Review and Herald, Vol. 45, No. 14. (4/1/1875)

Review and Herald

Apr 1, 1875

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 1, 1875

A CHANGE OR ABOLITION OF GOD’S LAW IS UNREASONABLE

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—NO. 7.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

The subject of the two covenants, which we have considered, brings us to a consideration of the change of dispensation. This, in the estimation of many, effects a change in, or abolition of, the divine law. We will first notice that

A CHANGE OR ABOLITION OF GOD’S LAW IS UNREASONABLE.

We have already shown that the holiness required in the present dispensation is identical with that required in the past dispensation, having the holiness of God himself for its model or foundation. He said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Holiness in the precept, “Be ye holy,” cannot change unless holiness in the declaration, “For I am holy,” shall change. But the holiness of God cannot change while his attributes remain unchanged; or we might say, while he remains God.

We have also seen that his law of ten commandments was the rule by obeying which they would be holy. In doing that law they would form right or holy characters, because that law is a holy law. It being the expression of the will of God, it is to us a revelation of the divine character or attributes. For there must be perfect harmony between the divine attributes and the divine will. God cannot deny himself, neither can he change. Our relation to God teaches the same thing.

Man is a moral agent; he is on probation to develop a moral character, and he will be judged at last on a basis purely moral, because God, the Judge, is a moral governor. But moral law, emanating from the divine mind, cannot change, or pass away.

There can be no difference between the attributes of God and the principles of his government. As God is just, justice must be an attribute of his government. As God is love, so also must love pervade his government. As God is immutable, so also the principles of his government must be unchangeable. We cannot conceive of his possessing an attribute which does not shine forth in his government.

But as law is the basis of government, for there is no government where there is no law, so of course whatever applies to his government applies to his law. Therefore, to understand the attributes of God, we have but to understand his will or law, for the latter necessarily grows out of the former. And so our declaration is vindicated, that the law is a revelation of the attributes or character of God.

Now as God, the moral governor, cannot change, and as man is a moral agent, and is required to be holy because God is holy, and the law or will of God is given as the rule of holiness, or the means of forming his moral character, how can that rule change? We are constrained to believe that they who argue for the abolition or change of the law of God—the divine rule of right and morality—do so because they have been misled by superficial views of great principles, not having carefully examined the subject of the divine government, and our relation to it. Of course we now speak of those who have been misled, and who think they are “doing God service,” even while advocating dangerous errors. There is another class, and we fear it is not small, whose opposition to the law of God is best explained by Paul where he says, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.

This latter class dislike the law because it condemns, and will not justify them. There is a conflict between them and the law; and the question arises, Which party is right? If they are right and the law is wrong, then the law ought to be put aside, they ought to be vindicated or justified. But if the law is right and they are wrong, then the law ought to be maintained, and they should be condemned. But observation, reason, and Scripture prove that they are wrong—they are sinners, and deserve condemnation for their sins. Therefore, if the law condemns them, it does just what it ought to do. The very fact that they complain of the law because it condemns sin and sinners proves that they are worthy of the condemnation under which they rest.

We say that reason as well as Scripture sustains us in this position. These persons confess that there is a conflict between them and the law. They are opposed to it, and it condemns them. And this is the ground of their complaint, that it will not justify them. Now looking at the world of mankind, beholding the evil everywhere prevailing, and the evidences that man is a fallen, degenerate creature, can we reasonably conclude that a law would emanate from a holy God which, morally considered, is lower than mankind? We cannot. Had man never fallen, had he always maintained his purity of character, the law of God would still have been superior to him, as no person can rise above the law to which he is amenable. Especially could not the creature rise above the law of the Creator. This being true, much more is it true that fallen, sinful creatures cannot rise above the law of a holy God, the law itself being holy. When a conflict arises, the sinful creature must stand condemned, and the law of God must be vindicated.

This argument, reduced to the following form, will show at a glance that our position is the only one which reason can approve:—

1. It is a reflection on the honor and justice of any government to abolish its law while there exists an open rebellion against it. For,

2. If the law was unjust it ought to be abolished. But this fact would palliate the action of the rebels, justify the rebellion, and prove that the governor or lawgiver was unjust. Or,

3. If the law was just it ought not to be abolished, but rather enforced, and the rebels either be made to submit to it or be punished. For a governor to abolish a just law in order to favor criminals, is to favor crime and to trample down right and justice.

And thus, whichever way it is viewed, they who argue the abolition of the law justify rebellion and reproach the government of God.

And that position is not only unreasonable and reproachful to God’s government viewed in its effect upon the law, but it reflects dishonor upon the gospel, by perverting it to a system of license, instead of vindicating justice by a well-guarded pardon. In this respect they who preach the abolition of the law, or denounce it because it will not justify the sinner, treat it as no man would presume to treat the law of the State in which he resides. Every one will confess that the law of the land is right in condemning the thief and the murderer; they do not find fault with it because it will not justify such criminals. No one will claim that the criminal can escape the penalty of the law but by means of the pardon of the governor. No one will argue that the pardon granted by the governor releases the pardoned one from obligation to obey the law he had transgressed. No one will affirm that the pardon then becomes the rule of life, or the means of condemnation for future transgressions. It is a truth beyond dispute that abolition of law and pardon of the transgressor of that law cannot be united or go together. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. For, a law cannot condemn a man after it is abolished, and of course an offer of pardon under such circumstances would be only mockery. Truly, such a theory is more than a perversion of the gospel; it subverts the gospel by destroying its foundations.

ABOLITION OF THE LAW IS DISPROVED BY SCRIPTURE.

We shall present but a few points at present under this head, but all that has been said on the nature of the law and on the two covenants, and all that shall be said under various heads is a confirmation of this proposition.

1. The proof that the law existed before the exode proves that it is not affected by a change of dispensation. As it did not originate with the introduction of the Levitical economy, so it did not cease when that dispensation passed away.

2. It has been shown that the law is the basis or condition of both covenants; that it was kept by Abraham, the father of the faithful; that it stands against the sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, to bar him from the blessing of Abraham; and that it was confirmed a law, an everlasting covenant to Israel. Therefore its abolition is impossible.

3. Jehovah said they would be holy if they kept it, which shows it to be a rule of holiness, and as such cannot pass away till the requirement to be holy can cease.

4. “The law of the Lord is perfect.” Ps. 19:7. Perfection, in moral matters, cannot be improved. Were the law less than perfect it could not be a rule of holiness. Being perfect it cannot be changed without making it imperfect, nor can it be abolished without abolishing perfection and the rule of holiness.

5. This is strongly confirmed by Eccl. 12:13, 14: “Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” When this was written man’s nature and relations were exactly what they now are. The requirement to be holy was then just what it now is. It was and is, to be holy because God is holy. Man was on probation as a moral agent, to develop a holy character, to fit himself to stand in the Judgment before a holy God. What a monstrous absurdity to suppose, in the face of Scripture and reason, that a law which defines the whole duty of a moral agent should, for any cause, be abolished. That God to accommodate his government to the circumstances of rebels, should abolish the righteous laws which define the whole duty of his subjects, would be truly a wonder. It might be very pleasing to them, but could not be to his glory. It would affect, not only the stability of his government, but the integrity of his character.

6. “My salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.” Isa. 51:6. This refers to the law of God, and is a direct statement that it shall not be abolished. It must either refer to his law, or to his personal character. That it refers to his attributes or personal character is unreasonable, yes, impossible; for the idea of the abolition of his personal righteousness is too absurd to receive notice. But referred to his law, which is the foundation of his righteous government, the expression is reasonable and, as a revelation, is necessary. And there is proof that it has this application. In Ps. 119:172, it is said, “All thy commandments are righteousness.”

Now as the character of the divine Law-giver is best revealed to us through the revelation of his will, and as his attributes must of necessity be shown forth in his government, the stability of his character must of course be shown by the stability of his government, or law. For it would be of little account to declare in words that he was unchangeable if he showed in his actions, in the administration of his government, that he was not.

This application of the text is confirmed, not only by Ps. 119:172—all thy commandments are righteousness—but, by the context of the verse under consideration. “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law.” Isa. 51:7. And again, Rom. 3:21, which says that the law witnesses to the righteousness of God. This is sufficient proof of all that we have said concerning the relation of God’s law to his attributes or character. Did the opposers of the law realize the full force and importance of this testimony we think they would pause in their mad career, and tremble at the bare thought of the result of their action.

7. “He will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. Magnify, says Webster, “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do they who oppose the law believe the Saviour did such a work as this? If they believe this Scripture we should never learn that fact from their writings. Could it be extolled, exalted, or elevated by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of those his professed followers who spare no pains to disparage it? Can they discover any harmony with this prophecy in their own actions? In their treatment of the law?

But again, “he will make it honorable.” This does not mean that it was not honorable before; for we know that God always highly honored his law. The reason why the ark was so greatly honored and carefully guarded was that it contained the law of Jehovah. God ever honored those who honored his law, and turned away from those who rejected it. The text means that he will make it still more honorable; especially as it had been dishonored and rejected. He will rescue it from the reproach which men have cast on it, and elevate it, raise it in estimation higher than it had before been held. So Paul says in Rom. 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Thus we have both the work of Christ and the position of his true followers pointed out in these texts. The law had been dishonored by transgression and rebellion.

He came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity. He enforced it on men by openly declaring that he did not come to destroy it, and that they who keep it and teach men so will be greatly esteemed in the kingdom

of Heaven; by teaching it as the rule of life; by showing that it hangs on the principle of love; and by writing it in the hearts of his people in the new covenant. His people join in his work by doing and teaching it; by loving it, by consenting that it is holy, just, good, and spiritual; by showing in all their life that it is written in their hearts.

On the other hand, how do the opposers say the Lord Jesus magnified the law, and made it honorable? By breaking it himself; by teaching others to do so; by abolishing it; by inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage! If they are not shocked by the irreverence of their position, they ought at least to be struck with its absurdity.

8. “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. We learn by Heb. 10 that these are the words of the Son of God to his Father. And this shows that it was love of the law which led him to magnify it and make it honorable. As the Saviour loved the law—as it was in his heart—how can he also love those who despise and contemn it? As it was his work to glorify his Father by magnifying his law and making it honorable, by rescuing it from the reproach of men, how can he take delight in those who reproach it, and strive to bring it into contempt? We think he cannot. We think when “God shall bring every work into Judgment, and every secret thing,” that they who, in probation, “fear God, and keep his commandments,” will find acceptance with him; they will have right to the tree of life, and will enter in through the gates into the city. But the workers of iniquity, however strong may be their profession of faith in Christ, will be caused to depart from him. Matt. 7:21–23.

Thus far we have considered the declarations of the Old Testament. Before giving direct testimony from the New, we will show the harmony between the two; that the New endorses and upholds the Old, but does not supersede or invalidate it.

THE RESURRECTION.

By Sel.

Lo, a pale and countless throng, O'er whom ages sweep along, Silent lie in death's embrace, Pulseless heart, and meekened face; Blent with dust of rolling years, Know they neither hopes nor fears; Thunders' growl or oceans' roar, Ne'er disturb their slumbers more.

One by one earth's myriads glide On, to wither by their side, Till man's feet where e'er they tread Press the dust of loved ones dead; On them mailed warriors tramp, 'Round them earthquakes rock and stamp; Sleeping in their damp beds still Heed they not times good or ill.

But a voice shall soon be heard, Death's dark Potter's fields be stirred, And a golden trump shall ring! “Cower and tremble, terror's king!” Light and life shall flash and leap Into all thy caverns deep; Then thy pointless darts shall fail, Then the sullen tomb shall quail.

Christ shall come in car of state, Cherub legions round him wait, Flaming thunders round him roll, Earth shall quake from pole to pole; Trampling death beneath his feet, Calling loud in accents sweet, “Wake, ye dead! arise! come home!” Hark! they cry, We come! we come!

Then from grass-grown graveyards old, Coral caves, and mountains bold, Desert sands, and flowery plain, Dust shall leap and live again; Then from earth, and sea, and air, Forms shall spring resplendent fair, Then from flame, and stone, and sod, Saints shall rise to meet their God.

Far beyond death's vail shall stand All that risen, ransomed band, Martyr, Christian, priest, and seer, All who loved Messiah here; Gathered home from every clime, Every age throughout all time, Meet on Eden's blissful shore, Meet in glory evermore.

—Sel.

MORALITY OF THE SABBATH AND ITS IMPORTANCE.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

(Continued.)

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

Obj. I. All moral principles are discoverable by the light of nature; but the keeping of the seventh day holy is not discoverable by the light of nature or reason without a direct revelation from God; therefore it is not moral.

We will further consider this objection in the light of undisputed facts, still comparing the Sabbath with other precepts which are confessed by all to be moral.

Take the commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, and lying. We would suppose that the light of nature alone, without a revelation from God, would teach men that these things were wrong. But the history of the world proves that this is not the case. All these crimes have been tolerated, taught, practiced, and legalized in many of the wisest heathen nations. I have before me “Horne’s Introduction,” and “Leland’s Revelation,” in both which these learned men conclusively show the necessity of a divine revelation concerning the plainest moral principles.

They show that suicide, abortion, killing of weak or deformed infants, offering human beings in sacrifice to the gods, fornication, prostitution, and adultery, stealing, lying, &c., have all been generally practiced by the most enlightened heathen nations, and by their wisest philosophers and lawgivers; defended as right, and according to nature and reason. The first of these eminent authors says:—

“Prostitution, in all its deformity, was systematically annexed to various pagan temples, was often a principal source of their revenues, and was, in some countries, even compulsory upon the female population. Other impurities were solemnly practiced by them in their temples, and in public, from the very thought of which our minds revolt. Besides the numbers of men who were killed in the bloody sports and spectacles instituted in honor of their deities, human sacrifices were offered to propitiate them. Boys were whipped on the altar of Diana, sometimes till they died. How many lovely infants did the Carthaginians sacrifice to their implacable god, Moloch! What numbers of human victims, in times of public danger, did they immolate to appease the resentment of the offended deities!”—Horne’s Introduction, vol. i. pp. 16, 17.

“Thus theft, as is well known, was permitted in Egypt and Sparta. Plato taught the expediency and lawfulness of exposing children in particular cases; and Aristotle, also of abortion. The exposure of infants, and the putting to death of children who were weak or imperfect in form, was allowed at Sparta by Lycurgus. At Athens, the great seat and nursery of philosophers, the women were treated and disposed of as slaves, and it was enacted that infants which appeared to be maimed, should either be killed or exposed.”—Id. p. 19.

“Truth was but of small account among many, even of the best heathens; for they taught that on many occasions, a lie was to be preferred to the truth itself.”

Dr. Whitby has collected many maxims of the most eminent heathen sages, in corroboration of the fact above stated. The following examples are taken from his note on Eph. 4:25:—

“A lie is better than a hurtful truth.”—Meander.

“Good is better than truth.”—Proclus.

“When telling a lie will be profitable, let it be told.”—Darius in Herodotus, lib. iii. c. 62.

“He may lie who knows how to do it in a suitable time.”—Plato apud Stobæum, Serm. 12.

“There is nothing decorous in truth, but when it is profitable. Yea, sometimes truth is hurtful, and lying is profitable to men.”—Maximus Tyrius, Diss. 3. p. 29.” Id. p. 20.

To the same purpose Mr. Leland remarks:—

“The custom of exposing weak and helpless children, which, one should think, is contrary to the most intimate feelings of humanity, obtained very generally among the most civilized nations; and yet they do not appear to have been sensible that in this they acted a wrong and inhuman part, but looked upon it to be a prudent and justifiable practice.”—Leland’s Revelation, vol. ii. p. 7.

Of the laws of Lycurgus, the wisest and best of all heathen lawgivers, the same author says:—

“There were common baths in which the men and women bathed together. And it was ordered, that the young maidens should appear naked in public exercises, as well as the young men, and that they should dance naked with them at the solemn festivals.”—Id. p. 46.

Plato the prince of heathen philosophers, endorsed and recommended this custom. Upon this the above writer remarks:—

“A remarkable proof this, that the greatest men among the pagans, when left to their own judgments in matters of morality, were apt to form wrong notions concerning it, even in instances where one should think the dictates of nature and reason might have given them better directions.”—Note, p. 47.

John Locke, the great Christian philosopher, says:—

“Whatever was the cause, it is evident in fact, that human reason, unassisted failed in its great and proper business of morality.”—Reasonableness of Christianity; in his Works, vol. ii. p. 532.

Says Mr. Leland again:—

“Man appears from the frame of his nature to be a moral agent, and designed to be governed by a law. Accordingly, God hath given him a law to be the rule of his duty. The scheme of those who pretend that this law is naturally and necessarily known to all men without instruction is contrary to fact and experience. When men fell from the right knowledge of God, they fell also in important instances from the right knowledge of moral duty.”

“It appears, therefore, that what is called the moral sense was not designed to be an adequate guide to morals; nor is it alone considered, and left merely to itself, fit to have the supreme direction as to the moral conduct.”—Vol. ii. pp. 8, 15.

The Christian Union, of Dec. 16, 1874, says:—

“Prof. Julius H. Seelye, of Amherst College, has been lecturing the past week before the Yale Divinity School on Missions. The course comprises six lectures, three of which remain to be given this week. The first lecture was upon the condition and needs of the unchristian world. He presented a vivid picture of the degradation of these nations, based not merely on his own observation, which has been extensive, but supporting his statements by reference to authorities accessible to all. China, as one of the most promising of pagan nations, and one whose civilization has been so widely lauded, was shown to be most shockingly corrupt in its social and private life. Lying, insincerity, licentiousness, and almost every vice mentioned in Scripture, is practiced without restraint. Their virtue is entirely external. India is in a similar condition. Before the establishment of the English in that country, not less than 10,000 infants were put to death by their parents per month in the single province of Bengal. This condition is true not only of modern half-civilized pagans, but it is found where civilization has shown some of its most renowned trophies. In Greece and Rome society was all pollution. The most classic writings reveal it. Even their philosophers taught the most unmentionable vices. The first chapter of Romans is not an untrue portraiture of pagan corruption.”

The foregoing arguments and facts do conclusively show that it is no evidence that a precept is not moral simply because the light of nature alone does not clearly point it out; it further shows that when we do appeal to the common consent of mankind, we find just as general a recognition of the principle of the Sabbath precept as we do of any of the other moral precepts. Hence this objection is not a valid one.

Obj. II. All moral duties and precepts are equally obligatory at all times; but the Sabbath precept makes an act wrong if done upon one day which would be right if done upon any other day. Therefore it is not a moral precept.

Our opponents ask, “Would adultery, lying, stealing, &c., be wrong upon one day but allowable all the rest of the week? Can an act be morally wrong at one time which would not be at another? What is there in the nature of the day itself which makes the seventh day any different from other days? Is it not naturally just like other days?” In answer we affirm that there are many acts which are morally wrong at one time but right at another time. A works for B at ten shillings per day for ten hours. At noon A has one hour during which he can eat, rest, sleep, or do what he pleases. But if A should idle around one hour during working hours he would be defrauding B and thus committing a moral wrong. Again, D borrows $100 of E and pledges his word and gives his note to pay that money to E one year from date. Now D has a moral right to keep and use that money through the whole year till the last day, pay-day, comes. But if he keeps it beyond that day, then he is guilty of a moral wrong.

So innumerable cases might be cited where it would be morally wrong to do a thing at one time which would be right at another time. A couple are engaged to be married upon a set day. Now, entering upon certain relations before they are married would be grossly immoral; but the same relations after marriage would not be wrong. Is it said that the morality or immorality of the act is not because of anything inherent in the nature of the time itself, but because of a violation of an arbitrary agreement or law made concerning the time? Thus: A’s act of resting during working hours would not be wrong if he had not agreed to work at that hour; nor would D do wrong in not paying the $100 at the end of the year, if he had not promised to do it then. Very well; then an agreement or law can make an act immoral at one time which is moral at another time. This is sufficient to overthrow the objection.

But the seventh day is different from all other days. The other six days of the week came into being as working days, the Creator working upon them. But the seventh day first came into being under very different circumstances. All the earth and everything upon it was finished. All was beautiful, peaceful, and quiet. God then honored that day by resting upon it in celebration of creation finished. He then blessed and sanctified it. Gen. 2:1–3. Thus, from its very birth this day did differ from all other days. A man has seven sons. Six were born in England, the seventh in America. The first six are Englishmen, the seventh is an American. In one sense they are all alike; but in another, they are not. The last is honored with being eligible to the highest office in our government, while the others never can be. So the first six days were born working days; Eze. 46:1; Ex. 20:11; but the seventh was born a Sabbath day. Gen. 2:1–3. This difference between the days does exist in the nature of things and must always continue to exist.

But another fact, which we have purposely passed over until now, fully answers the objection we are considering. Moral precepts, it is said, are equally obligatory at all times; but the Sabbath precept applies to only one day in seven. This is a mistake. That precept, like all moral laws, covers all the time. It directs what we shall do upon the first six days as plainly as it does what we shall do upon the seventh day. “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.” It will be seen that this commandment does cover the whole week, regulating what we shall do each day, how we shall use the time which God has given us. So it is not true that it applies only to one day out of seven.

Seeing that the Creator has given to us all our time, “life, breath, and all things,” Acts 17:25, has he not a moral right to direct how we shall use this time? Is it not highly reasonable that he should? Does nature teach us that we should fear and serve our Creator? So all claim, and so we believe. Does it not, then, also teach us that our Maker would care as to how we use our time? This is just as natural as that we should serve him at all. Indeed, it is implied in it. For serving God is an act, and it takes time to perform an act. Therefore, if nature teaches that men should serve God, it teaches that God is interested as to how men use their time. Hence, it is naturally to be expected that God would give directions concerning it. This is just what he has done in the fourth commandment. Therefore that precept, like all moral laws, is reasonable and natural, and hence moral.

Obj. III. The seventh day cannot be kept in all parts of the world, therefore it is not a moral institution.

1. It is claimed that at the north pole there are several weeks when the sun does not set at all; and again there are weeks when it is dark all the time. How can the seventh day be distinguished and kept there?

If nature in this case proves anything, it proves that God never designed men to live there. First, there is nothing for men to do there, nothing to call them there but the love of adventure. Secondly, nature has made no provision to sustain a population there. At the nearest point to the north pole at which men have been able to get, all is a dreary, barren field of solid ice, except for a few weeks, and then only a few berries grow. Thirdly, most of those who have endeavored to reach the north pole have perished in the attempt. So an appeal to nature does not help the objector in this case.

But frequently those who raise this objection are strict observers of Sunday, the first day of the week. If there is any force in this objection, it comes with equal weight against Sunday-keeping. How can they keep the first day up there? If they can find the first day, cannot we find the seventh? If they can keep Sunday, cannot we keep the Sabbath? But there is no trouble in either case. The days of the week are plainly marked there as well as here. Read the travels of Dr. Kane, Hall, and others who have been there. Did they experience any difficulty in keeping the reckoning of the days? None whatever. The days are marked off by the revolutions of the earth, which are there as well as here indicated by the position of the sun. The most of the year the sun rises and sets there the same as here, that is, as far north as men have ever penetrated. So far there is no difficulty. Of course, in mid-summer, for a short time, the sun is above the horizon all the time. Being so far north, a person can see the sun in its circuit clear around the earth, day and night. But it is easy to tell when it is overhead at noon, when it is going down in the west, when it is directly underneath at midnight, or when it is rising in the east in the morning. Can we not tell the time of day here by the position of the sun in the heavens without seeing it rise or set? Certainly. Then if we could see it all the way around, could we not tell just as well as when we see it only part of the way around? Of course; and so those testify who have been in the Arctic regions.

The following is from the description of a scene witnessed in the north of Norway, from a cliff one thousand feet above the sea:—

“The ocean stretched away in silent vastness at our feet; the sound of the waves scarcely reached our airy lookout; away in the north the huge old sun swung low along the horizon. We stood silent, looking at our watches. When both hands came together at twelve, midnight, the full round orb hung triumphantly above the wave; a bridge of gold running due north spanned the water between us and him. There he shone in silent majesty that knew no setting. * In half an hour the sun had swung by perceptibly, the colors changed to those of morning, a fresh breeze rippled over the flood, one songster after another piped up in the grove behind us—we had slid into another day.”

The change of the day, then, can be discerned even though the sun can be seen all the time.

But how is it in the winter when it is night for weeks together? I believe there is no time but what rays of light can be seen in the north at noon of each day. This would be sufficient to mark each day. But the revolution of the earth can be as plainly and as easily told by the position of the stars at night as it can by the sun at day. Any one accustomed to observing the stars knows this. They appear to rise and set and to go around the earth the same as the sun. Indeed,

astronomers always reckon the day by the stars. Read the following letter which I received from an eminent astronomer touching this point:—

“Ogden, Utah, Sept. 24, 1873.”

“Eld. D. M. Canright: By observations of the stars, the time can be found out at any time, day or night. Knowing the time at which any star ought to be in the meridian, we find the difference between noon and the observing time, or the local time. Stars being visible in the daytime and at night, on all places of the earth, it is possible to determine the time without seeing the sun.”

“(Signed) Dr. F. Kampf, Astronomer of the U. S. corps of Engineers.”

So then the exact time of day can be told by the stars and they can be seen in the absence of the sun. Hence this objection is without foundation. D. M. Canright.

(To be Continued.)

Continue reading: The Temptation of Christ