p. 195 | Review and Herald, Vol. 50, No. 25. (12/20/1877)

HOW IT WORKS.

Bro. A. O. Burrill thus speaks of the results of the tithing system in the churches he has visited:—

We have found that the tithes exceed the S. B. pledge. Some are double. One brother whose S. B. pledge was $13 found his tithes amounted to $68 this year. Every one who has practiced the tithing system for 1877 has come to our meetings saying they have been much blessed all through the year, while those who have not practiced it, come to the meetings grumbling and making excuses and finding fault with this and that, and have made no advancement in the Christian life. Moreover those churches that have come up have individuals all around them who are inquiring for the truth. Nine-tenths, with the blessing of God, weighs and measures more than ten-tenths without it. “Prove me,” saith the Lord, and all who have, have been blessed.

ARRIVED IN EUROPE.

By Wm. Ings

We took the cars at Battle Creek, Nov. 5, for South Lancaster, Mass., and remained with our good brethren there until the 15th, when we went to Boston. We secured very favorable terms for our passage to Liverpool from the Warren steamship company. This line is not as fast as some others, but accommodations are better. We were in time to take their best boat, the Minnesota. She was built in England, and cost $375,000. She burns thirty-two tons of coal per day.

This ship was advertised to sail Nov. 17, at 7 A. M. That being the Sabbath, we went on board the 16th. Bro. Wood, sister Temple, and sister Harris came on board early Sabbath morning, and remained with us until the signal was given for visitors to leave. It was a sad moment to realize that we were to leave our adopted country and dear friends, not knowing how soon we should return, if ever. Signals were exchanged by the waving of handkerchiefs until their forms could no longer be recognized. If faithful we expect to see those dear friends in the kingdom of God, where tears will not be known. We made the voyage in eleven and a half days. Everything was done for our comfort. Although our views were known to all, we received as much attention as those who believed differently. The truth is a power. We have handed out tracts freely, and hope the seed sown may germinate and bring forth fruit.

Our passage could not have been more prosperous,—not a storm, and the ocean as smooth as in summer. It was an astonishment to all. The captain said the passage was a holiday to him, and that it was remarkable weather for this season of the year. But we think we can account for it, knowing in whom we trust. God’s eye has been upon us. We believe he has heard the prayers that have been offered up for our safety, and to him be all the praise.

We expect to leave Liverpool to-day, and spend a few days with relatives in Crewe, an hour’s ride on the cars from this place, and on the direct line to London. We hope to scatter some seeds of truth there.

Brethren, remember us in your prayers, that our faith fail not. Wm. Ings.

Liverpool, Nov. 29, 1877.

Every Soldier Counts in the Christian Army

THE whole Christian church is like a grand army whose leader is the Lord. Let us not forget that in the time of battle the success of the whole army depends upon the courage and faithfulness of each soldier. We may not occupy a proud or eminent position in the line. We will nevertheless remember that we are a component part of that great force that is sure to be victorious over the evil of the world if we are loyal to our Leader and true to our flag. And, as the order comes from on High to advance, let us listen to it with proudly beating hearts that we can do something for God. Let us obey it with willing feet and strong arms, determined to prove ourselves valiant in the day of contest, and to do our part to wrest from the strong hand of the enemy some token of our prowess and of our allegiance to the King of kings.

Tested in Extremity: Proving One's True Ability

By Daniel

ONLY men in their extremity Prove what they are—what their ability. —Daniel.

MAINE

By Samuel J. Hersum

Monticello, Aroostook Co., Dec. 10.

ONE has taken his stand on the truth here, and a great many more acknowledge that we have the truth. We have had to meet what I consider the worst kind of opposition; but we shall continue our labors here until those that are interested either take their stand on the truth or decide against it. The truth never looked better to me than now, and I never felt a greater desire to be sanctified by it than at the present time. I need the prayers of the brethren, that the work may not be marred in my hands. SAMUEL J. HERSUM.

BARNSTON, P. Q.

By R. S. Owen

The attendance here has been good. When the Sabbath was presented, the enemy seemed to think it time to work. One man said, “You may be right, but I don’t want to be convinced.” On coming to the next meeting, not knowing but the doors would be closed against us, we were happily surprised to find that the truth had more friends than ever, and warmer ones. And some good openings have resulted. Our opponents, gaining nothing in their opposition, gave it up. We now continue meetings in three places. The interest is good, but only a few have any experience in religion. We have made forty-two visits, and found only three families where they bowed the knee in prayer.

The Sabbath-keepers in Barford are of good courage. Bro. C. F. Worthen has just been with us, and assisted in organizing a T. and M. Society. His work was highly appreciated. These friends take four hundred Annuals to circulate. May God bless their missionary efforts. The first Sabbath-keepers here were led into the truth from receiving tracts from some one in Iowa; now they wish to extend the favor to others.

R. S. OWEN.

DAKOTA

By John Hanson

Dec. 2, we commenced meetings at Swan Lake, Turner Co. The Lord has blessed, and I have had freedom in presenting from the word of God truths adapted to their needs. Six were baptized, and two from the Baptists united with us. This church now numbers fifty-two.

The brethren will soon take steps to build a small meeting-house. They show a willingness to work for the Lord, but their means are limited. The s. b. pledge was renewed for 1878. Bro. Lewis Johnson, of West Dayton, rendered acceptable help.

May God bless the good cause, and his people here. JOHN HANSON.

PACIFIC COAST.

[Abridged from the SIGNS OF THE TIMES.]

Washington Territory, and Oregon.

AFTER reporting meetings with the small companies of Sabbath-keepers at Jefferson, Oregon City, Portland, and Beaverton, Eld. Loughborough thus sums up the results of his labors in connection with Eld. Van Horn:—

“We held, in the fifty days we were together, sixty-four meetings for preaching besides ten business meetings. To get before the mind some of the results, I would state that the S. B. last year among our people in the N. P. Mission was $695.30. Of this over $100 were used for church purposes. For the year 1878, the pledge is already $1,295.74, all good to the Conference. Last year there was no missionary one-third pledged; for 1878 there are pledged $404.59 to the missionary fund, besides $350 to the $300 missionary fund of the North Pacific Missionary Society. The sum of $2,950 was pledged in stock to the Pacific S. D. A. Publishing Fund, and $86.75 were paid in private donations toward my traveling expenses, and the eight weeks’ time spent in that Conference. What has been pledged to different enterprises has been done with a spirit of good cheer, and a desire to see the work prosper.”

Bro. L. reached San Francisco, Dec. 5.

Lakeside, Cal.

At this place, nine are keeping the Sabbath as a result of the recent labors of Bro. J. L. Wood and J. D. Rice, making a company here of twelve. Others are keeping the Sabbath. Nov. 29, ten were baptized.

INSTRUCTING THE LORD.

(Concluded.)

Mr. H. further says:—

“The example and teachings of Jesus relative to the Sabbath, were such as to clear the institution at once of Jewish corruptions, of popular misconceptions, of all superstitious regard for any particular day, and clearly to indicate the day of the week henceforth to be honored as the holy Sabbath.”

The example and teaching of Christ showed at once that there was a Sabbath law enjoining the day they were observing, and that his object was to bring them back to that law. He vindicated himself by saying, “It is lawful.” And he taught that the law of which the Sabbath was a part, could no more be abolished, nor changed in the least particular than the heavens and the earth could pass away. It was immutable and eternal. Matt. 5:17–20.

But what does Mr. H. mean by the last clause of the above quotation? He evidently designs to be understood that Christ, by his example and teaching, indicated the keeping of Sunday in the future. If it does not mean this, it is against his own position. But we ask, How did Christ indicate this? He never took the first day into his lips at all, so far as the record shows, and never, by any recorded act, made the remotest allusion to that day whatever. How long shall we be treated to such baseless assumptions? and how long will the religious world be satisfied with them?

He says further: “The Sabbath day is no better than any other day, aside from its moral uses.” “The Christian Sabbath is holier than other days only as it is associated with such important and impressive religious events as are best suited to aid devotion.” And then not willing to leave it on this foundation of circumstances wholly, he adds: “And as it has the practical sanction as the Sabbath, of those duly authorized to speak concerning it—Jesus, the apostles, and the church.”

What a confession of weakness is this! It ignores the very foundation of the Sabbath. Has God ever said that days are made holy by being associated with great events? The very fact that our opponents are reduced to such a beggarly resort for argument, ought to be enough to open any one’s eyes. We had supposed that God’s appointment and law had something to do with it; that God, by sanctifying it, had made it holy in the only sense in which time can be holy, that is, by being devoted to holy uses; for that is what the word sanctify means; and now we are to keep it holy; for so the commandment reads.

But with every flounder he goes deeper into the mire. Witness his reference to “Jesus, the apostles and the church,” as those authorized to “speak concerning it.” Yes; but what have they said? Jesus, as already remarked, never took the day into his lips. Five only of the apostles speak of it. They mention it but eight times in all. Six of these refer to the day of Christ’s resurrection; and it is simply brought in, in the course of the narrative, as the day on which that event occurred. The other two times, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2, it is spoken of in a way to show that it was devoted to secular uses. But in every case, it is called simply “first day of the week.” There is no record of any religious day meeting on that day in all the New Testament; the apostles never call it a day of rest, a day of worship, a holy or a sacred day; they never use it in such a manner, and they speak of no law or instruction for its observance. Is this the “practical sanction” our friend claims?

But “the church”! Indeed! When was “the church” “duly authorized” to speak on this subject? and who gave that authority? Are we listening to a Protestant or a full-fledged Roman Catholic? Are Protestants willing to follow this lead of the “mother of harlots” and lean upon “the church” without the Bible? And what has the church spoken? Not a word in behalf of Sunday as the Sabbath of the fourth commandment till the great controversy between the Presbyterians and Episcopalians on this subject in the latter part of the 16th century. We have not space to enter into church history, but will only say that Sunday, as a sacred institution, cannot be sustained by such history.

He further says:—

“The resurrection of our Lord from the dead was confessedly the occasion—was at once the indication and the cause—of the transference of the Sabbatic day from the end to the beginning of the week.”

More assertion. The cross was the dividing point between the two dispensations. There the shadow touched the substance, and the type the antitype. Whatever change took place, it took place there. If the Sabbath was transferred, that was the “occasion,” not the resurrection. But it was not there transferred; for, at least one day after that, the holy women rested the Sabbath day “according to the commandment.” Luke 23:56. The commandment survived, and the seventh-day Sabbath survived, the cross. And there has been no change since, except that introduced by the great apostasy. And, further, what was there to “indicate” the transference of the Sabbath in the resurrection? Nothing; but just the opposite. Work was resumed which had been suspended during the Sabbath, “according to the commandment,” and all was then stir and activity.

He asks why it was not so ordered that Jesus should have risen on the seventh day of the week. We answer, Because that has nothing to do with the Sabbath whatever. If there was a prophecy that the day upon which Christ should arise would be the Sabbath thenceforth, there would be some pertinence to his question.

The usual statement is made that Christ was “accustomed” to meet with his disciples on the first day after his resurrection; that that was “the favored day for meeting the disciples for religious purposes;” and that “in several instances the first day is expressly mentioned as the set time, while the old day of the Sabbath is never said to be selected for such assemblies.” We confess we are becoming weary of these oft-repeated, but groundless assertions. Where is the proof? A custom denotes a repeated act; but where is the record that he met with them at all on the first day for religious purposes? or that he met them more than once on that day in any manner, the day being specified? “In several instances,” says Mr. H., “the first day is expressly mentioned.” Where are they? Several means not less than three. But we ask him or any one else to name one after the first. He says Christ “said unto them, Peace be unto you.” Why does he not tell the whole story, which is, “and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.” See Mark 16:14. This was the same meeting mentioned in John 20:19. And it was not a religious meeting; for they sat at meat, or at their evening meal. “After eight days” carries it inevitably beyond the next Sunday; and we do not think our friends would like to admit that the third meeting was on Sunday, when the disciples were fishing on the sea of Tiberias. John 21:1–14.

One more expression to show how men can see where they want to, and be blind to that which they do not want to see. It surpasses anything we ever remember to have met in this line. Speaking of the Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin, he says:—

“If in the wilderness of Sin, Israel so readily took the hint of a Sabbath there given, may we not suppose that the abundant light reflected from the glorious resurrection of the Saviour clearly indicated to His disciples the day which should henceforward by all means be devoted by them to sacred rest and sacred service?”

What was there in the wilderness? The most explicit declaration that the seventh day was the Sabbath of the Lord, and they should gather no manna on that day. Yet some went out to gather it, and were sharply rebuked of God for not keeping his commandments and laws. Yet this, in Mr. H.’s eyes, was only “the hint of a Sabbath”!

And what was there about the Sunday as a day of rest connected with the resurrection of Christ? Not a syllable, not an act, not a circumstance. Yet here is to him “abundant light”! a day “clearly indicated”! to be kept “by all means”!

It is no wonder after this that we find him, in his second article, firing off Rom. 14:5, and Col. 2:16, with all vim, at the seventh day, amusingly oblivious to the fact that if these passages refer to a weekly Sabbath at all, they demolish his pet Sunday, just as much as they do the seventh day.

We will not pursue his weary wanderings further. People sometimes ask us why it has not been found out before, if the seventh day is still the Sabbath. This is answered by another question: Why do otherwise apparently sensible people, even to-day, wade through such driveling weakness in behalf of Sunday, as is set before us in the article under review, and call it sound logic and clear argument? When they will explain this, they will find in that explanation all the answer to the first question that need be given.

CAN GOD ORGANIZE MATTER TO THINK?

By Dudley Marvin Canright

(Concluded.) *

From whence comes the immortal spirit? We now have a few hard questions for our opponents to answer. If man has an immortal, immaterial, deathless spirit, we ask, From whence does it come? and how is it propagated? Was it conscious in a pre-existent state, in some other world, and from thence was sent into the human body at birth? Or is a soul created by the Lord at the birth of every child? Or is it begotten, like the body, and perpetuated with the body? One of these three positions must be taken. Indeed, our opponents have always taken some one of these positions, though they are not at all agreed which one to adopt. Shall we advocate the pre-existence of the soul, that it lived in some other world before it came into the body? If so, why do we not remember having lived somewhere else? Strange that we should have so utterly forgotten all the past. Then, why does not the soul come into the body pure and sinless, inclined to holiness? How does it happen, moreover, that children are so much like their parents, in their souls as well as in their bodies, mentally as well as physically? But as none except the Mormons now hold to the foolish idea of pre-existence, we will let it pass.

Shall we say, then, that souls are created for bodies at birth? This theory would involve a greater difficulty than the other. The Lord must be continually creating, every minute, additional immortal souls. More than that, this would make him sanction prostitution and adultery. A child is begotten in adultery, in the most wicked and corrupt manner. Must God immediately create a soul for that child? This would make God a party to sin. Moreover, if God thus creates immaterial souls, he must either make them pure and holy, or impure and sinful. The latter supposition is inconsistent with the character of God; and if the former be the true one, how shall we account for the natural depravity of the human soul? The evidence of our eyes proves that children are born predisposed to sin, some of them much more so than others.

Then, again, if the soul is thus created a separate entity, an intelligent being before it is placed in the body, why do we not remember even that little time that we existed before we were in the body? And again, at what time is the soul sent into the body? Is it just at birth, or a little after, or some time before? Does it come fully grown? or is it a baby soul that grows up afterward? If so, what makes it grow? On what does it feed? Does it grow out of the material which the body eats? Then it must be material itself. No; that won't do. Well, is it placed in the body fully grown—man's size? How, then, can it be cramped up in so small a space? And why does not the soul of a baby reason and think like a man's, if it is a man's?

But we are interested to know when it is placed in the body. It cannot be after birth; because then the babe would be born without a soul! Is it placed there just after the child is begotten, and before it has assumed the human form? Moreover, we would ask these wise men, who are so positive as to what matter can do and what it cannot do, how it is that the immaterial, intangible essence which has not one particle of materiality about it, which can in no wise be grasped, nor held, nor handled by material organs,—we ask how this immaterial soul can come in contact with a physical body anyway. What point of contact can there possibly be between such a thing and the material brain? How can it operate upon our organs of hearing, smelling, or tasting? In fact, how can it be so closely confined within this material form? Why can't it leave the body at will? But it cannot. If there is such a soul inside, we know that the body holds it with a death-like grasp; and however much the soul may desire to flee, it cannot possibly get away till the material body is dead, and has lost all its strength and power to hold even a straw. These difficulties, to our mind, are tenfold greater than those attending the admission of the simple truth that the material brain has been so organized as to think.

The advocates of the immortal-soul theory freely admit that they cannot explain how the soul can act upon a material brain. Indeed, they admit that they cannot tell what the soul is. Bishop Clark himself thus speaks: “We confess that we know not in what the essence of soul, or spirit, consists. We readily acknowledge our ignorance of the essence, the subject-being, of matter. We make the same confession—and under the same limitations—concerning the soul.” —Man All Immortal, p. 29. Another doctor of divinity says, “We do not understand the true nature of spirit, and cannot therefore determine what is or is not possible respecting it.”—Knapp's Christian Theology, p. 202.

How do they know, then, but that the soul is material after all? They do not know; and after they have argued and philosophized to the end of the subject, one confession like the above overturns all their speculations. They are arguing about something of which they know nothing.

But further: if the soul is a living, intelligent

entity, capable of thinking, moving about, and acting as well out of the body as in it, we ask, What was the use of making the body for it anyway? Why not leave it without the clog of this poor, gross, material body? Indeed, if our immaterialist friends are right, it would have been a great blessing to the spirit to have left it without the body; for they are always telling how the body weighs down the immortal spirit, and clogs its movements, and with what speed the disembodied spirit will travel when freed from the body, with what power it will then act. Then why do we have the body at all? Let those answer who can.

If the soul is not pre-existent, neither created directly at birth, it must be propagated with the body. Indeed, this theory has been held by many. Says Dr. Knapp, “The reason why this theory is so much preferred by theologians, is that it affords the easiest solution of the doctrine of native depravity.”—Knapp's Christian Theology, p. 202. But the moment you adopt this theory you come upon our ground, and admit that the soul is material. For how could an immaterial soul beget another immaterial soul? Are these intangible souls male and female? and can they beget children? The very idea is utterly absurd and untenable. No. If souls are begotten, then they must be material. This is what they all admit who hold this theory. Thus Dr. Knapp says:—

“This hypothesis is not, however, free from objections; and it is very difficult to reconcile it with some philosophical opinions which are universally received. We cannot, for example, easily conceive how generation and propagation can take place without extension. But we cannot predicate extension of the soul without making it a material substance. Tertullian and others of the fathers affirm, indeed, that the soul of man, and that spirit in general, is not perfectly pure and simple, but of a refined, material nature, of which, consequently, extension may be predicated.”—Christian Theol., p. 202.

But is this true that souls beget souls? and are spirits male and female? If they are material, and are begotten with the body, then the presumption is that they will also die with it. How much more natural and consistent is the simple truth, that man is a unit, that his mental powers grow out of his physical organization. A father begets a child of his own person; hence that child naturally partakes of the peculiarities of his father, both physical and mental. This we everywhere see to be the case. “Like father, like son.” This accounts for our fallen natures, and inherited weaknesses of body and mind. The mental likeness of children to their parents is generally just as great as their physical likeness, and often even greater. With our view of man, this is just what we should expect; but on the supposition that the soul is an immaterial entity sent down directly from God, it is wholly unexplainable.

Cause of infidelity among scientists. The intelligent reader is aware that modern scientific men are, to a great extent, becoming skeptical. I am fully satisfied that one great cause of this skepticism is found in the false view which theologians have held concerning mind and matter. Scientific men readily see that, given the principle of life, or vital force, and all the phenomena of nature, vegetable, animal, and mental, can be readily accounted for in the physical organization. Hence physicians, physiologists, and phrenologists in particular, have largely been inclined to materialism. Says Dr. Knapp, speaking of the view that the soul is material, “It has always been the favorite theory of psychologists and physicians.”—Christian Theology, p. 202. Seeing the absurdity of the doctrine of immateriality and natural immortality, they have given up their old theology, and thrown away their religion with it. Had they been taught the true doctrine of mind and intelligence, it would have done much to save them from their skepticism.

Is matter corrupt and mean? These immaterialists are always asserting how mean, corrupt, polluted, weak, and every way inferior, matter is. To hear them talk, you would suppose that matter must be very hateful to God. But if matter is naturally so corrupt and mean, why has God created so much of it? Who made of matter all those numberless millions of worlds on high? Every astronomer knows that they are all material, just such matter as our own earth is made of. Ghosts do not cast shadows, but the moon and other heavenly bodies do. Who made the moon? Who made the earth? the air? the water? the dust? the rocks? the plants? the trees? the insects? the animals? and our material bodies? God made them all of matter; yea, and pronounced them “Very good.” Gen. 1:31. To these very things God always appeals as the highest proof of his power, glory, and Godhead. “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Ps. 19:1. Again: “He hath made the earth by his power, he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.” Jer. 10:12. To the idolatrous Athenians he is introduced as “God that made the world, and all things therein.” Acts 17:24. Paul declares that “by the things that are made, his eternal power and Godhead” are clearly seen. Rom. 1:20. When the Lord would convince Job of his might and greatness, he pointed to the foundations of the earth, which he had laid (Job 38:1-6), to the sea (verse 8), to the clouds (verse 9), to the stars (verses 31-33), to the lightnings (verse 35), to the lions (verse 39), and all the beasts of the earth which he had made (Chap. 39). All these are material, made of the dust of the ground. God is not ashamed to appeal to these material things as the highest proof of his glory.

Is it true, then, that the matter which God has made is so corrupt and naturally sinful as immaterialists claim? Then God would be the author of sin. God made man of the dust of the ground. Gen. 2:7. God made the beautiful and holy Eden of matter, of the ground. Yea; even the tree of life itself grew out of the ground. Gen. 2:8-15. God's divine Son, who came to redeem men, was a material being. He was born of a woman, had flesh and bones, walked upon our earth, ate its material food, breathed its material air, and drank its material water.

“It is not wise to repudiate materialism till we see what connection it has with our final salvation. And here we inquire, How are we to be saved? From our opposers, as well as from the Bible, comes the answer, By the death of Christ. Very well. Then could we be saved without his death? All agree we could not. This paves the way for another important question, If we are saved by the death of Christ, and could not be saved without his death, are we saved by the death of a material Christ? or by the death of an immaterial Christ? Own the truth, let the result be what it may. Did an immaterial Christ die for us? You say, No. Then was it not a material Christ that died? Certainly. So you admit that a material Christ died to save us, and that otherwise salvation would not have been possible, thus predicating your hope of salvation upon the death of materiality. No matter whether there was an immaterial entity within him or not, so long as that did not die; and we expressly read, “Christ died for us,” and “We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” so we are indebted for salvation to the death of that part of Christ which could and did die, even if he had forty entities that could not and did not die; and the part that died for our sins was material. Hear it, ye haters of materialism! The foundation-stone of the system of salvation, from your own showing, is materiality, and there is no escape from the conclusion.”—Bible Banner.

Then in the resurrection, our material bodies are to be saved and immortalized. 1 Cor. 15:51-55. Yes, and finally, this material earth is to be purified from the curse, and made the eternal home of the saints. Rev. 21:1-5.

But here I leave this very interesting question, having only glanced at a few of the innumerable proofs in favor of the materiality of all things. I have endeavored to avoid the fine metaphysical arguments which are generally employed on this topic, and use only those common facts of every-day observation with which every child is familiar. Some time I propose to illustrate all these points by interesting anecdotes. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Danvers, Mass., Nov. 1, 1877.

THE NEW VOLUME.

By Editor

In two weeks will commence volume 51 of the REVIEW. Now is the time to renew subscriptions, and obtain new subscribers. We are satisfied there are a sufficient number of Sabbath-keepers now doing without the REVIEW to nearly double our list, if they would subscribe as they ought to do. Shall we not see a good move in this direction with the next volume? Each succeeding volume of the paper grows more important. We shall try to make it also more interesting. No pains will be spared to make the next volume such as the present truth and the present times demand.

A NEW WONDER.

The Scientific American, of Dec. 22, 1877, contains a notice and an illustration of a machine called The Talking Phonograph, a novel device by which the words a person utters may be reproduced an indefinite number of times, and it matters not how many years after they are spoken. Had it been known and used in the days of Cicero, we might now listen to the very words used by the old Roman orator as he addressed the august senate.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Is there any evidence that Christ was born on the 25th of December? If not, can it be known upon what month and day he was born? When and by whom did Christmas begin to be celebrated? J. F. B.

There is no definite evidence that Christ was born on the 25th of December; nor can any part of the year be certainly fixed as the time of his birth. Andrews, in his “Life of our Lord,” p. 18, says: “Lightfoot makes it to have been in September, Newcome in October, Paulus in March, Wieseler in February, Lichtenstein in June, Greswell in April, Clinton in spring, Lardner and Robinson in autumn, Strong in August.” Amid such a disagreement of doctors, the question will probably have to remain unsettled.

Says the same author, “It is generally granted that the day of the nativity was not observed as a feast in any part of the church, east or west, till sometime in the fourth century.” “The observance of the 25th of December is ascribed to Julius, Bishop [pope] of Rome, A. D. 337-352. In the Eastern church, till this time, the 7th of January had been observed as the day of his [Christ’s] baptism, and regarded as the day of his birth.”

What is the meaning of Isaiah 11:11, the first part of the verse, in regard to recovering the remnant of the people? J. W. S.

Ans. From that verse on to the end of the chapter, it seems very much like a prophecy respecting the gathering of the people in the last days, preparatory to the coming of Christ.

A. S. H.: In the edition of Greenfield’s Greek Testament in our possession we find under the word end (telos) the following definition: “End, scope, object, principal point, the sum of anything. Rom. 10:4,” and no reference to Rom. 10:7 at all.

Does Paul in I Tim. 1:9, 10 speak of the ten commandment law, or the ceremonial law? C. A. W.

Ans. The ten commandment, or moral, law. Dr. Clarke has a note on this passage, which, we think, gives the true idea. He says: “He [the apostle] does not say that the law was not made for a righteous man, but, ou keitai, it does not lie against a righteous man; because he does not transgress it; but it lies against the wicked; for such as the apostle mentions have broken it, and grievously too, and are condemned by it. The word keitai, lies, refers to the custom of writing laws on boards, and hanging them up in public places within reach of every man, that they might be read by all; thus all would see against whom they lay.”

ANSWERED BY LETTER: A. M. Mann, Nettie Sharp, R. F. Cottrell, W. H. Littlejohn.

PRAYER

By R. F. Cottrell

PRAYER has ever been inseparably connected with true religion; and Satan himself has seen that in order to make his counterfeit religions pass for genuine, they must have this characteristic; hence every spurious system has its prayers.

The Bible abounds in prayers, and in directions and injunctions in regard to prayer. Yet the carnal mind, being averse to sincere prayer and devotion, would have the religion of Jesus Christ without prayer! Hence the authority for public prayer is made a question at the present day.

No duty is insisted on more, or enjoined with greater emphasis in the New Testament, than prayer. “Praying always with all prayer,” and that without ceasing, is the apostolic rule, not only given by precept, but exemplified in their life and labors.

At Philippi, Paul and Silas went out by the river-side, on the Sabbath day, “where prayer was wont to be made.” Lydia of Thyatira was there to worship God, the Lord had by this means opened her heart to hear the word spoken by Paul; and she was converted, and the church at Philippi resulted from this beginning. But this place of prayer was not abandoned by the apostles as soon as they had had this first meeting there, but they continued to go there for prayer; for it is written, “And as we went to prayer, a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us.” They were still going out there to the oratory for prayer; and this was not for once only, but we are informed that this same thing was repeated “many days.” Here we have apostolic example; and it agrees with the apostle’s teaching to this same church, as quoted above, “Praying always with all prayer.” Eph. 6 : 18.

The testimony of this spirit of divination, namely, “These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation,” was true, but Paul, not choosing to have Satan advertise for them, cast out the spirit; and this brought them into the Philippian jail, where they again exemplified their own teaching in regard to prayer; for in the inner dungeon, with their feet in the stocks, “at midnight Paul and Silas prayed and sang praises to God; and the prisoners heard them.” True enough, they were in the closet, and the door was shut; but they had hearers there, and One heard them who was able to open the doors and loose their bands. The apostles also taught the churches to sing and make melody in their hearts to the Lord; but the only recorded instance of their singing is that within the walls of that gloomy prison. R. F. COTTRELL.

THE HYGIENIC SCHOOL.

By S. N. Haskell

In the infancy of this cause, the most sanguine had no definite idea of the means which, in the providence of God, would be devised to spread the light of truth. As we have advanced step by step, and God has led his servants to see more clearly the nature of this work and what was needed, broader plans have been laid, additional helps have come into use, and means have been devised to enlighten others in regard to the solemn truths that relate to the time in which we live.

Although we have an unpopular truth, we have now an independent publishing interest, with a capital of nearly $150,000, issuing periodicals from two points on this continent, and one from Central Europe. We have also an organized force of missionary workers, to scatter these publications in every part of the civilized world.

A school has also been established, in which nearly four hundred students, French, Danes, Swedes, and Germans, besides those of our native tongue, are taught how to educate themselves, for a longer or shorter time, as their circumstances will allow. Here instruction in the word of God is made a specialty, and is given by one whom God's providence has amply qualified. From this College, ministers are going forth to all parts of the world.

Then the principles of health reform are published, and the journal advocating this theory finds more readers than any other similar journal in America. At our Sanitarium, the facilities for treating the sick in the most approved manner are excellent. And now a hygienic school is to be established in connection with it. There are hundreds of our young men and women who should attend this school. Sickness is everywhere; and there is no more successful method of removing prejudice than to be able to enter the sick room and relieve the afflicted. This school does not pretend to give a course of medical study, but to instruct in the principles of caring for the sick. You will there learn how to keep well, how to get well if you are sick, and how to be a blessing to your friends and neighbors. Those who may wish to take a thorough medical course in some of our colleges, will find this an excellent preparatory school. Nothing need be said respecting the competency of the teachers. The physician-in-chief is a thorough scholar, a Christian gentleman, and he has a corps of efficient helpers. Hence the best instruction may be expected.

Truly God's providence is in our behalf. Now comes the question, Will our friends throughout the country avail themselves of these privileges to qualify themselves for usefulness here? We speak in behalf of this hygienic school. We believe it is needed. There should be, connected with every church, individuals who understand what to do in the sick-room. They should know how to give packs, baths, &c. Due notice is given, so that ample time is allowed to prepare to attend this winter term. May God bless this first effort.

S. N. HASKELL.

Continue reading: THE TRACT AND MISSIONARY WORK IN MISSOURI