet. Do it on your knees. Commit yourself to Jesus with such language as—
Just as I am—and waiting not To rid my soul of one dark blot, To thee whose blood can cleanse each spot, O Lamb of God, I come.
We beg you not to wait until you have tried to better your heart. Bring it as it is. And bring it all. Christ demands the whole heart. “Ye shall seek me and ye shall find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.” You cannot hope to remain an out-and-out man of the world, or a thorough-going woman of fashion, and yet be a Christian. The Divine Master will hold no divided rule, or be thrust off with a fragment of your heart. Perhaps the very reason why your former anxieties and serious impressions did not end in your becoming a Christian, was that you kept back your soul’s inmost affections from the Saviour. Or having in name given yourself to him, you went on and lived like a follower of the world just as before. Lest you should be overtaken by death without having secured your salvation, we entreat you to seize the first spare hour for quiet thought, and make it the hour of your surrender to Jesus Christ.—Cuyler.

SUBSTITUTES FOR COFFEE.

Numerous experiments are now being made to find some article that shall serve as a substitute for coffee. Carrots, cut in slices and dried, rye, wheat and barley, are named; but, we believe, the best and healthiest is pure cold water—nature’s own beverage. The use of coffee has become so common that it will be difficult for some time, to learn to do without it; but we believe that mankind would be better off and healthier if the use of coffee were banished entirely. That it is injurious to health, as a general thing, we entertain no doubt; that it is a heavy expense to a family, without conferring any real benefit, but rather a positive injury, we are equally convinced. If the present crisis shall result in doing away almost entirely its use, a positive blessing will be conferred on mankind. Then why seek for a substitute to gratify a useless, expensive habit, if not an injurious one? We do not believe that nature designed that any man or woman should drink at meal time, from a half pint to a quartof hot water, impregnated with tea or coffee.—The human stomach would be better off with the cooling, refreshing beverage provided by nature—pure cold water.—Battle Creek Journal.
Continue reading: A NATIONAL SABBATH