Earlier text: When Was the New Testament Written?Memorizing Is Not Learning.
THERE is an immense deal of mere rote recitation by scholars, younger and older. Scholars fasten in their memory words to which they attach no meaning—or a wrong meaning; and these memorized words, or sounds of words, they rattle off upon call, without having any correct or well-defined idea of their signification. Under these circumstances, who would claim that these scholars are taught anything, or that their knowledge is tested, by reciting what they have memorized—even to an exceptionally skilled and intelligent teacher? This truth was forced on my mind in my earliest teaching experience. While yet but seventeen, I had a class of wide-awake boys, keen enough in matters of thought and action, but naturally conforming to the methods of study which met their teacher's idea of teaching. The book used in that class was one in which every answer was printed out in full, just below its question. The ordinary practice of the scholar was to fasten the answers in memory; and the ordinary practice of the teacher was to ask the questions in the words of the book, and hear the scholars recite the answer. Now for the working of that plan! One Sunday, the lesson for the day was "The Walk to Emmaus." The first question on the page was, "Where is Emmaus?" As I took my book in hand for the "teaching exercise," I recalled that the scholar at my right hand was a boy who had been absent the previous Sunday. Accordingly I asked in kindly interest, "Where were you last Sunday, Joseph?" Quick as a flash the answer came back, "Seven and a half miles northwest of Jerusalem." "Well, you are certainly excusable for not being here," was my mortified response; for then, for the first time, I realized that that scholar might as well have been northwest of Jerusalem or southeast of Timbuctoo, for all the good he gained from a class where hearing recitation had been looked at as teaching. That was a long while ago; it would be pleasant to believe that no illustration of this error in the teacher's work could be found in these days of improved Sunday-school methods and normal-class instructions. The memorizing of words is in itself no more the securing of ideas, than is the buying of books the securing of knowledge. A man may have his library shelves stored with the most choice and valuable works in every department of literature, science, and the arts, and yet be ignorant, not only of the knowledge covered by any one of those volumes, but also of the advantage which would come from the possession of such knowledge. Nor would his knowledge be increased in the slightest degree, if he had ten such libraries instead of one. So, also, a child may have fully memorized all the answers in his catechism, or his question book, including the choicer words of Scripture, without having received a single idea covered by those words; nor would any multiplication of similar words in his memory necessarily convey an added idea to his mental possessions. This is obviously true where the words are in another language than the pupil's own. It is equally true where the words are in the pupil's language, but utterly beyond his comprehension. It is none the less a truth in any case; for the receiving of ideas is quite another matter from the fastening of mere words in the memory; the two processes may go on at the same time, and again they may not; but in no case are they identical. That this truth is as true practically as it is philosophically, has been shown by experiment many times over; and its truth finds fresh illustration under the eye of every intelligent and observing parent or teacher. A notable and well-authenticated case of its testing is that of "Blind Alec," of Sterling, in Scotland, as recorded in all its details in Mr. James Gall's "Nature's Normal School." This was more than fifty years ago. Alexander Lyons, or "Blind Alec" as he was called, was a man of mature years and of average intelligence. He had actually committed to memory the words of the entire Bible. "Any sentence, or clause of a sentence, from Scripture, which another began, he could not only finish, but tell the particular verse in the Bible where it was to be found; and, what was still more remarkable, the number of any verse in any chapter and book being given, he was able immediately to repeat" the verse. Moreover, he had for years been in the daily habit of recalling and reciting passages of Scripture thus memorized. This man, thus supplied with Bible words, was thoroughly tested, not only by Mr. Gall, but by the more intelligent citizens of Sterling, lay and clerical, at a public meeting, called for the express purpose of ascertaining his knowledge of the truths clearly covered by the words in his memory. He was first questioned in the facts of English history, which he had been taught by the conveying to him of its ideas rather than by any set form of words covering those ideas; and he was found intelligently familiar with its truths in the field he had traversed. But in not a single instance could he quote a Bible text in explanation, in proof, or in enforcement, of the simplest doctrine or duty. The conclusion was irresistible, in his case, that by all his Bible word-memorizing, in his early life and in his later, he had never, at the first or afterward, acquired a single Bible idea, that "there was in Alec's mind no connection between the truths or duties of Scripture, and the words which taught them." Nor has it, so far, been different with any other person than "Blind Alec" from that day to this; for the mere memorizing of words is never, in itself, the gaining of ideas. Let me not be misunderstood just here. I am not claiming that no gain is possible from storing words in the memory, any more than I am claiming that no gain is possible from buying books for the library, or from having the library shelves stored with volumes in every department of knowledge. I am claiming, however, that neither the buying of books nor the memorizing of words and sentences is in itself the acquisition of knowledge. At the best, in either case, this is only the gathering of the materials of knowledge, or of instruments for its acquisition. And since memorizing words is not in itself knowledge, it can no more be made knowledge through the recitation of those words, than the possession of books can be made the acquisition of knowledge through their cataloguing. Memorizing words has an important place in a pupil's life. In secular school training there are rules and tables and lists that can profitably be fastened in the scholar's memory by rote, for convenience of future reference. In the Sunday-school, and in home religious training, there should be a wise measure of memorizing, by the scholar, of the very words themselves, of Bible passages, of hymns, and of accurate statements of important doctrine. But, whatever place or prominence is given to such memorizing, let not the mistake be made of supposing that the mere memorizing of these words in itself gives the scholar the possession of the idea covered by them. That idea could be conveyed without such memorizing. It may be conveyed in connection with such memorizing. Again, such memorizing may be in connection with the wrong idea, or with no idea at all. Under no circumstances, however, nor in any instance, will the memorizing of the words and the reception of the idea be one and the same thing. That cannot be. Nor can the wisest teacher in the world make the two things one, by simply hearing the recitation of what has been memorized. If you think that the memorizing of words is the great thing in your scholar's preparation for the "class exercise," by all means insist upon it. If you want to ascertain how much and how accurately he has memorized, hear him recite the words he has committed to memory. If particular questions upon the lesson have been given him, to which he is to find answers, and you desire to know whether he has found the precise answers to those specific questions, then ask him those questions and hear him give the answers. If this is your idea of a "class exercise," the way to secure it is as simple as turning a grindstone crank. This may be all that you deem essential in a teacher's work; but however desirable and important it may be, it cannot be called teaching; nor would it be teaching if it were called so. It is hearing a recitation; but hearing a recitation is not in itself teaching, nor ought it to pass for teaching.—Teaching and Teachers. Ahab’s Grove and Astarte Worship
"AND Ahab made a grove." Or, rather, a wooden pillar which represented the Phœnician goddess Astarte. The original word is Ashérah, the primary sense of which is fortune, happiness, prosperity, just as Fortuna is deified by the Romans. It was the goddess Astarte, so famous among all the people at the extremity of the Mediterranean. She was the eastern Venus, sometimes represented as the Stella Veneris, or star of Venus. It is likely that this ashera, or pillar, was often set up in a grove, because thus would be given that seclusion necessary to the cruel and indecent rites, which marked, among oriental nations, the worship of false divinities. The worship of Astarte was simply licentiousness under the guise of religion. A temple to Ashérah, the Canaanite Venus, was built, apparently in the precincts of Jezreel, 400 priests ministering in its courts and offering on its obscene altars. Of this Jezebel was the especial patroness, maintaining the whole establishment at her own cost. "In his days did Hiel the Bethelite build Jericho." The restoration of this city as a fortification upon which Joshua had pronounced a curse (Josh. 6: 26), is mentioned as a proof how far ungodliness had progressed in Israel; whilst the fulfillment of the curse upon the builder shows how the Lord will not allow the word of his servants to be transgressed with impunity. The Curse Fulfilled on Hiel
"HE laid the foundation thereof in Abiram his first-born." In exact accordance with the words of Joshua's curse, he lost his first-born son when he began to lay anew the foundations of the walls, and his youngest when he completed his work by setting up the gates.—From the International Notes. If a canoe be connected by a cord with a distant ship, one in the canoe may draw himself to the ship, if he cannot draw the ship to himself. So, as has been said, it is with prayer. If it do not bring God to man, it will bring man to God. And this is always well for man.—Sel. Driven Into the Desired Haven
By George Macdonald
How often we look upon God as our last and feeblest resource! We go to him because we have no where else to go. And then we learn that the storms of life have driven us, not upon the rocks, but into the desired haven.—Geo. Macdonald. The Church. No. 12.
By Editor
IT has been, and still shall be, our aim in these articles to impress upon the minds of the readers the importance of church relations. Most of the difficulties which arise in our churches are owing to the loose ideas of church membership which have so largely obtained in the world. Reflecting upon this subject we are convinced that something may be done to increase respect for this relation, by observing greater care in the reception of members. Many of our churches receive members on the day of application. Some (as our church in Oakland) lay over all applications for one week, to give the members an opportunity to make inquiries, and to satisfy themselves as to the propriety of receiving the applicant. But this is not satisfactory, as it frequently happens that the circumstances are such that inquiry or examination is almost impossible, especially where the church is large. And this delay of a week has not been practiced much, if any, in the case of application by letter, as such applicants are considered as being already church members, only transferring their membership from one church to another. But letters do not always give full and satisfactory information, and it is sometimes the case that hasty action has proved disastrous to the individuals and to the peace of the church. We consider it proper therefore to consider this subject, and offer such suggestions as, we believe, will greatly if not entirely remedy the difficulties. 1. Let all applications be laid over for at least one week. The reason for not making applications by letter exceptions to this rule is this: Many persons leave their churches and are absent weeks, months, sometimes a year or more, before they call for a letter. Of course in all such cases a traveling letter should be taken, to be renewed every three months at the holder's request; but in most cases no such letter is called for. The church which gives a letter to a member after a long absence can give no satisfactory assurance that the walk of the absent member has been orderly during that time. A cloud always rests over the reception of a member under such circumstances. To give assurance to the church, 2. In all cases let a judicious and competent committee be appointed to examine applicants. If a letter is presented, the committee should carefully examine the circumstances under which the letter was received. And they should also examine the applicant himself, in regard to his conversion to the truth and to God, to his soundness in the faith, and to his walk since leaving his own church, or, what would be better, during the entire period of his membership. If the application is upon profession of faith, the committee should become satisfied that the applicant is in the faith; that he loves the truth, and has a sufficient understanding of it to justify his being received; especially of those points which have a direct practical bearing on the life. In a word, they should ascertain if he is ready for church membership; if he has a proper sense of its importance, and the responsibility which it imposes; if he is fully resolved to fulfill the duties of a church member, and to seek the peace and prosperity of the church, and to consecrate himself to the cause and work of God. 3. The committee should make a full report of the case; if they cannot obtain all the information they desire in one week, let them report that fact on the coming Sabbath, and ask to be continued. If the report is satisfactory, then, 4. Let the applicant appear before the congregation and state distinctly his desire and determination, and such points in his experience as he may see fit. 5. Open the way for inquiries by the officers or members of the church; as far as possible bring all to feel that it is a matter in which each has a deep interest; that a responsibility rests upon each to help the applicant, to extend the membership of the church, and to be careful to guard its interests, its peace, and prosperity. 6. All members should be received by a rising vote. It is more emphatic, more forcible to the mind, than a vote by raising the hand. 7. Let the officiating officer, or pastor, or elder of the church, in behalf of the church, give to the applicant the right hand of fellowship. At the close of the meeting it would be in place for the members, or at least some of them, to meet the newly received one with words of welcome and congratulation. We say "at the close of the meeting," because we hold it highly advisable to 8. Avoid all appearance of parade or formal show. There is great danger of mere formality in church observances. They should be hearty and spontaneous. It has been observed that "there is only a step between the sublime and the ridiculous;" even so there may be but a step between the sacred and solemn, and the formal and trifling. And, unfortunately for the interests of Christianity, that step is frequently taken in some denominations. Formality and show are mistaken for reverence; the form is completely substituted for the power. Let it never be so amongst us. Precise rules and forms of action for all cases, or what has been ironically styled "church etiquette," are fatal to spirituality and heartfelt, spontaneous service. But by mature reflection we are convinced that the rules or suggestions herein given may be the means of more deeply impressing upon our members the importance and responsibility of church membership, and keep out troubles from our midst which are difficult to put out when once they have been permitted to enter. There is another point of discipline upon which we feel it our duty to speak; and to which we call the earnest attention of all our churches, hoping that action may be induced thereon. There was a resolution once passed, that a member who absents himself a certain number of times from quarterly meeting, and does not report, thereby forfeits his membership, and shall have his name erased from the record. The practice of this resolution has quite largely fallen into disuse, because the brethren are generally satisfied that its adoption was a serious mistake. But, unfortunately, its influence is not lost where the church would fain discard it. It needs but very little reflection to convince any one that this resolution, if strictly followed, is subversive of a high regard for the responsibilities of church membership, and is not only a loose method of administering discipline, but it really frustrates discipline. We have said, and we fully believe, that no church can afford to have its members drop away and the church have no certain knowledge of their declension and of the reasons of their fall. And we have also said and believe that church relations "cannot be disregarded or thrown aside at the pleasure of any man or any community of men. The will of their Author must be consulted. Except according to his own word they cannot be dissolved by any means." But this resolution virtually enables any one to sever his connection with the church by simple neglect. And if the church shall make an effort to properly administer discipline for this neglect, it is met with the reply: "You have nothing to do in my case; you have no right to take any steps to deal with me, for, according to your rules, I am no longer a member of your church. Your rule requires that my name be dropped from the roll." It does not seem possible that either the negligent member or the church at large can retain any just sense of the binding obligation and importance of church membership where this rule is followed. It may be queried, why thus publicly point out its weakness or evil tendency if it has fallen into disuse? It is because it places in the hands of the negligent or the perverse the power to dissolve their church relations and to frustrate discipline at their will. Laws are not repealed by a failure to observe them. The church may think it inexpedient to observe this rule, but that does not deprive a disaffected member of the privilege of taking advantage of it. There are often found restless ones who would fain cast aside their allegiance to the church on slight provocation, or even for no reason at all. The church cannot afford to open a way for any such action. The Head of the church has laid down rules, and it is not a matter of option whether or not they shall be followed. A foreigner is not obliged to come to our shores and to swear allegiance to our Government. But having come, and having been naturalized, he cannot throw off the duties and responsibilities of citizenship by merely neglecting to obey the laws of our Government, or by refusing to recognize its authority. In such case he must be dealt with as an offender; his course is injurious to society, subversive of justice and of order and government. But much more is that individual an offender who takes upon him the vows of allegiance to the Most High, and unites himself to the visible body of Christ, and is accepted of the Lord as his servant, as a member of the "church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth," and who yet lightly regards all his obligations, spurns his God-given privileges, and does despite to the spirit of grace by whom these privileges were prepared and conferred. And if the officers of an earthly Government justly suffer impeachment and punishment for neglect or refusal to deal with offenders, much more shall the officers and members of the Lord's household be worthy of punishment, if they neglect to follow and to enforce the laws which he has laid down for their observance. We write with some sense of the importance of these things, with the earnest prayer that our churches and all their members may feel that church membership imposes obligations too solemn and confers privileges too sacred to be treated with neglect or lightness. The Relationship Recognized.
THE Christian at Work says:— "When the subject of Roman Church baptism came up the other day, Professor Francis L. Patton showed that if the Roman Church were to be disenfranchised because it contained error, so must Protestant churches as well, for nearly, if not all the errors of the Roman Church could be discovered hidden away in some phases of Protestantism. . . . The doctrine of the 'deity of the wafer' is one that is peculiarly abhorrent to many Protestants. Yet it is both held and declared by those claiming the Protestant name. But that does not unchristianize the denomination. No more do errors in the Roman Church unchristianize a body by whom the essential doctrines of evangelical Christianity are held in common with Protestants." If the first statement is true, and we are not disposed to dispute it, viz., that "all the errors of the Roman Church can be discovered hidden away in some phases of Protestantism," then certainly Protestantism needs reforming. The fact is that many of the errors of the Catholic Church are not very deeply "hidden" in Protestantism. They are too425plainly apparent; and this doubtless explains the growing kindly feeling among Protestants toward Catholics. They recognize the relationship between them. The principle on which they act is something like this: "The Catholic Church has errors, but what of it? They certainly are not damnable ones, for we ourselves have the same errors." This is the kind of logic which recognizes Catholic "baptism" as a Christian ordinance, and condones all the Catholic abominations. If gross errors, nay, positive perversions of truth, willfully and persistently maintained, do not unchristianize a body, of what value is the truth? and what then is the difference between Christianity and infidelity? Camp-Meeting in Portland, Oregon.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE details of this meeting have been sufficiently reported by Elder Loughborough, but we would add a few thoughts. First, we were made to realize more than ever before the necessity of promptness in meetings of that kind. The work of the Biblical Institute was in its general features the same as the one in Milton, but it did not have the lifting influence on the meeting that it would have had if those attending had had time to devote to study. The truths of the word cannot be absorbed by simple contact; if we would make them our own we must search for them as for hid treasure. All the powers of the mind, aided by the Spirit of God, must be brought to bear, and by this means they will be strengthened. There is no discipline of mind equal to the study of the Bible. Although our circumstances were somewhat unfavorable, the Institute was by no means a failure. Those present received new ideas as to how to study the Bible; familiar truths were seen in a new light, and above all, the great central, elevating truth—God's love for mankind—was realized by many as never before. Many returned to their homes rejoicing in a hope and confidence to which they had hitherto been strangers. One interesting feature was the children's meetings. These were held every day, beginning when the Institute was about half over. The aim in these meetings was to tell the gospel story in language suited to the comprehension of the youngest, and to lead them to the study of the word for themselves. It is a mistake to suppose that to reach the minds of children one must talk in a childish manner, or in any degree to lower the dignity of the subject. Familiar illustrations, both to the eye and the ear, should be freely used, but no word should be uttered that would lead any to think that the way of salvation for a child is different from that for the adult. The "deep things of God," if properly presented, are more readily grasped by young minds, than by those of mature years. The plan of salvation is so simple in its greatness that the average man overlooks it. Like Naaman, we find the thing required of us very difficult because it is so simple. But in childhood everything is real; the simplicity of childhood was given by Christ as the pattern for Christians. There is, therefore, every encouragement in teaching the children the way of life. There were no meetings held on the ground that were more full of interest than those held with the children. In these meetings, as well as in all others, much prominence was given to the subject of reverence for God's word, and for the places where he is worshiped. As the result of this teaching, we had as quiet and orderly a camp-ground as I ever saw. The children were made to feel that the entire camp was a sacred place, and there was scarcely any running and playing or loud talking even during intermissions. Care was taken to have all enter the tent where meetings were held, in a reverent manner, with head uncovered. Surely we should not come into God's house with less indication of respect than we would into a neighbor's parlor. We believe that as outward marks of respect were shown, reverence was increased in the heart, and God added his blessing. If the parents will now carry out the lessons which they learned, and will also seek to deepen the impressions made upon the children, and endeavor to instruct and interest them in sacred things, they will find their own souls watered, and will see their children growing up to strengthen the church. May God help them, and abundantly bless the North Pacific Conference. The Sabbath in Eden.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IT has been our constant aim to avoid controversy as far as was possible. Believing that the coming of the Lord is near, and that the strict observance of the ten commandments (with divine assistance) is necessary to a complete preparation for that event, we design to get these truths before the people in the most direct manner possible. While, therefore, we deprecate debate, we dare not lower the standard of truth because it is opposed. Whenever we make strictures upon those who teach differently, we do so, not because they have assailed "our position," but because they oppose what we firmly believe to be Bible truth. We do not consider ourselves as standing in opposition to anybody, but as simply lifting up the truth, which is being trodden down. Quite frequently newspaper articles and reports of sermons in opposition to the Sabbath, are sent to us, with the request that we reply to them. Of course these articles contain no argument or objection that has not been met and answered hundreds of times, and our first impulse is usually to throw them aside as unworthy of further notice. But we recollect that the old objection which to us seems so flimsy, is to many a new one, and a real stumbling-block. Therefore we feel constrained to give them notice. If that notice be often extended, it is not because we fear that truth itself will suffer by the opposition, but that honest minds that have not been accustomed to think upon Bible themes, may not be entangled in error. It is for this reason that we begin to briefly notice a series of articles on the Sabbath question, by C. E. W. Dobbs, D. D., recently published in the Indiana Baptist. The writer takes the position throughout, that Sunday (invariably called by him the "Lord's day") is not the Sabbath, and that its observance, although obligatory upon Christians, derives no force from the fourth commandment; that it is purely a "gospel institution, and that the fourth commandment, enjoining the observance of Saturday, has, with the rest of the decalogue, entirely passed away. One word concerning the idea that the Sunday-sabbath is a gospel institution. If this were so, then it must stand upon the same plane as other gospel ordinances,—baptism and the Lord's Supper. No Christian, of whatever denomination, thinks of allowing unbelievers to participate in these ordinances. If the Sunday-sabbath be a gospel institution, then no unbeliever must be allowed, much less compelled, to observe it. But Dr. Dobbs does not believe this theory any more than do his Baptist brethren. This is proved by their own actions. A Baptist father would not invite his unconverted children to partake of the Lord's Supper, nor would he allow them, while still unconverted, to be baptized, yet he would require them, while they were subject to his authority, to observe Sunday. Notwithstanding what men may say, their actions show that they do not really believe that Sunday is a Christian ordinance. We most heartily agree with the Doctor in his claims that Sunday observance finds no authority in the fourth commandment. But, knowing that there is no Bible authority outside of the fourth commandment for the observance of any day as sacred, we conclude that the Doctor's admission rules Sunday out of the question. By the side of that admission, we wish to place a few others. In its issue of March 1, 1882, the California Christian Advocate said:— "When we plead for a law for it [Sunday] as a day of rest, we can justify that only on the ground that it is according to the law of nature, and necessary to man. . . . We cannot sustain it before the people, if we claim its sanctity as a religious institution." Very true, only it would be difficult for the Advocate to show how rest on Sunday meets the wants of man's nature, any more than rest on Saturday. The Christian at Work, in its issue of April 19, 1883, said:— "Some plant the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] squarely on the fourth commandment, which was an explicit injunction to observe Saturday, and no other day, as a holy day unto the Lord. . . . The truth is, so soon as we appeal to the litera scripta [i. e., the plain reading] of the Bible, the Sabbatarians have the best of the argument." Again, in its issue of January 8, 1885, the Christian at Work says:— "We rest the designation of Sunday on the church having 'set it apart of its own authority.' The seventh-day rest was commanded in the fourth commandment, as it is written in every tissue and trembling fiber of the human frame. The selection of Sunday, thus changing the particular day designated in the fourth commandment, was brought about by the gradual concurrence of the early Christian church, and on this basis and none other does the Christian Sabbath, the first day of the week, rightly rest." All true; but if the observance of Sunday was brought about by the "gradual concurrence" of the church, then of course it was not instituted by Christ; and if it was not instituted by Christ, then it is obviously not a Christian institution; and therefore, although "the church" did gradually effect this change, it was to that extent at least unchristian. But now for the argument against the Sabbath. We quote:— "Some find evidence of the Edenic institution of the Sabbath in Gen. 2:3: 'God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it he had rested from all his work.' This is supposed to be the enactment of the Sabbath law for the race. But it is an exceedingly frail support for such an institution. The language is only the historian's statement that the Sabbath, instituted two thousand years afterwards, had a commemorative relation to creation. It is merely mentioned by him proleptically, as giving the divine determination to sanctify the seventh day, and to constitute it a religious rest day in the future ceremonial law." How does the Doctor or any one else find so much in Gen. 2:3? Those who say that Gen. 2:3 records what the Lord designed to do two thousand years in the future, seem to be wise above that which is written, for there is not the slightest intimation of such a thing in the text. Just as reasonably might we affirm that "there was no marriage institution until two thousand years after the creation, the statement in Gen. 2:24, that a man "shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh," being only the historian's statement that the marriage relation, instituted two thousand years afterward, had a commemorative relation to the union of the first pair. It is merely mentioned by him proleptically, as giving the divine determination to sanctify the marriage relation, and to constitute it a sacred ordinance in the decalogue," which, by the way, is in no sense a ceremonial law. But no sane man would accept such an interpretation, or rather, perversion, of the Scriptures in regard to marriage; and no unprejudiced person can for a moment regard such reasoning as just when applied to the Sabbath. What, then, may we learn from Gen. 2:3? The text is plain: "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." This immediately follows the statement that God426"rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made." Now we submit it to any candid person, that in Gen. 2:1-3 events are mentioned in historical order. From the reading of the text, no one would imagine that the third verse refers to something two thousand years after the event mentioned in the second; and there is nowhere in the Bible any intimation that such is the case. It is a fact, then, that the blessing and sanctifying of the seventh day immediately followed God's resting upon it, after the six days of creation were ended. To deny this is simply to make an assertion contrary to a plain declaration. Now we will find out what was comprehended in that act of sanctifying, and then we shall see upon what foundation the Edenic Sabbath rests. To sanctify means "to set apart for a sacred or religious use; to make holy."—Webster. Its use, as applied to inanimate objects, may be learned from the following instances: When the Lord was about to come down on Mount Sinai, he said to Moses, "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it." Ex. 19:12. In verse 23 we read, "And Moses said unto the Lord, The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai, for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount, and sanctify it." The mountain was sanctified, or set apart for a sacred use, and a barrier was built around it, so that none need be in doubt as to how far they might go. Again, in Joshua 20 we find that the Lord told Joshua to appoint six cities to which men who had accidentally slain a man might flee for refuge. "And they appointed [margin, sanctified] Kedesh in Galilee in mount Naphtali," &c. Josh. 20:7. Here the same word is used as in Gen. 2:3. In what did the sanctification of these cities consist? In setting them apart for the use for which they were designed, by letting everybody know which cities were the cities of refuge. Without thus informing the people, the sanctification would have been a farce. Indeed, that is just what the sanctification was,—a public setting apart. So with the Sabbath. First, God rested on the seventh day; then he blessed it, or spoke well of it; and lastly, he sanctified it, that is, he appointed that it should be preserved sacred. Just as Moses set bounds around the mount, so the Lord placed around the Sabbath the sanctions of his law. Now as we have seen that the sanctification immediately followed the resting and the blessing, we know to whom the Lord made the statement that the day was to be kept holy;—it was to all who were then living—Adam and Eve. But this pair represented all the inhabitants of the earth, for they had been commanded to "be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." We find, then, that Gen. 2:3 teaches, in the most unmistakable language, that the seventh-day Sabbath was instituted at creation, and that it was designed for and given to all mankind. We may add, however, that in Gen. 2:3 we do not find the enactment of the Sabbath law for the race, but the statement, as a fact of history, that such a law was made at creation. This point, borne in mind, removes the next objection, which shall be noticed next week.