VIEt 2DJ2T1 LiM02,, 
ADD SABBATH HERALD. 
"Mere is the Palle nee °like Saints; Here are they that keep the Commandments of God and the Faith of Jesus." 
VoL. �
ROCHESTER, N. Y., THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1852. �
No. 2. 
JOSEPH BATES, J. N. ANDREWS t 
end JOSEPH BAKER, �
Publishing. Committee. 
JAMES WHITE, Editor. 
PUBLISHED SEMI-MONTHLY, 
At No. 124 Mount hope Avenue, Rochester. 
Terms—G-11,ms. It is expected that all the friends of the 
cause will aid in its publication, as the Lord hath prospered 
thorn. 
communications, orders, and remittances, should be 
addressed to JAMES WHITE, Editor of the Review and Her-
ald, Rochester, N. Y. (post-paid.) 
THE ARK, 
BY R. P. COTTRELL. 
When ancient Israel met the foe, 
That aimed at them ti deadly blow, 
Though oft their prospect seemed most dark, 
They triumphed when they had the Ark. 
The Ark when borne to Jordan's tide, 
Caused its deep waters to divide; 
They need no boat in which t' embark; 
They cross—because they have the Ark. 
They march around old Jericho, 
Its towering walls are laid full low-- 
Hear ye that mighty shouting? Hark! 
They triumph, for they have the Ark. 
Where was the strength by which it wrought, 
And to its bearers victory brought? 
It was a chest of wood—but mark 
THE LAW OF GOD Woo in the Ark. 
When men oppose that law of love, 
They leek the wisdom from above ; 
Deluded souls! they're in the dark, 
Without the truth—without the Ark. 
The remnant in these latter days 
Will triumph sure ; give God the praise! 
They, of the beast, refuse the mark, 
They keep God's law—they have the Ark. 
THE SABBATH. 
LL �
h IhRS TO O. R. L. CROZIER.—N0. II. 
DEAR SIR :—Your second article commences in sub-
stance as follows: 1. The Sabbath was first made 
known and enjoined in the wilderness. 2. That con-
sequently the Sabbath obligation did not commence 
in Eden, and continue thence forward. 3. That there-
fore the patriarchs had not the Sabbath, yet lived to 
a greater age than succeeding generations, and. were 
the most holy of men, so that as a natural conse-
quence the Sabbath is not an essential constituent in 
the health and happiness of men. 4. That Paul in 
Ileb. iv developes in the plainest DEUIDOI' possible, the 
primary signification of the week, end especially of 
the sanctified seventh day, and shows that it was not 
sanctified as a weekly rest, but as an emblem of the 
rest of the saints after the resurrection. 5. That the 
obligation to keep the weekly Sabbath, began in the 
wilderness of Sin, and terminated at the crucifixioh. 
Col, ii. 
The specious character of your argument has al-
ready been exposed. But I will briefly notice the 
points a second time. 
1. The first mention of the Sabbath in Ex. xvi, is 
not in the form of a command to keep it, but is a 
simple mention of something already in existence.—
"To-morrow," said the Leader of Israel, " is the rest. 
of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." How long it 
had been the holy Rest-day of the Lord can be ascer-
tained by reading Gen. ii, which tells us when it was 
that he rested on the seventh day and sanctified it, 
(" set it apart to a holy use.") 
2. Your inference that the seventh day was made 
the holy Rest-day of Jehovah in the wilderness of 
Sin, being without foundation, your second statement, 
viz : that therefore the Sabbath obligation did not 
originate in Eden, being a deduction from that infer-
ence, falls of its own weight. But God has by his 
own voice given the origin of Sabbatic obligation. He 
gives the fourth commandment, and then, to shut the 
mouths of cavilers, gives the origin of the obligation to 
keep it. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and 
earth, the sea and all that in them is, and rested the 
seventh day ; wherefore the Lord blessed the SAB-
BATH-DAY and hallowed it." If these words do not 
show the existence of the holy Sabbath at Creation, 
and that its sacred character there originated, then 
they do not mean what they say. 
3. Your third position depends for a foundation on 
the inferences already refuted, viz that the seventh 
day became the Sabbath of the Lord, after the Israel-
ites entered the wilderness, and that the obligation to 
keep the Rest-day holy there commenced. That the 
sanctified Rest-day, or holy Sabbath of the Lord, has 
been in existence ever since the first week of time is an 
undeniable fact. To assume that the patriarchs were 
ignorant of the Sabbath of Jehovah, or that they had 
DO regard for his hallowed Rest-day, (because in the 
brevity of the Mosaic record, after giving the account of 
its institution, we are not informed respecting its ob-
servance, or its violation,) is taking for granted a po-
sition, that must first be proved before any weight, 
whatever, can be attached to it. 
4. The Decalogue bases the weekly observance of 
Cod's Rest-day on the sanctification of the Sabbath 
at Creation. The fourth of Hebrews says nothing re-
specting the sanctification of the seventh day ; there-
fore it does not contradict this idea of the Decalogue, 
nor does it even seem so to do. The rest of Jehovah 
from Isis work of creation, and the union of Adam 
and Eve may respectively illustrate the final rest of 
the redeemed, and the perfect union of Christ and his 
church ; but can never be made to explain away " the 
primary object" of the Creator in instituting the Sab-
bath and marriage, as distinctly stated. Mark ii, 27; 
1 Cor. xi. 9. 
5. As the seventh day did not become the holy 
Rest-day of the Lord in the wilderness of Sin, but was 
such already, the first part of your statement rests 
upon nothing save your own assertion. And as it has 
been already shown that the CARNAL ordinances 
[Hely ix, 10; Col. ii, 14-17] which Christ blotted 
out did not include the oracles of God, [Acts vii, 38; 
Bony iii, 1,] the ten commandments, (which Paul calls 
holy, SPIRITUAL, just and good,) Col. ii does not even 
allude to the point which you wish to establish. Your 
next remark is as follows : 
"The display made by the writer in the Review 
about there being no 'Act of instituting the Sabbath 
recorded in Ex. xvi,' only shows that he wanted to 
say something, and was at a loss to know what." 
It is a very easy thing for me to point to THE ACT 
by which Jehovah made the seventh day his sancti-
fied Rest-day or holy Sabbath. But you deny this, 
and affirm that he made the seventh day his Rest-day 
or Sabbath in the wilderness of Sin, though no act of 
that kind can be produced by you. The following is 
what you are pleased to call my "display," which you 
say evinces a desire to say something, but a loss 
to know what. Which of us it is that is thus situated, 
I leave you to judge : 
" The expressions of this chapter respecting the Sab- 
bath should not be forgotten; �
To-morrow is the 
rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord ;" To-day is 
a Sabbath unto the Lord;' The seventh day which is 
the Sabbath.' Verses 23-26. With a single ques-
tion to the candid reader, we submit the chapter : Is 
there any ACT of instituting the Sabbath recorded 
in Ex. xvi, or does it treat the Sabbath AS AN INSTI-
TUTION ALREADY IN EXISTENCE?" 
Your remark that the Sabbath came into existence 
as did light, the sun, moon, &c., by Jchovah'p act of' 
speaking, " and it was so," would be very opportune, 
were it, not the case that Ex. xvi does not contain any 
such thing ; the first mention of the Sabbath which 
it makes being the statement of Moses, " To-morrow 
is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord." 
After stating that the time when the Sabbath was 
instituted is a very plain matter, you remark : 
"The Review attempts to invalidate the sentiments 
of the report on Ex. xx, 8-11, by showing that that 
text teaches the institution of the Sabbath at creation. 
I readily admit that such a conclusion might be drawn 
from that passage, considered by itself. Yet it makes 
no affirmation at all as to when the Sabbath 'obliga-
tion began : it simply enforces it, and assigns a reason 
for fixing upon the seventh for a rest-day in prefer-
ence to any other, viz : because he six days God had 
created the heaven and the earth, Pc., and rested on 
the seventh. To learn when men were required to 
rest on that day, we must have recourse to those por-
tions of the Scriptures that speak on that point. Ex. 
xvi, is one such, which was considered last week ; and 
others will be noticed," 
To sh(v the matter in the true light, I give the 
statement of your original report which you say I 
have tried to invalidate. It is this : 
" �
then passed to the Decalogue, Ex. xx, 8-11.— 
Some thought this passage proved the Sabbath to be 
a primary institution, established at the creation.—
But it was replied, that it does not say any thing of 
the kind, hence that conclusion is only an inference, 
which is not sufficient to establish a truth or a relig-
ious duty." 
The following is the manner in which, as you state, 
the Review attempted to invalidate your " report :" 
"??hose who will look at the fourth commandment 
FOR THEMSELVES can judge of the truth of C.'s asser-
tion that the Sabbath is not a primary institution, or 
that the proof of it at least, rests upon mere inference. 
Where does this text place the origin of the holy Sab-
bath? For this is the gland question before us. At 
the giving of the manna in the wilderness of Sin ?—
Silent about that wilderness. Did God say then, (at 
Sinai,) ' 1 now institute the Sabbath P Verily, he 
does not ! And it is very evident that he could not 
thus say. For C. is obliged to admit that some how 
or-other it was in existence at least thirty days be-
fore the Hebrews came to Sinai. What does God 
say then as to the origin of his Sabbath ? [Rest-day.] 
He states the reasons on which the fourth command-
ment rests in these words: 'For in six days the 
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in 
them is, and rested the seventh day : wherefore the 
Lord blessed the SABBATH-DAY, and hallowed it.'—
Verse 11. Then the seventh day was the Sabbath of 
the Lord, prior to his act of sanctifying and hallowing 
it. �
And this act of blessing and sanctifying the day, 
hninediately followed his act of resting upon it. Gen. 
ii, 2, 3. If these facts do not prove the origin of the 
Sabbath prior to man's fall, then they mean much 
less than they express. What act made it Jehovah's 
Rest-day ?—IIis act of resting upon it—not at Sinai, 
not in the wilderness of Sin, but at Creation. What 
made it holy unto the Lord'—his holy day' &c?—
His own act of' blessing and hallowing it in Eden.—
Since then it has been the holy Sabbath unto the 
Lord. It does not derive its sanctity from Sinai, no, no. 
But because of the sanctity it already possessed, it was 
placed in Jehovah's royal law. Let the fourth com-
mandment speak for itself." 
The time when God gave an express precept for the 
observance of his Sabbath is not the point on which 
its institution turns. For the Sabbath is mentioned 
10 �
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
in Ex. xvi, before any express precept for its observ-
ance is named. Therfoluth commandment itself points 
us back to the beginning for the origin of God's Rest-
day ; and we may add that although one only of the 
other nine commandments of the Decalogue existed in 
the form of direct precept, prior to the departure from 
Egypt, yet no person attempts to dispute that the 
moral duties contained therein have existed as such 
from Creation. The duty to keep the Rest-day holy 
grows out of the fact that God has hallowed and sanc-
tified that day. And such will remain the duty of 
man until God's blessing and sanctification shall be re-
moved from the day of his rest.—You continue 
" The Review had no occasion for saying that C. 
is obliged to admit that some how or other it [the 
Sabbath] was in existence at least thirty days before 
the Hebrews came to Sinai' I have never shown any 
unwillingness to admit that." 
Had you not attempted to make out that the Tes-
timony (not then in existence) was mentioned in the 
wilderness of Sin even more familiarly than the Sab-
bath, I should not have had reason to conclude that 
you wished to darken as far as posSible the fact that 
it then existed. If you can assign any other reason for 
that attempt, please do so. 
In answer to your inquiry why the Review con-
tends for the institution of the Sabbath before the 
giving of the Decalogue, I reply, because of the facts 
already stated, which prove the institution of the Sab-
bath at Creation. And of this, as already seen, the 
Decalogue itself furnishes the most decided proof.—
In connecting it with circumcision and the passover 
" you therefore do greatly err." 
You next speak of the great propriety with which 
God could say to the people at Sinai, "Remember the 
Sabbath-day," inasmuch as he had made it known to, 
and enjoined it upon them, a month previous, and 
some of them had violated it, &e. You judge rightly, 
that without some knowledge of the Sabbath the chil-
dren of Israel could not be called upon to "Remem-
ber" it. But let me ask, What day was it that he re-
quired them thus to keep in memory ? The day of 
his rest from Creation, or some day on which he had 
rested in the wilderness of Sin ? If the Sabbath did 
originate in that wilderness, is it not very remarka-
ble that the Decalogue instead of citing us to the wil-
derness in question, should point us back to Crea-
tion ? 
You inquire why we find no reproof in Ex. xvi for 
neglect or forgetfulness respecting. the Sabbath ? In 
answer, you are requested to read verse 28, which 
contains the reproof of Jehovah given to certain of 
the people for violating his Sabbath. "HOW LONG 
refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws 1" 
The truth of your statement that "The plain, ob-
vious teaching of Hob. iv is 'sublime nonsense' to the 
Review !" may be judged from reading the language 
of the Review. It is as follows : 
"Is it not sublime nonsense to say that the Sabbath 
was made as a memorial of the departure of Israel 
from Egypt, or as a type of man's future redemption 
end rest after the Second Advent, when as yet he had 
not fallen ?" 
Now I beg your attention while I inquire, Is it " the 
plain, obvious teaching of Heb. iv," that the Sab-
bath was made as a memorial of the departure of Is-
rael from Egypt ? Does it contain even an intima-
tion of that kind? And as there is nothing of the 
kind therein recorded, I next inquire whether Hob. iv 
contains any "plain obvious teaching" that God 
sanctified the day of his rest as a type of the final 
test of the saints? Failing to find such statements, 
I remark that I did not refer to "the plain obvi-
ous teaching" of the apostle Paul but to certain un-
warrantable inferences of your own. You wish me 
to explain the third verse of the chapter. Its hidden 
meaning I shall leave to yourself, but will notice some 
of the plain obvious statements of that portion of 
Scripture, and its connection. The works of God were 
FINISHED from the foundation of the world. For he 
spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this 
wise, And God did rest the seventh day mom ALL 
-HIS WOR/gS. The Great Creator then entered his rest. 
After man had fallen; God held out to him the hope 
of restoration and final admission to that rest; but to 
a large class who had provoked him he sware that 
they should not enter it. Again through David he 
sets before man the hope of final admission to his rest. 
This shows that the rest of the saints is yet future, 
and remains to be realized by them. 
The statement which you make respecting the zeal 
Or Sabbath-keepers some time since in teaching that 
the Sabbath is a type, and now in denying that it is 
a type, is, so far as my knowledge extends, entirely 
uncalled for. Several who first embraced the Sab-
bath, as T. M. Preble, J. B. Cook, and others, who 
have since relinquished it, taught that it was a type. 
To some extent that idea was received, though I know 
of no instance in which it was presented by us as a 
point of importance. But never since the point has 
been examined have we seen any reason to believe 
that the Sabbath is a type. If we have here resort-
ed to dishonorable expedients, you are requested to 
sustain the charge by facts ; if we have not, then the 
use of a dishonorable expedient may rest where it be-
longs. 
Before noticing my argument respecting Deut. 
v, 12-15, you refer to one of its concluding remarks 
which reads thus : " He had brought them out of 
the house of bondage' where they could not keep the 
Sabbath, [Proof Ex. i, 13, 14; iii, 7 ; v, 4-19 ; vi, 9,] 
and placed them in a situation where every thing was 
adjusted with reference to the Sabbath, that he might 
prove them whether they would walk in his law or 
no.'" Ex. xvi. After stating that these texts make 
no allusion to the Sabbath, you say: 
" This is the kind of proof the Review .relies on in 
this matter! To those who will admit such proof, 
it can prove anything it pleases to assert with its ac-
customed assurance. It dares enforce, as positive and 
plain divine revelation, its own groundless inferences. 
which contain not the first ray of evidence! 0 that 
it and its readers might see the fearfulness of such a 
course, and abandon it." 
It is very true that the Sabbath is not spoken of in 
these texts, but the situation of the people, (the point 
before us) is " a great truth plainly stated." The 
texts referred to, show that the children of Israel were 
in the most abject bondage, under the control of a mon-
arch who denied any knowledge of Jehovah, [Ex. v, 
2,] and who forced them to toil to the utmost in "the 
iron furnace," so that their cry came up to heaven by 
reason of their bitter bondage. Such was the situa-
tion of the mass of the people. Ex. ii, 23, 24; Acts 
vii, 19, 34; Deut. iv, 20 ; 1 Kings viii, 51. You are 
requested to explain how the Rest-day of Jehovah 
could be observed by a people thus situated, "and af-
ter that," if you will, "mock on." 
After saying that the "Review evidently feels the 
need of obscuring the clear light of Deut. v, 12-15," 
and that "to di, this it resorts to a number of expedi-
ents, all of which will avail nothing with the candid,', 
you remark : 
"It says Dent. v, is not the Decalogue as uttered 
by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal of it by Moses forty 
years afterward. Some things are added and some 
thing are omitted.' What ! does the Review charge 
Moses with corrupting the Decalogue? Hear his 
own testimony. tHere you introduce verses 2-4, 
which precede the rehearsal of the ten commandments 
by Moses, and verse 22 which follows, and contin-
ue:] This transcript of the Decalogue is attested 
more at length and with more precision than that in 
Ex. xx. These words the Lord spake' and wrote 
them in two tables of stone.' Yet the Review says 
this is not the Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah.' 
The reader may decide which to credit, Moses or the 
Review. If more is contained in the transcript of the 
Decalogue in Ex. xx or in Deut. v than was written 
on the two tables, that which contains this addition 
is a corruption, and Moses' testimony is untrue, that 
the Lord spoke these words' and wrote them'. But 
we believe Moses' testimony, and that he did not cor-
rupt the Decalogue." 
To expose the sophistry of the course of argument 
adopted by yourself, and to show your utter inability 
to answer the questions there addressed you, I append 
the words of the Review. The expedients which you 
charge me with resorting to, speak for themselves : 
"I can hardly suppress a smile when I witness the 
eagerness with which C. grasps this text, which says 
not one word about the ORIGIN of the Sabbath, to 
prove that it was instituted after Israel left Egypt. 
The Dedalogue, as uttered by the voice of the King 
Eternal, gives us the reasons on which the Sabbatic in-
stitution is based. Ex. xx, 8-11. These, as it has 
been already shown, are all against C.—Deut. v, does 
not give one of these reasons. And we submit this 
point to him, Can you tell from Deut. v why the se-
venth day should have been preferred to the first, the 
second, or the fifth days as the Sabbath of the Lord? 
And further, can you tell from the same chapter how 
it happened that any day was called the Sabbath 
[Rest-clay] of the Lord'? And if you cannot answer, 
as most assuredly you will not be able to do from 
Deut. v, then you must confess that we must look to 
Ex. xx, which explains the whole matter. For it is a 
rule (I think) to interpret that which is less particular, 
by that which is full and definite. Deut. v is not the 
Decalogue as uttered by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal 
of it by Moses forty years afterward. Some things 
are added, and some things are omitted. Now look at 
its mention of the Sabbath. It begins [verse 12] as 
follows : 'Keep the Sabbath-day to sanctify it AS 
the Lord thy God bath commanded thee.' Now where 
had he commanded this act? In Ex. xx, where God 
commanded the Hebrews to rest on the seventh day, 
for he had rested on that day at Creation.' Then 
Deuteronomy itself; cites us to Exodus for the Sab-
batic law, and Ex. xx gives it, with reasons that base 
the institution on what was done at Creation. Nay, 
it even calls the seventh day the Sabbath, as we have 
before shown, prior to the fall of man. 
Does Deut. v contradict the testimony of Ex. xx, 
and tell us that the Sabbath was made after the de-
parture from Egypt ? Not an intimation of the kind 
is given. Does it tell us that the Sabbath commemo-
rated the departure from Egypt? Not a word of 
that. Let the original commandment speak. 'Re-
member (the day of the Exodus? No! but remem-
ber) the Sabbath-day.' What day is the Sabbath 
day? Some day connected with their flight from 
Egypt? No ! No It is the day on which Jehovah 
rested from his work of creation ! " 
Your statement that in the above I charge Moses 
with corrupting the Decalogue, shall now be noticed. 
You take exceptions to three sentences, the first two 
of which read thus : " Dent. v is not the Decalogue as 
uttered by Jehovah. It is a rehearsal of it by Moses 
forty years afterward." Now this is a statement the 
truth or falsity of which can easily be tested. If you 
will turn to Ex, xix, you will there read that God 
came down on Mount Sinai in the third month after 
the departure from Egypt, and, continuing the narra-
tive, you read in the first verse of the next chapter that 
God then spake the words recorded in verses 2-17 of 
that chapter. This is its time and place, and this the 
utterance of the Decalogue. 
Now turn to Dent. i, 3, and you will find that the 
date of the book is the fortieth year after the depart-
ure from Egypt. Chapter v speaks for itself. It 
purports [verses 1-5] to be a REHEARSAL of the words 
spoken on the occasion described in. Ex. xix; xx. 
This is direct proof that Deut. v is not the original 'ver-
sion of the Decalogue, but is a rehearsal of it. As fur-
ther proof on this point, notice the language ofthefourth 
and fifth commandments as here•given.: "Keep the 
Sabbath-day to sanctify it, AS the Lord thy God HATE 
COMMANDED thee." " Honor thy father and thy 
mother AS the Lord thy God HATH COMMANDED thee." 
Thus both of these, precepts contain direct evidence 
that they are not, the original commandments, as ut-
tered by Jehovah, but plainly cite you to the original, 
already in existence. My first statement therefore 
is vindicated by undeniable facts. 
Now I will examine the statement that causes yen 
so much horror. It is this; " Some things are added 
and some things are omitted." This also is a point 
BO simple that its truth or falsity may at once be tes-
ted. Turn to Ex. xx, 11, and you have a plain state-
ment respecting the institution of the Sabbath 'at Cre-
ation, and the reasons out of which the institution 
grows. This verse Deut. v °sees, and consequently 
says nothing respecting the origin of the Sabbath or, 
Rest-day of the Lord. Now please to notice a mo-
ment longer. Dent. v, 15, which assigns as a reason 
why its observance was enjoined upon the people of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. �
11 
Israel, viz: that they had been delivered out of the 
cruel and bitter bondage of Egypt, is ADDED by Mo-
. • 
Mo-
ses in this rehearsal of the Decalogue. (And even 
this verse cites us elsewhere for the original precept.) 
As the facts in the case sustain every point that you 
have assailed, you are at liberty either to withdraw 
your charges, or to stand in array against the plain 
statements of the Bible. However, if you wish to 
teach (in the face of plain, undeniable facts to the con-
trary) that Dent. v is the original version of the 
Decalogue, and that Ex. xx is a rehearsal of it by 
Moses, then let toe show you that the charge of teach-
ing that Moses corrupted the Decalogue applies with 
equal force to yourself: For if Ex. xx be a rehearsal of 
Dent. v, (a gross absurdity !) then it is plain that it 
ADDS the whole of its eleventh verse, (the account of 
the institution of the Sabbath) and OMITS the whole 
of Deut. v, 15, (the reference to the Egyptian bond-
age.) Is it not so? As I expressly stated that Deut. 
v does not contradict Ex. xx, I can see no excuse 
whatever for the charges which you make. You next 
remark as follows : 
"Now the COMMAND is plainly stated in both places, 
and in nearly the same phraseology: but in Ex. xx, 
the reason is assigned for enjoining the seventh day 
as a Sabbath in preference to any other, and in Dent. 
v, the reason is assigned for enjoining the Sabbath to 
be kept: this latter is what especially concerns us in 
this discussion.—For by the question, When was 
the Sabbath instituted 7 is, of course, meant, When 
were men required to keep it?'" 
Your idea, that Ex. xx gives the reason why the 
seventh day was to be kept as the Sabbath, does very 
well as far as it goes ; but the plain statement of that 
chapter, that it was the Sabbath at the time when 
God blessed and sanctified the day, you keep out of 
sight. Really, if you had no theory that would be 
upset by the admission, would you hesitate for a mo-
ment to acknowledge that the holy Rest-day of the 
Creator originated at the close of Creation, and not 
in the wilderness of Sin? The first mention of the 
seventh day states that God rested upon it, sanctified 
and blessed it. Gen. ii, 2, 3. The next time it is 
mentioned in the Bible it is called " the rest of the ho-
ly Sabbath unto the Lord." Ex. xvi, 22, 23. What 
had been done to the seventh day between these two 
points ? Nothing. The next chapter that speaks of 
of the seventh day (Ex. xx) proves plainly that by 
the acts named in the first mention of it, [Gen. ii, 2, 3,] 
the seventh day became the Sabbath. 
The reason assigned for enforcing upon Israel the ob-
servance of that day which was hallowed at Creation 
is perfectly niltural, and does not furnish the slightest 
proof that the seventh day became the Sabbath of the 
Lord after the departure from Egypt. The other pre-
cepts of the Decalogue might be observed even in ab-
ject bondage ; but the observance of the Rest-day of the 
Lord was a question which, not themselves, but their 
masters would decide. 
The question before us, is not, 'When was the first 
precept on record given, requiring the observance of 
the Sabbath ? but. When did the seventh day become 
the holy Sabbath ? 
The fourth commandment did not create the moral 
duty of keeping the sacred Rest-day of the Lord, any 
more than the first, second, third, fifth, or tenth com-
mandments create the moral duties which they were 
given to guard. For all these moral duties are as old 
as Creation, and neither of them is affected by the fact 
that the first direct precept on record respecting them 
was given after the departure from Egypt —You shall 
be heard further: 
"Now hear zlehovah's answer to this important 
question : 
And remember that thou west a servant 
in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord thy God 
hr6ught thee out thence through a mighty hand and 
by a stretched out arm : therefore the Lord thy God 
commanded thee to keep the Sabbath day.' A state-
ment so plain as this ought to end all controversy on 
the question involved. God's people were servants in 
Egypt, he delivered them: THEREFORE he com-
manded them to keep the Sabbath day. Now as this 
is the only reason God gave for commanding that day 
to be kept, it settles the point, and proves in the most 
positive manner that that commandment did not exist 
with that people before the deliverance from Egypt, 
as its express design was, to keep them in mind of the 
heavy bondage of Egypt and their wonderful deliver- 
ance therefrom. No more need be said on this point: 
if such testimony will not avail, it is useless to adduce 
any other," 
As you rest your argument in the most confident 
manner on this last position, I call your attention to 
its defects : 
1. Dent. v does NOT furnish the ONLY reason for 
commanding the observance of the Sabbath. The 
grand reason, the blessing and sanctification of the 
Rest-day, is not even noticed. Now look at Ex. xx, the 
original version of the Decalogue. Verses 8-10 give the 
grand Sabbath commandment (of which, by the way, 
1)eut. v, 12 only claims to be a rehearsal) and the 
next verse gives the great primary reason in words 
not easily explained away. Please read the reason as 
assigned by Jehovah in the sentence that follows the 
Sabbath commandment : "For [BECAUSE] in six days 
the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that 
in them is, and rested the seventh 'day ; wherefore 
the Lord blessed the Sabbath-day and hallon ed it." 
2. You have exactly reversed the statement of 
Dent. v, 15. Instead of making the deliverance from 
Egypt a reason for remembering the Sabbath, you 
make the observance of the Sabbath something ex-
pressly designed to commemorate their deliverance 
from Egyptian bondage. This idea flatly contradicts 
the language of Jehovah: "Remember the Sabbath-
day ;" that is, the day on which he rested at Creation, 
and not the day of their flight from Egypt. 
3. But as you rest the whole weight of your argu-
ment upon the language, " THERErORE the Lord thy 
God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day," and 
think that if this testimony does not prove that the 
Sabbath was instituted after the departure from Egypt, 
that it will be useless to adduce any other, it shall be 
noticed in particular. Turn to Dent. xxiv, 17, 18, 
and you will read thus: 
"Thou shalt not pervert the judgment of the stran-
ger, nor of the fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment 
to pledge; but thou shalt remember that thou vast 
a bond-man in Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeem-
ed thee thence; THEREFORE I command thee to do 
this thing." (The same form of expression occurs 
in verse 22, and in Dent. xv, 15 ; xvi, 12.) If the ex-
pression in Dent. v, 15 proves that before the depart-
ure from Egypt, men had not been under obligation 
to keep the Sabbath which God sanctified and hallow-
ed at Creation, Does not the SAME EXPRESSION in 
Dent. xxiv, 17, 18 prove that men had not been un-
der obligation, prior to the departure from Egypt, to 
treat with justice and mercy the stranger, the father-
less and the widow? And if you confess that such a 
position is a monstrous absurdity, then I would ask 
further, Is it not a legitimate conclusion drawn from 
premises laid down by yourself? Will you not be 
candid enough to acknowledge that this your conclud-
ing argument to prove that the Sabbath was instituted 
after the departure from Egypt, is nothing but a base-
less inference ?—I now append the language of the 
Review to which the remarks noticed above is your 
reply : 
"But does not Moses say, 'The Lord thy God 
brought thee out thence, through a mighty hand and 
by a stretched-out arm : THEREFORE the Lord thy 
God commanded thee to keep the Sabbath-day ?' 
Truth. But is there a word in all this that tells us 
how there came to be a Sabbath-day ? Not one, It 
does not give one word respecting its origin. But it 
does give the reason why God enforced it upon the 
children of Israel. 
He had brought them out of the house of bond-
age' where they could not keep the Sabbath, [Proof' 
Ex. i, 13, 14, ; iii, 7 ; v, 4-19 ; vi, 9,] and placed then, 
in a situation where every thing was adjusted with 
reference to the Sabbath, that he might prove them 
whether they would walk in his law or no.' But 
lest C. should say the fourth commandment origina-
ted the Sabbath, we find the Sabbath in existence BE-
FORE ANY express command to keep it had been given. 
Ex. xvi, 23. The reader will notice that it is not, 
When was the fourth commandment given? that has 
been the question before us, but, When was the Sab-
bath ITSELF instituted?' As C. speaks of cause and 
effect, we will try to state them distinctly : 
1. THE CAUSE: God BLESSED THE SEVENTH DAY 
AND sANCTIFIED IT; because that in it he had rested 
from all his work,' 
2. THE EFFECT ; 
I The Sabbath WAS MADE for 
mane.' 
Dut. v, which says not one word about the ORIGIN 
OF THE SABBATH' is presented as �
direct and posi- 
tive answer to the question,' and in the estimation of 
C. makes IT AS PLAIN AS ANY THING CAN BE! We 
sum np the question discussed as follows : 
1. God sanctified the Sabbath at Creation. Ex. xx, 11. 
2. lie made it known to the Hebrews in the most 
solemn manner. Neh. ix, 13, 14. 
3. The fourth commandment of the royal law, em-
bodies the sacred institution, and renders it as immu-
table as that law. Rom. iii, 31 ; Luke xvi, 17,"—
You continue : 
2. "For whom, was the Sabbath instituted? The 
Review calls the use made of Dent. v, a wicked per-
version ; yet it says, C. 's syllogism proves that the 
Sabbath was not binding on the Patriarchs.' 'Well 
let that remain then—a nail in a sure place. But the 
Review constructs another syllogism, the conclusion 
of which is, virtually that God did not make a cov-
enant with his people in Horeb which he had not 
made with their fathers; for it insists that nothing 
new was enjoined by the covenant in Horeb. Here 
again the Reriew is in direct array against Moses ; he 
affirms, and it denies I" 
Perhaps nothing can show in a plainer manner your 
disposition to wrest my words, and to hide my argu-
ments (rather I should say, the necessity that com-
pels you thus to act) then to present the words of the 
Review to which you refer. They are these: 
"To show the wicked perversion of this text, [Dent. 
v, 1-3,] so often made, we say to C. Come now let 
us reason together 
1. The Lord made not this covenant with our fath-
ers, but with us, even us, who are all of us hero alive 
this day.' 
2. The Sabbath was a part of that covenant which 
Moses said God made with the people in Horeb, and 
not with their fathers.' 
3. Hence the duty enjoined in the fourth command-
ment was not binding on the patriarchs. 
Really, tins disposes of the Sabbath in an admira-
ble manner; but let us try it again: 
1. 'The Lord made not this covenant with our fa-
thers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive 
this day.' 
2. The precepts Thou shalt has e no other gods be-
fore me, Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven 
image, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy 
God in vain, Honor thy father and thy mother. 
Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt net commit adultery. 
Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false wit-
ness, Thou shalt not covet,' were a part of the core-
nant which Moses said, God made with the people in 
Horeb and not with their fathers.' 
3. Hence the duties enjoined in these nine command-
ments were not binding upon the patriarchs!! 
Such a freedom as that, is really the freedom for 
which the carnal mind has ever plead. Rom. viii, 7 : 
2 Pet. ii, 18-22.—C's syllogism moves that the Sab-
bath was not binding on the patriarchs; mine (con-
structed on the same foundation) proves that none of 
the duties enjoined in the Decalogue were ! But that 
which proves too much, proves nothing to the point.'" 
Had there been any chance to show wherein the 
second syllogism was not as fair as the first, you 
would, doubtless, have pointed it out. If your syllo-
gism is good for any thing it may be turned against 
either of the commandments with the same propriety 
that it can be against the fourth, And with the same 
propriety (I submit to yourself) it can be turned 
against them all. The necessity of your case must in-
deed be great, or you would not catch at a straw and 
call it "a nail in a sure place." The sentence read: 
thus: "C.'s syllogism proves that the Sabbath was 
not binding on the patriarchs: mine, (constructed on 
the same foundation) proves that none of the duties 
enjoined in the Decal ogue were !" The conclusion of 
the first syllogism you rest upon as a sure foundation, 
when the second exposes the sophistry and perversion 
of the first, Your "nail in a sure place" is fastened 
in a perversion; but it is on nails of this kind that 
your argument hangs. 
12 �
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. 
You then quote Dout. v, 2, 3; Jer. xxxi, 32; Heb. viii, 9, 
to prove that God made a oovenantwith hie people in Horeb, 
and to prove that this covenant was the Deoalogue, you quote 
Dent. v; Ex. xxxiv, 28; Haut iv, 12, 13; ix, 9, 11, 16. You 
then draw the conclusion that "the Deoalogue contains some-
thing that God had not given to the fathers of those with whom 
he covenanted in Horeb." And you think that as all the eth-
er duties enjoined in the Deoalogue must have been binding 
on their fathers, that it was the precept respecting the sanoti-
fied/Rest-day of the Lord. Now it is not necessary to spend 
many words on this point. If your argument, that the cove-
nant which was made in Horeb was the ten commandments, 
and that it was not made in the days of the patriarchs, proves 
that the Sabbath did not then exist, it also proves that the 
first, second, third, and indeed all the commandments were not 
then in existence. 
Your argument proves too much, vie that none of the moral 
duties were binding in the days of the patriarohe, or it proves 
nothing to the point, and leaves the moral duties embodied in 
the Decalogne, entirely unaffected. 
I will test the character of the inference, which is your 
main argument in answering the second question, 
The covenant made in Horeb either did or did not institute 
the duties of the moral law. 1. If it did institute them, then 
it enables you to prove that the Sabbath, with all the rest of 
the moral precepts in the Deoalogue, was made for the Hebrews 
only. But this would prove that idolatry, blasphemy, mur-
der, adultery, theft, false-witness and covetousness, as well as 
Sabbath-breaking, had not been wrong prior to that time, and 
were not then wrong for any other people than the Hebrews. 
2. But if the covenant made in Horeb coax EMBODIED these 
moral duties, WITHOUT creating them, then you have not in 
this text ONE raaemorr of proof that the Sabbath was made 
in Horeb for the Jews. Your proof here is an inference drawn 
from the fact that God then made a covenant with Israel.—
But that covenant did not create the Sabbath, for it was in ex-
istence BEFORE the covenant was made. Ex. xvi. 
But you think that Ex. xxxi, 16 confirms this view that the 
Sabbath was made with and for the Hebrews only. As the 
text does not say any thing of the kind, it is sufficient to an-
swer, that this is only another inference which is quite too 
weak to establish the idea. 
Tho language of Christ, that "the Sabbath was made for 
man," (standing in direct contradiction of your inferences to 
prove that it was made for the Hebrews only,) you attempt to 
get over by saying that Christ's testimony does not bear against 
your view, "unless it can first be proved that the Israelites 
wore not men." Mark the contrast. Christ says "the Sab-
bath was made for man." You point to a fraction of the hu-
man family, and say that it was made for that fraction only, 
and that Christ's words do not show the contrary, unless I can 
prove that that fraction is not composed of men How weak 
and unreasonable is such an assertion 1 How reasonable the 
statement, that it was made for Gentiles as well as Jews, un-
less it can he proved that Gentiles are not men. If you have 
any proof to offer that they are not men, it will help your ease ; 
if you have not, you stand in array against the statement of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. 
That the Sabbath was a sign between God and Israel, sim-
ply shows that it designated them as the worshipers of the 
TRUE GOD in distinction from the nations around them who 
worshiped "the gods that have not made the heavens and the 
earth." Ser. x, 10-12; Bee. xx, 20. 
The great stress laid on the language of the fourth com-
mandment to prove that the Jews alone should keep it, shows 
how difficult a case you have undertaken. It is very true 
that the words, "thou," "thy," and "thine," do often oeour; 
but had you taken the trouble to read the other command-
ments, you would have found precisely the same words often 
used. Notice in particular the fifth and the ninth command-
ments. 'If the word "thy" and "thine" restrict the duty en-
joined in the fourth commandment to the Jews only, then they 
also restrict to them the duties enjoined in the other precepts. 
And BS the term "thy God" occurs five times in the Deoalogue, 
it goes as far to prove that the God of the Bible is a Jewish 
God as it does to prove that the Sabbath of the Lord is a Jew-
ish Sabbath. 
But what is quite as remarkable, the two commandments, 
which you are pleased to admit as binding on all men in all 
firm, were given to the Jews as really as were the ten. And 
these use the same "Jewish" pronoun quite as freely as that 
herd to be got rid of fourth commandment. "THOU shalt 
love the Lord THY God with all THINE heart, and with ell 
THY soul, and with all THY might." "THOU shalt love 
THY neighbor as THYSELF." 
You deem the language referred to as the most explicit, and 
unanswerable proof that the fourth commandment belonged to 
the Jews only, and that whosoever should teach differently ex-
poses himself to the penalty of adding to the law of God.—
Now don't be too strong. Whosoever, on this reasoning, shall 
isnlial that either of the two great principles, or any of the ten 
precepts that grow out of these primotples, We binding on any 
other besides the Jews, exposes himself to the penalty of add-
ing to the law. And inasmuch as God is said to be " THY 
God" he must be "the God of the Jews only, and not of the 
Gentiles also I" 
But to determine who the "thee" and "thou" are to whom 
the law speaks, I inquire, To how many does the law speak 
To the Jews only, or to all the family of fallen man? Paul 
answers : 
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it 
saith to them who are under the law ; that every mouth may 
be stopped, and ALL THE WORLD may become guilty be-
fore God." Rom. iii, 19. 
Our views of the two commandments, and the ten, are in 
harmony with the words of Christ, of Paul, and of James.—
Matt. xxii, 36-40; Rom. xiii, 9; James ii, 8-12. Your 
statement that we contradict the words of Christ in Matt. xxii, 
40, is false.—We regard these two great precepts, and the ten 
which grow out of them, as the Royal law of God. Your re-
mark that " the Deoalogue is inapplicable as a universal and 
perpetual law," and that it has given way to " the uninoumber-
ed moral law," was not intended, we presume, with reference to 
the statutes that forbid idolatry, blasphemy, disobedience to 
parents, murder, adultery, theft, false-witness and covetous-
ness. 0 no. But the precept embodying the Sabbath that 
was made for man at Creation, was Jewish, and had obtained a 
place in that " holy, spiritual, loot and good law," to get rid 
of which, it was all abolished. 
The Gentiles were amenable to the law of God or they were 
not. If they were not amenable to the law of God, then they 
must be regarded as moral beings, but accountable only to the 
gods of their own creating. But if they were amenable to the 
law of God, they were amenable to its fourth precept, the holy 
Sabbath. 
To your remark reeproting the existence of the Sabbath in 
the new earth, and your query whether wearisome labor will 
then exist, I answer that inasmuch as the prophet Isaiah, in 
speaking of the new earth, says that all flesh shall assemble 
from Sabbath to Sabbath to worship before Jehovah, we are 
decidedly of the opinion that it will exist in that holy state.—
Nor does this imply that wearisome labor will then exist, any 
more than the statement of Ex, xxxi, 17, that the Great Cre-
ator rested on the seventh day and was refreshed, implies that 
he was wearied with his work of Creation. 
The institution of the Sabbath is not affected by the fact 
that there will be nothing of the character of servile labor in 
the kingdom. 
Not being able to discover any connection between your sig-
nificant question, Whether the relation of wives would be 
perpetuated in the new earth? and the institution of the holy 
Sabbath, you are requested to point it out, if the question 
means any thing more then a sneer. 
Having noticed the inferences that you have drawn from the 
expression, "The Lord made not this covenant with our fa-
thers," and from the words "thee" and "thy" in the fourth 
commandment, to prove that the Sabbath was made for none 
but the Hebrews, (what proof !) and shown that the first infer-
ence may be turned against any, or all of the commandments 
with equal propriety, and that the second inference bears 
no more against the fourth commandment than it does against 
the two and the ton, and that the law of God speaks to all the 
fallen race of Adam, so that "thee" and "thou" is not limit-
ed to the sons of Jacob, I inquire, Are not " Great truths plain-
ly stated?" And are not these inferences contomptable and 
gaits too weak to bear their own weight? 
In order to strengthen these inferences, you make some ef-
fort to redeem several objections, urged by yourself at the 
first, against the universal observance of the Sabbath. It is 
with evidence of this kind that "the disputers of this world" 
are able (in their own estimation) to prove the impossibility 
of the resurrection of the body. 
In answering your first objection, viz : that the Sabbath low 
forbids the kindling of a tire on that day, I pointed you to the 
fact that nothing of the kind is found in the grand Sabbath 
law, the fourth commandment, which is a part of the royal law. 
And that the hand-writing of ordinances, which regulates this 
matter, and also shows what offerings should ho made on that 
clay Ac., was designed only for a particular people in a particular 
country. You request me to look at what you are pleased to oall 
a "correction" of my "perversion" of the royal law. Your 
request was complied with in my first letter, and your so-cal-
led correction shown to be a flagrant perversion of my words. 
The next thing at which you catch is the idea that those 
who live in the polar regions have half a year of sunshine, 
and then a half year of darkness, and that if they followed the 
Sabbath law, they must count this but one day, so that a Sab-
bath could odour but once in seven years. This idea you think 
is admitted by me, in my saying that it is doubtless the scrip-
ture method to regulate our time by the sun, Instead of Pal-
estine, and thus to keep the seventh day as it manes to us• 
This you think proves that those who live in the polar re-
gions would have a Sabbath only once in seven years, and we 
in the same time would have 364. Surely, this circumstance 
is ample proof that the Sabbath is a local institution, and eve- 
ry body ought to be satisfied of this! 
Please to read Gen. 1, 14-18. God made the sun earl moon 
to rule the day, and to rule the night, and to divide time into 
days and years. Now, as it is in the highest degree absurd to 
believe that the Creator then established two contradictory 
methods of reckoning time; we conclude that those who are 
favored with the light of the sun and moon as the earth revolv-
es on its axis, enjoy the benefit of these great time-keepers, 
while those who may be beyond their light for a long period, 
do not enjoy the benefit of this division. Look at the words of 
the Review again: 
" Relative to the people that have but ' one Sabbath in se- 
ven years,' we ask whether this statement made by C. was 
in sober earnest, or thrown in for effect. Look at the Sabbatie 
law. We are to work six days because God made heaven and 
earth in six days—not in six thousand years—nor yet in six 
years ; and we are to rest the seventh day—not a thousand 
years—nor yet one year, but one day, just as God did. That 
is the guide, ' given in the Sabbath law.' The first three 
days of the Creation week were reckoned without any sun.—
When the plagues were poured out on Egypt there were three 
days of total darkness. These according to the view of O. 
made but one long night I And there is yet to be in the fear-
ful scene before us, a period when the vials of unmixed wrath 
from Jehovah's temple, shall be poured out on the worshipers 
of the Beast and of his Image, and on those who have his 
Mark, when the kingdom of the Beast shall be full of dark-
ness, and they shall gnaw their tongues for pain. But we 
ask, may not time be reckoned even then, by those to whom 
"the plagues shall not come near"—could it not be reckoned 
in Egypt--was it not reckoned in the week of Creation ? And 
finally, Cannot Sunday be reckoned in the polar regions, or 
do men who have spent a year there, reckon it but one day?" 
You continue 
" It concedes the 'difficulty' of keeping the Sabbath reckon-
ing while circumnavigating the globe—one day being lost by 
sailing in one direction, one day being gained by sailing in the 
()the* direction." 
The following is what you grasp as a concession of " difficulty:" 
"Relative to circumnavigating the globe, we ask C. a ques-
tion : Suppose that men were able to encompass the globe with 
the speed of a telegraphic despatch; suppose they could, for 
instance be able to encompass it twenty-four times in one day, 
and thus gain twenty-three days, we ask how much weight 
such a circumstance would have in deranging dates? How 
=oh weight would it have in deranging his or your reckon- 
ing of Sunday? Verily none at all. It is doubtless very dif- 
ficult to keep God's Sabbath in the polar regions, (it is here,) 
but it is not difficult to keep the day of apostolic ' preference' 
either there or in circumnavigating the globe I 
When you are 
called to circumnavigate the globe or to visit the polar regions 
we will try to aid you further; till then we earnestly suggest 
the propriety of your obeying God." 
You think every body ought to yield the " untenable" po-
sition, that the Sabbath was made for the human family, after 
reading these " insurmountable objegions." And that these 
are laws of nature with which Scripture does not conflict. 
Will you please give attention to a few thoughts from the 
Volume of Inspiration. 
1. It appears that the Sabbath could be kept from the wil-
derness of Sin, west of Palestine, to the pity of Babylon, a 
long distance to the east. These points are remote from 
each other, and the variations of time must be considerable. 
2. Nor does it appear very evident that those violated the 
Sabbath, who performed voyages of three years length, by com-
mand of that king who thought it the whole duty of man to 
"fear God and keep his commandments." 1 Kings x, 22-24, 
3. I next invite your attention to Isaiah lvi. The promise 
of gathering to God's holy mountain the outcasts of Israel, 
and the 801M of the stranger, is here distinctly stated on the 
condition that they would keep the holy Sabbath. If you choose 
dy'so, call this prophecy Jewish, these outcasts literal Jews, 
and this holy mountain, the land of their inheritance. Now 
where are these outcasts? Just where the leader of Israel pre- 
dicted; scattered among all people from the one end of the earth 
even unto the other. Dent. xxviii, 64. What is the condition 
of the gathering of these outcasts together? The observance 
of the holy Sabbath I And if they can do it in every land un-
der heaven, the sons of the stranger, who have the promise of 
being gathered on the same condition, can do it also. 
4. The Holy One of Israel bath spoken on this point, "For 
as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, 
shall remain before me, saith the Lord so shall your seed and 
your name remain. And it shall oome to pass, that from one 
new mo,,n to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall 
a 11 flesh come to worship before me, :faith the Lord:" Ise. lxvi, 
22, 23. Then if the Holy One of Israel with whom a lie is im-
possible, be credited, we may consider one point established.— 
When the dominion of Christ is from sea to sea, and from the 
river to the end of the earth, and the kingdom, and dominion, 
and the greatness* of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE 
HEAVEN, shall have been given to the people of the minim 
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. �
13 
+ 
of the Most High, ALL FLESH shalt come to worship before 
Jehovah from Sabbath to Sabbath, and from new moon to new 
moon. Then it is possible for the human family to observe 
the Sabbath over the whole globe ! 
Your second article concludes as follows: 
"But finally on this point, the Review appeals to Barrett'a 
Grammar for help on the passage : The Sabbath was made 
for man.' Mark ii, 27. The rule quoted reads: 'A noun 
without nn adjective is invariably taken in its broadest extension, 
as ; Man is accountable.' Now it happens that this noun has 
an untranslated article, which Mr. Barrett calls an adjective. 
It is as follows: 
To sabbaton dia top, anthropos egeneto, 
ouch ho anthropos dia to sabbaton," Ton' and 'ha' are the 
untranslated articles, agreeing with anthropon and anthropos, 
man. So the Review fails here again, as it must in every po-
sition it takes on this question, if attacked by the simple weap-
ons with which the armory of Scripture and reason is replete, 
and for this reason, because it is advocating an error." 
To show the character of your reply, and the manner in 
which you attempt to hide the arguments of the Review, I 
quote its words: 
" C. having presented a groundless inference, end an amount 
of ' philosophy and vain deceit. after the tradition of men, af- 
ter the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ,' we in-
quire, Does not the word of God contain some better answer 
than all this? Yea verily. The beloved Son of God has told 
us for whom the Sabbath was made, and his testimony would 
not have been disregarded, and an inference from the words 
of Moses chosen in its stead, were it not for the vain hope of 
snaking the 'Servant contradict the Son.' Jesus was with the 
Father at Creation, [John i, 1-3,] he is competent to testify. 
The Father says of him, 'This is my beloved Son, HEAR him.' 
We respond, Amen. He testifies in so many words; (his tes-
timony is ultimate truth;) 'The Sabbath was made for man.' 
Mark ii, 27; 1 Cor. xi, 9. Now look at ono or two Bible in- 
stances of such expressions. �
Man lieth down, and riseth not : 
till the heavens be no more.' Job. xiv, 12. 'There hath no 
temptation taken you but such as is common tee man.' I Cor. 
x, 13. 'It is appointed unto men once to die.' Heb. ix, 27. 
We offer the following grammatical rule from Barrett's Princi-
ples of English Grammar, p. 29. A noun without an adjec- 
tive is invariably taken in its broadest extension, as: �
Man is 
accountable.' With the following points we submit the second 
question: 
1. All flesh shall yet come to worship before Jehovah on the 
Sabbath.—God the Father. 
2. The Sabbath was made for man.—Son of God." 
As you have not attempted to reply to any part of the above 
except the grammatical rule, I remark that the rule being ta-
ken from the principles of English Grammar is with perfect 
propriety applied to our English, version. But you point to 
an untranslated article for the purpose of invalidating the use 
of the rule. Why did you not have the frankness to say that 
it was the definite article, THE, instead of calling it an untrans-
lated article 1 Let us read the text with the article transla-
ted. "The Sabbath woo mita° for THE man, not THE man fir 
the Sabbath." This language fixes the mind on THE man, 
Adam, that "was made" of the dust of the ground, just before 
"the Sabbath was made for" him, of the seventh day. 
As this text comes in at the close of our discussion on the 
questions, "When was the Sabbath instituted ?" and, "For 
whom was the Sabbath instituted ?" its testimony is of great 
value. It exactly reverses your decision, that it was made for 
the Hebrews after they left Egypt, and shows that it was 
made for the head of the human family, end consequently 
made at Creation. 
The Sabbath was made for THE man, and not THE non for 
the Sabbath. Is not this a " great trestle plainly stated"? 
J. N. ANDREWS. 
Rochester, N. Y., May 1812. 
Sea on the New Earth. 
"Yon will see a correct rendering of Rev. xxi, 1, in Prof. 
Whiting's translation, as follows: 
And f case a new heaven and a new earth : for the first 
heaven and the first earth were passed away ; and the sett was 
no more: 
It is not asserted in the original that there is no sea in the 
new earth, but that the present earth, heaven and sea will have 
passed away. It as much asserts that there will be no more 
heaven and earth in the new creation, as it does that there 
will be no more sea. All that is affirmed of either, is that the 
former were passed away—were no more. He beholds the 
new heavens and new earth, because the foreseer had dis-
appeared. The revelator says nothing about a new sea, as he 
does a new earth; because the earth often includes both earth 
and sea. Thus the first verse of Genesis asserts that 'in the 
beginning God created the heavens and earth.' The sea is 
not mentioned, and yet the sea woo these created ; for it cov-
ered the entire earth, and had afterwards to be gathered into 
one place, before the dry land could appear. As the new 
earth is to be the restitution of all things spoken of by the 
mouth of all the holy prophets, it must correspond with the 
Eden state in the existence of a sea, ae well as in other partia-
ulars."—Advent Herald, April 1852. 
to do ; but mark this, those called of God to defend his truth 
will ever possess and manifest the " Spirit of truth," the Com-
forter, given to guide into all truth. The truth of God, through 
which we are to be sanctified, is a unit, and those who have 
plc and shadow of HEAVENLY THINGS." Speaking of the amen. 
the Spirit of truth, and follow on in its channel, will be one, 
cleansing of the typical Sanctuary, also the cleansing of that 
Sanctuary in heaven of which Christ is a minister, Paul says: �
How preposterous the idea, that those who have the Spirit 
 of truth, and are called of God to publish his word, will be 
" It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the divided, hating and devouring one another! The reason why 
many of the advent people are in such a state of perfect con-
fusion, is because they reject the present truth, consectuently, 
have not the Spirit of truth to guide them in its even channel, 
figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in and are left to follow the promptings of the carnal mind, and 
the presence of God for us." IIeb. ix, 23, 24. �
cause the world to look on, and wonder, and exclaim, How 
In this manner the Apostle shows that the earthly Sanctua- these brethren hate one another! As an illustration of what 
ry, its holies and furniture wore patterns of the true in hea- we have stated we refer the reader to the "law-suit," the tri-
ven, consequently, the mercy-soot must be there. Hence it al of J. V. limes, in which the whole advent body is more 
has been dwelt upon with great delight as really existing in or loss interested. 
heaven as much as the literal person of Jesus. And thus they �
But all this forms no good reason why those who have the 
have sung : �
truth should not stand in its defense. It is indispensably nec- 
essary—it is scriptural and right—thattheyshoula in a proper 
manner defend it. Said the apostle Paul, " I am cot for the 
defense of the gospel." 
"Even es it is meet for me to think this of you all, because 
Ah ! whither should we flee for aid �
I have you in my heart, inasmuch as both in my bonds, and 
When tempted, desolate, dismayed? �
in the defense and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are par- 
Or how the hosts of hell defeat, �
takers of my grace." Phil. i, 7, 17. 
Had suffering saints no mercy-seat?" �
"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceiv- 
ers, especially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be 
Now, there is precisely the same evidence in the law of stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they 
types, and the epistle to the Hebrews, for the existence of the ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." Titus i, 10, 11. 
ark of the ten commandments in this dispensation, that there �
We are exhorted by Judo to "rontend earnestly for the 
is for the mercy-seat. Let those who doubt, search and See — faith once delivered to the saints." We have also the exam-
It would be considered infidelity to doubt the existence of the pie of the apostle Paul for defending the truth among those 
mercy-seat, and fanciful to believe that the ark of God is in who will hear, until they become hardened and refuse to lie-
the heavenly Sanctuary. Let one dare teach that the mercy- ten. 
seat has the ark still to rest upon, and he will be sailed a fa- �
" And he [Paul] went into the synagogue, and spoke boldly 
Indic, and represented as fallen from grace if ho keeps all the for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the 
holy precepts contained in that ark. 
It would be unreasonable to believe that the mercy-scat ex-
ists, and reject the ark, if there were as nosh evidence for 
one as the other; but it is a fact that there is more evidence 
that the ark of the ten commandments exists in heaven, than 
that there is a mercy-seat there. 
" Awl the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there 
Was seen in his temple the ARK of his TESTAMENT." Rev. 
xi, 19. 
"And after that I looked, and behold, the temple of the 
tabernacle of the TESTIMONY in heaven was opened." Rev. 
xv, 5. 
Is the ark, mentioned here by John, empty? If it is, how 
can it be said to be "the ark of his testament" 1 Is not the 
testimony, the ten commandments uttered by Jehovah, in the 
Heavenly Sanctuary? If it is not, why does John mention the 
" tabernacle of the testimony in heaven?" Let it be here un-
derstood that John had this view of the Heavenly Sanctuary, 
A. D. 96, about 26 years after the typical Sanctuary was des-
troyed. 
THE ARK AND THE MERCY-SEAT. 
In the Sanctuary of the first covenant the ark and the mer-
cy-seat were placed in the holiest of all, and were connected, 
the mercy-seat being placed on the ark. Hob. ix, 1-5; Ex. 
xxv, 10-21; xxvi, 33, 34. And if one exists in the heavenly 
Sanctuary, of which Christ is a minister, [Ileb. viii, 1, 2,] 
most certainly both exist there. HOW natural and reasonable 
the view that the ark containing the commandments of God 
the Father, which are the rule of man's life, should be closely 
connected with the mercy-seat where mercy and pardon may 
be found through the blood of the Son of God for the trans-
gression of that holy law. 
Christians have had much to say relative to the mercy-seat, 
as really existing in the present dispensation; but they have �
Defense of the Truths 
 
been almost silent about the ark on which it rests. The mer- 
It may be thought.unnecessary, by Mile, to reply to those 
who write against the Holy Sabbath, and show up their weak 
st:,--sent leas been dwelt upon with pleasure. The servants of 
the Lord have pointed to it as existing in heaven as really as and deceptive arguments; but we think such judge in this 
 
God and Christ, and saints have, in their prayers and songs of matter hastily. 
 
praise, mentioned the mercy-seat with great delight. And 
It is true that for the last seven years there has been much 
why not preach, pray and sing about the ark containing the strife and vain glory among professed advent believers, as 
ten commandments as well as the mercy-seat which rests upon they have been engaged in the discussion of subjects of no 
 
it? �
Those who will examine the subject will find as much evi- vital importance, and have left the scattered saints to starve 
I for want of the bread of life, the "meat in due mason," that 
donee for the existence of the ark in this dispensation as the would give life and strength to their faith. And many of the 
mercy-seat. 
advent
r �
people have seen so much strife and bitterness in the 
The apostle Paul in speaking of the first covenant Sanetua- nth ent p,apers, and with the "shepherds" and "principal of 
ry[lleb.xi, 1-5] mentions the first tabernacle, or holy place, the Hock," that they have become tired and disgusted with it. 
and its furniture, also "the tabernacle which is called the he- This 
as might be expected. We wish, however, to say to 
alert of all," n here the ark and enemy-seat were placed. An such, that it has ever boon the duty of God's servants to stand 
account.of the tvoleal Sanctuary, its two holies and furniture in defense of the truth, and it always will be their duty thus 
is given in Exodus. 
The idea of a enemy-seat in heaven, in this dispensation, is 
obtained from the law of types and Paul's commentary upon 
that law, contained in his epistle to the Hebrews. The Apos-
tle declares that the priests of the law served "unto the exam- 
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. 
"Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth.". 
ROCHESTER, THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1852. 
We have given two texts of plain bible testimony that prove 
the existence of "the ark of �
testimony." And it is a fact 
that there is not one such text in the New Testament to prove 
that there is a mercy-seat. Let those who have much to say 
relative to the mercy-seat, and think us fanatical for believing 
that the ark exists, pause a moment and look at these fasts. 
With great delight we make mention of the ark of God, as 
well as of the mercy-seat, and believe that both exist in this 
dispensation. We love the mercy-seat, before which our mer-
ciful High Priest now stands ready to plead the ease of those 
who come to him in sincerity and truth, and wley not love the 
ark of God also beneath it? Those who do, may with propri-
ety sing 
"From every stormy wind that blows, 
From every swelling tido of 
There is a calm, a sure retreat, 
'Tie found beneath the mercy-seat." 
heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things 
themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not 
entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the 
"There is a place where Jesus sheds 
The oil of gladness on our heads; 
A place than all besides more sweet, 
It is the blood-bought mercy-seat. 
things concerning the kingdom of God. But when divers were 
hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before 
the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the dis-
ciples, disputing in the school of one Tyrannus. And this con-
tinued for the space of two years." Acts xix, 9, 10. 
Says the Apostle, " If it be possible, as mach as Beth in you, 
live peaceably with all men." Rom. xii, 18. But it is not pos-
sible for the servant of God, who has the truth burning within 
him, to bold his peace when he sees that precious truth impiously 
trampled under foot. The Word justifies him in standing in 
its defense, God requires it of him, the Holy Ghost will help 
him. 
Those who teach the plain doctrines of the Bible in this age 
of apostacy may expect a warfare; but they should ever bear 
it in mind that without Jesus we can do nothing. " The weap-
ons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to 
the pulling down of strong holds ; casting down imaginations, 
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowl-
edge of God." 2 Cor. x, 4, 5. 
14 �
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. 
LETTERS. 
From Bee. Dean. 
DEAR BRO. WHITE: The REVIEW AND HERALD 
to me and my family is a welcome visitor. On the 
reception of each number, I have a feast of fat things. 
The letters from the brethren and sisters, to me are 
full of interest. I like to hear from those of like pre-
cious faith. It is encouraging to me to know that 
others are willing to suffer reproach and persecution, 
for the sake of the truth, and a good conscience. 
But trials and afflictions arc the lot of the people 
of God, and those that will live godly in Christ Jesus 
shall suffer persecution. The finger of scorn will be 
pointed at all those who believe and practice the truths 
of God's Holy Word, instead of the commandments 
of men. It is painful to think of the deep-rooted 
prejudice there is against the Sabbath of the Bible.—
The greater part of those who profess to be Christians 
have rejected the commandments of God that they 
may keep their own traditions. Yet when the Son 
of man cometh he will find faith on the earth. He 
will find a remnant of the house of Israel, the true 
church of Christ, who will be keeping the command-
ments of God and the faith of Jesus; who will be 
walking in all the laws and ordinances of the house 
of God blameless. 
It is to be feared that the great mass of professors of re-
ligion will reject the counsel of God against themselves, 
and depart farther and farther from the faith of the gos-
pel, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of 
devils, and will at last drown themselves in destruc-
tion and perdition. Verily, strait is the gate and nar-
row is the way that leadeth unto life and few there 
be that find it. We are living in an awfully solemn 
Period of time, when the servants of God are being 
sealed, and those who reject the present, saving truth 
do it to their everlasting destruction. 
Yours in hope of Eternal Life, 
M. L. DEAN. 
Ulysses, Penn., May, 1852. 
From Bro. Waggoner. 
DEAR BRO. WHITE : It may be interesting to the dear 
scattered ones to hear from the waiting few west of 
the Wisconsin river. Last week Brn. Case and Phelps 
came to this place, and have ministered to the little 
flock in word and doctrine by which we have been 
much comforted. A few have now heard this mes-
sage for the first time, and we hope the Lord will 
open their hearts, and bring them to full obedience to 
his commandments. Bro. Phelps left this afternoon 
for Pack waukee, Marquette Co. where a few precious 
ones are patiently waiting for the coming of the Lord. 
Bro. Case will leave to-morrow, Lord willing, for 
Madison. We expect to meet them both in conference 
in Middleton, Marquette Co. on the first Friday in 
June. We want the dear brethren and sisters to 
pray for us and ask the Lord to work in that confer-
ence, that this last warning may arouse the Laodice-
ans to a sense of their poverty and misery. There is 
much to be done yet in this State, especially in the 
northern part, where little or nothing has been done yet 
O that the Lord would send laborers, and wake up. 
his little ones in this country, to the importance of this 
massage. Yours in love, 
J. H. WAGGONER. 
Baraboo, Sauk Co., Wis., April 30th, 1852. 
4., WATCHMAN, WHAT OF THE NIGHT 10, 
In the long, dark night of time since man's expul-
sion from Eden, how often has this solemn and thrilling 
question been anxiously addressed to those who have 
professed to be watching "the signs of the times." As 
every new occurrence has called attention to the fulfill-
ment of the prophetic word, various have been the 
answers given to this question; but corresponding al-
ways to the situation and real character of the watch-
man addressed. 
Those who have been sleeping at their post, and 
have been anxious rather to keep those quiet who 
have entrusted in a measure the care of their souls 
to them, than to announce the true time of night, and 
to give the real note of warning, have endeavored to 
explain away, as a thing of common occurrence, the 
passing events in which the fulfillment of the prophetic 
word may be clearly seen. But those who have been 
watching with no other object than to note the ap-
proach of that long expected morning, have been able 
with Simeon, Anna, and John the Baptist to "mark 
the tokens" of coming day, and to speak of them to 
all who are looking for; redemption, and "waiting the 
consolation of Israel ." 
"Looking forward" and anxiously watching the dawn 
of day, and the restoration of the "children of promise" 
to the Paradise of God has ever been the position of 
those of whom the world. as not been worthy. 
But how greatly has this interest been increased, 
as the fulfillment of predicted events have shown in 
the clearest manner that "the great day of the Lord 
is near and hasteth greatly." 
When, but a few years since, the voice of warning 
was every,where heard, and the message was borne upon 
the wings of the wind, " The hour of his judgment 
is come," presenting at a glance, in a light so clear that 
he might run who should read it, the expiration of the 
great prophetic chains, the termination of the prophetic 
periods, and the fulfillment of the signs promised by 
our Lord to immediately precede his coming to "judge 
the quick and the dead ;" such was the mighty out-
pouring of the Spirit of God, and such the evidence 
and conviction that the message was "from heaven," 
that with one voice the waiting people of God ac-
knowledged the fulfillment of the first proclamation 
of Rev. xiv. 
Those who rejected it, did it for the same reasons 
that the Jews rejected the message of John the Bap-
tist, and with the same effect upon themselves. The 
counsel of God was rejected against their own souls. 
Following this, and just preceding the great disap-
pointment, was heard the voice of the second angel, 
exposing the corruption and wickedness of the relig-
ious bodies with which the people of God were con-
nected, and holding up in its true light the purity of 
Christ's church when separate from " the friendship 
of the world," which is "enmity with God." 
These messages made the Advent people what they 
were, prior to their being scattered in the time of dis-
appointment and of " patience," through which we 
have so long been passing. And by a large portion 
of them they have ever been cherished as the work of 
the Holy Spirit, and the voice of the God of heaven 
giving us the words of Eternal Life. 
But as the voice of the third angel is beginning to be 
heard, calling our attention to the fearful oppression 
of the two-horned beast yet before us, [Rev. xiii, 11-
18,] and presenting "the commandments of God and 
the faith of Jesus," the most of those who would avoid 
the cross of keeping ALL, the commandments of the 
Father, turn round and deny the first and second mes-
sages, in order to apply them elsewhere. 
To do this the Advent Herald (which even now 
claims to be giving the first message) attempts to show 
that they were fulfilled many hundred years in the 
past; the Advent Harbinger (which has zealously pro-
claimed the first two messages) is equally certain that 
they are all to be fulfilled in a future dispensation; 
while the Advent Watchman, seeing the absurdity of 
attempting to destroy, and break down the first and 
second messages, affirms that the third message has 
been heard as distinctly as the first and second. An 
idea of which few persons ever dreamed. 
Having heretofore pointed out some of the absurdi-
ties of the first two positions named, [See Review and 
Herald Vol. II. Nos. 3 and 8,] we will briefly notice 
the last,—the position of the Advent Watchman. 
Some one having written to the Editor for help on 
this subject, the following is what this "Watchman" 
says of the night: 
"By a careful analysis of all the chapters up to xiv, 
it is very evident that the three angels (chap. xiv, 6-
12) who, in turn, fly through the midst of heaven, bear 
the latest messages of mercy to this fallen world.—
It is also very clear that the angel, verse 6, is the 
same angel of chap. x, and that the sum total of the 
three messages is no more than is contained in the one 
angel's message, in chap. x ; for both terminate in the 
judgment—not by Sabbatarians, but by the great 
God. A careful study of the book will show that the an-
gel of chap. x, is the seventh angel; that his message is 
the seventh and last message; for with that message, 
the mystery—gospel—of God is finished. So, also, the 
gospel drama is finished with all the messages in chap. 
xiv. From chap. x, we assuredly learn that the advent 
message is the last message adapted to save men, and the 
finishing truth of the gospel. The three angels of chap. 
xiv, are, therefore, advent angels, or are bearers of the 
advent message; not the first only, but all of them 
bear a part or parts of the message of chap. x, only 
their work is more minutely defined, and their order 
given." 
We wish to call attention to the leading ideas stat-
ed above: 
1. The three angels of Rev. xiv, who in turn fly 
through the midst of heaven, bear the latest messages 
of mercy to fallen men.—This we believe to be truth. 
2. But if the angel of chapter xiv, 6 " is the same 
angel of chapter x," how can the angel of chapter a 
be the same as the THREE angels of chap. xiv, 6, 8, 9 7 
3. The message of the angel of chapter x is not the 
final message, for that angel gives John directions to 
prophesy again. 
4. The reference to being judged by Sabbatarians 
reminds us of what has ever been the language of a 
certain class when the truth has uttered its just con-
demnation, beginning in the days of Lot : "This one fel-
low came in to sojourn and he will needs be a judge." 
Gen. xix, 9; 1 Cor. vi, 2, 3. 
5. A little proof that the angel of Rev. x, who de-
clares that the mystery of God should be finished in 
the days of the voice of the seventh angel, is the sev-
enth angel himself already sounding, might be quite 
as much in place as an assertion without any evidence. 
6. The three angels of Rev. xiv, bear the last mes-
sage adapted to save men, and with them the gospel, 
or mystery of God is finished. Please to bear these 
points in mind. Now we will hear this " Watchman" 
again ; 
"If; therefore, we have been preaching the advent 
doctrine in its appropriate time, these angels have 
flown in succession, as seen in vision by John—the 
first, the second, and the third. Heady all professed 
adventists admit that the first angel has flown, but 
many deny that the others have followed. The Sabba-
tarians admit that two have flown before their pecu-
liar message, and claim that they are the third. II 
they are correct, we can prove very easily that it will 
be a long time yet before the Lord will come; for a 
message of vast importance is heard in heaven, after 
the third angel has made his circuit. But we will 
keep to the point. If the first angel's message was 
the first proclamation of the advent (and this Sabba-
tarians and others admit) then the three messages 
were given before the Sabbatarians began their work 
of extravagance and folly. The advent was first pro-
claimed ; then the cry was heard, just as distinctly 
and extensively, Come out of her, my people.' Next, 
and equally distinct, was the message given to the 
church, to stand aloof from all organized governments 
of every kind; and by the faithful this message has 
been as conscientiously obeyed as was either of the 
others." 
To two or three ideas of the above we call attention; 
the remainder are not worthy of notice. 
1. The three "angels have flown in succession, as 
seen in vision by John." 
2. "The three messages were given BEFORE the 
Sabbatarians began their work of extravagance and 
folly." 
Now look at these statements in a connected man-
ner : 
1. "The three angels, (chapter xiv, 6-12,) who in 
turn fly through the midst of heaven, bear the latest 
messages of mercy to this fallen world." 
2. "These angels have flown in succession as seen in 
vision by John," and "the three messages were given 
BEFORE the Sabbatarians began their work of ex-
travagance and folly ;" that is, before they began to 
do and teach the commandments of God. 
The answer, then, to the question, "What of the 
night V' from this " Watchman" is, "The latest mes-
sage of mercy" was given several years since. 
Such is the conclusion to which this position drives 
those who occupy it. Such the result of teaching that 
the third angel's message has been fulfilled in the 
past, in the face of the fact that no one is able to show 
how, or by whom. 
But the " Watchman" tells us that "a message of 
vast importance is heard in heaven AFTER the third 
angel has made his circuit"—that is, after the "latest 
message of mercy." This " message of vast import-
ance," we are presently told, has been heard since the 
third message in '44 ; so that since that time, though 
the church has had this message, there has been no 
mercy in it. Hear the " Watchman" again : 
"But the Sabbatarians say that the beast is the 
papacy.' Indeed! does not the word inform us that 
the papal beast • was to continue but forty and two 
months.' [See chap. xiii.) How, then, can any now 
worship the papal beast, since his forty-second month 
expired more than forty years since 7 The fact is, the 
beast named here is the beast from the bottomless pit, 
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. �
15 
(chap. xi and xvii,) and can never be shown to be the 
papal beast." 
We call attention to the following points: 
1. The Scriptures of the prophets teach plainly, 
that though the dominion of the Papal beast over the 
saints of God was limited to 1260 years, yet it should 
live and make war upon them until the judgment.-
Dan. vii, 19-26. And that the concluding career of 
the Papal beast will be in an eminent degree deceptive, 
and calculated to draw after it many worshipers, is 
evident from 2 These. ii ; Rev. xiii, 8. 
2. Whoever will take the pains to compare the lan-
guage of the third angel's message with chapter xiii, 
cannot fail to identify the beast, the image, the mark &c. 
as one and the same.-But in the next paragraph the 
" Watchman" denies that that beast which was to make 
war [margin] forty and two months, and which re-
cieved "the deadly wound" was the Papal beast, a 
thing which in the last paragraph it affirmed. Hear 
it further : 
"The two-horned beast of chap. xiii, is the beast 
who commands that an image be made-not to the 
papal beast, but to the beast which had a wound 
by the sword, and did live. This was the Dragon, 
who by the sword was crushed and bound, but not 
killed, for he must live and ascend out of the pit be-
fore the end, and make war with the remnant [last 
end] of the woman's seed. The beast is a symbol of 
civil government. The two-horned beast or the beast 
from the bottomless pit, is the protestant civil govern-
ment of the world, as opposed to the papacy, origina-
ting in the revolt of Henry VIII, which is now an 
image to the old Roman forms of government." 
We offer a lbw reflections on this : 
1. It is distinctly stated [Rev. xiii, 2] that the dra-
gon gave his power and seat to this beast. But this 
" Watchman" says that this beast, which received a 
"deadly wound" was the dragon itself. Rev. xiii, 3: 
2. The "Watchman" says that the dragon was 
crushed and bound by the sword; but John says 
that he shall be bound by an angel from heaven, not 
with a sword, but with the key of the bottomless pit 
and a great chain in his hand. Rev. xx, 1-3. 
3. It is true that the dragon is to "make war with 
the remnant [last end] of the woman's seed." But 
mark, this remnant are designated by the fact that 
they "keep the COMMANDMENTS OF GOD and 
have the testimony of Jesus." 
4. How could England, under the rule of Henry 
VIII, or any other monarch, be represented as " anoth-
er beast" beside the ten-horned beast, when it is, and 
must remain one of the horns of "the first beast" un-
til he is slain and "given to the burning flame'?" 
5. lint how could the third angel's message be given 
some seven or eight years since, when, if the "Watch-
man" has now got the right idea of the two-horned 
beast, no one had the right idea of it then? For it 
will not be denied that the third angel's message re-
fers directly to the work of that beast. Compare Rev. 
xiv, 9-12; xiii, 11-18. The "Watchman" contin-
ues: 
"The woman on the scarlet beast from the pit, 
chap. aria, is nominal christendom, of every name, 
supported by civil government, sustained by the beast, 
Therefore, all that Sabbatarians claim for the change 
of the times and laws by the Pope, by laay of enforc-
ing their claim to the mission of the third angel, or as 
enforcing the observance of the Sabbath, is all gam-
mon; the papal beast does not come into the scene af-
ter the forty-two months, until the judgment. Their 
whole argument on this point therefore is an entire 
failure." 
On this paragraph we offer a few thoughts : 
1. With the definition of the woman of Rev. xvii, or 
Babylon, we see no reason to find fault. It. is c.artainly 
much more reasonable than to limit the mass of itorrup-
t ion, represented by that symbol, to the Rmnislr ceturch; 
or to teach that Babylon is the literal city of Rome, 
and that its fall is its utter destruction by fire, after 
which fall the people of God are called out of it. 
2. How the writer is able to prove from what to 
has advanced, that the blasphemous powers described 
In Dan. vii, 23-25; Rev. xiii, 1-10, do not synchro-
nize ; or how he has been able to hide from himself 
the fact that the Papacy in exalting itself above all 
that is called God, and in changing times and laws, 
has laid hold on, and attempted to change several of 
the commandments spoken by Jehovah's own voice : 
and has actually, to use the expression of J. B. Cook 
in his recent discourse on the subject, sabbatized Sun- 
day; is something which we are not able to explain.- 
3. The charge of "gammon," "entire failure" he. 
rightly belongs to such an argument as this of the 
"Watchman." The " Watchman " adds: 
" To stand entirely aloof from all present forms of 
government, is to refuse to worship the beast or his 
image, and to avoid his mark in every form. The 
third angel, bearing this message to the church, fol-
lowed in close succession after the cry, Come out of 
her, my people,' and was distinctly heard as early as 
the spring of '44; since which, a voice has been heard 
from heaven, from all the church, Blessed are the 
dead, he., from henceforth'-verse 18. This verse is evi-
dently a symbolic representation of the promulgation 
of the doctrines of life and death, or immortality only 
through Christ, which voice has been heard in all the 
symbolic heaven, since the disappointment of '44, and 
it is the last part of the last message of the 7th angel. 
Tluis the Sabbatarians by their claim are shown to 
be at least seven years behind the through train." 
We call attention to some of the above statements 
1. The third angel's message was "distinctly heard 
as early as the spring of '44; since which a voice has 
been heard from heaven, from all the church ' Blessed 
are the dead, etc., from henceforth.'" Now mark: 
this "message of vast importance is heard in heaven 
AFTER the third angel HAS MADE ins CIRCUIT," 
with "the LATEST message of MERCY." Then the 
latest work of mercy preceded this "me-sage of vast 
importance." 
2. But how does this view lessen down to a mere 
nothing the solemn realities of the third angel's mes-
sage! "To stand entirely aloof from-all present forms 
of government is the substance of the message accor-
ding to the "Watchman?" Who that will compare 
the fearful warning of Rev. xiv, 9-11, with the no 
less fearful scene described in Rev. xiii, 11-17, can 
hesitate for a moment to reject this idle notion. 
3. How little similarity there is between the "voice 
from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the 
dead which die in the Lord FROM HENCEFORTH," 
and the message, "The dead know not any thing" 1 
need not now stop to point out. 
4. But this message respecting the state of the dead 
" is the last part of the last message of the seventh 
angel." That is, if we can gather any idea of what 
the "Watchman" means, "the angel of chapter x is 
the seventh angel ;" his message is " the sum total of 
the three messages ;" and the "last message of the 
seventh angel"(?) is the third angel's message; the 
last part of this last message is "the promulga-
tion of the doctrine of life and death." This is in di-
rect contradiction of its previous statement, that this 
"message of vast importance is heard in heaven after 
the third angel HAS MADE HIS CIRCUIT." 
5. "Thus the Sabbatarians by their claim, are shown 
to be at least seven years behind the through train." 
How so, Dear Sir? Why they claim to be giving now 
the latest message of mercy; but they are mistaken, 
for it was "given" seven years since. 
6. But the commandment-keepers are IN " the 
through train"-the only one that will ever reach the 
Holy City : " Blessed are they that do his command-
ments, that THEY may have a right to the tree of life, 
and MAY ENTER IN THROUGH THE GATES INTO TIIE 
CITY." But those who violate them and teach men 
so, will be of "no esteem in the reign of heaven," and 
will be left " without," to be "consumed" of " the 
second death"-But the "Watchman" continues:- 
"But, suppose they are the third angel ; what are 
they doing? They say they are finishing the myste-
ry-GOSPEL-of God. Pray, what has the law of 
Moses to do with the finishing up of the gospel?--
Are we so foolish, having begun in the spirit (the gos-
pel is the ministration of the spirit), to end in the 
flesh ? (The works of the law are the works of the 
flesh.) 
On this we remark, that these statements of the 
" Watchman" are either the result of ignorance or of 
malice : 
1. We have neither claimed to be the third angel, 
nor taught that we were finishing the mystery of God. 
But we do believe that we are in "the days of the 
voice of the seventh angel," and that the message of 
Rev. xiv, 9-12 is now addressed to us : consequently 
see have united "to do and teach" "the command- 
ments of God," which the " Watchman" is pleased to 
call " the law of Moses." 
2. Those who keep the commandments, leave the Spir-
it and " end in the flesh." " The works of the law are 
the works of the flesh."-Now let us contrast this 
statement with the word of God. What is the char-
acter of God's law ? "The law is holy, and the com-
mandment holy, and just and good." " We know 
that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold un-
der sin." " The carnal mind is enmity against God : 
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed 
can be. Rom. vii, 12, 14; viii, 7. What are "the 
works of the flesh'?" "Now the works of the flesh 
are manifest, which are these, adultery, fornication, 
uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, 
variance, emulation, wrath, strife, seditious, heresies, 
cnvyings, murders, drunkenness; revellings, and such 
like." Gal. v, 10-21. 
What a blasphemous libel on the God of truth and 
holiness to say that these are "the works of the law," 
whose sacred character has just been stated by Paul ! 
But hear the words of the law itself on these points : 
"Thou shalt not commit adultery ;" "Thou shalt 
have no other gods before rim;" "Thou shalt love thy 
neighbor as thyself;" "Thou shalt not kill ;" "Thou 
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, 
and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."-
The " Watchman" adds : 
"0 ! we are told that Christ informed the young 
man that, in order to be saved, he must keep the com-
mandments. Certainly ; but the instruction of the 
Saviour to the young man was before the crucifixion. 
The law of Moses, in harmony with the gospel of the 
kingdom at hand, was binding until the crucifixion, 
The gospel of faith-of remission of sins through the 
blood of Christ-of the resurrection from the dead-
the new and living way, was not opened and made 
binding until the crucifixion-until sealed by the blood 
of Christ. It was therefore right for the young man 
to keep the law; for Jesus kept it; for the law was 
our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ-i. e., to the 
faith of the gospel, lint the law was all nailed to the 
croas, and the economy of Moses was then and them 
forever wound up-it u-as finished; and the gospel, 
just as it was taught by Jesus is the only saving econ-
omy of God." 
We notice a few- of the above ideas : 
I. Christ then enforced the commandments as the 
condition of entering eternal life. This is much more 
reasonable than the position of those who teach that 
he then enforced but a part of them.-But since Christ 
enforced them, they have all been abolished ! The proof 
on -this point the writer forgot to offer. 
2. Though the New Testament or covenant dates 
from the "death of the testator," yet it is a plain mat-
ter of fact that the only way by which fallen, guilty 
man could ever hope to escape the just sentence of 
God's holy law, is through the blood of the Lord Je-
sus, shed for his sins. Thus the Apostle says that the 
gospel was preached before "unto Abraham [Gal. iii 
8] saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." 
3. But it was "right for the young man to keep the 
law." How does that happen when "the works of 
the law are the works of the flesh 1" 
4. But Jesus kept the law. So he did; but this 
"great truth" though "plainly stated" [John xv, 10; 
1 John iii, 4, 5] is often denied by those who wish to 
excuse themselves in violating the law of God. But 
if "the worhes of the law are the works of the flesh" 
how does it happen that the spotless Lamb of God 
kept such a law as that? 
5. "The law was our school-master to bring us to 
Christ." So says Paul to the Galatians, and the man-
ner in which this school-master brought Paul to Christ, 
some years after it is said to have been abolished, may be 
read in Rom. vii, 7-25 ; viii, 1-7. He learned from 
this teacher his duty to God, his inability to perform 
that dbuty, and the startling fact that he was a sinner, 
justly condemned in the sight of God. He fled to 
the blood of Jesus for refuge, and found pardon, jus-
tification and forgiveness. He was no longer under 
the condemnation of God's holy law, [Rom. iii, 19,] 
but was under grace, the state of pardon and forgive-
ness, and from the heart "fulfilled the righteousness 
of the law." Rom. viii, 1-7. The same school-maa-
ter (not an abolished law) brought the Galatians ts 
Christ many years after this. 
16 �
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. 
6. " But the law was all nailed to the cross." As the words 
of inspiration are quite as proper as any other, we remark that 
it was " the hand-writing of ordinances" that was nailed to the 
cross, but the royal law "remaineth." James ii, 8-12. We 
think it quite proper to follow the footsteps of Jesus; he kept 
the commandments and taught men so, and we will through 
grace do the same. Matt. v, 19. But the "Watchman" con- 
tinues : 
" We aver, therefore, that to enforce or keep the law, since 
the resurrection of Christ, is to prefer Moses to Christ—the 
law to the gospel; and, as no man can serve two masters, such 
as serve the law commit adultery by putting away Christ.—
Christ becomes of no effect to such, however devoted and pious 
they may appear." 
Let us compare these statements with the Divine Record : 
1. John says that "Sin is the transgression of the law."— 
But the " Watchman" says, that, " To keep the law is to prefer 
Moses to Christ." 
2. James says, "If ye FULFILL THE ROYAL LAW according to 
the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself YE DO 
WELL;" but the "Watchman" says, that those who keep the 
law since the resurrection of Jesus "commit adultery by put- 
ting away Christ." " Christ becomes of no effect to such !" 
We repudiate the idea of serving two masters, but as Jesus 
says, "I and my Father are ono," we believe in keeping the 
commandments of God the Father, and the testimony of his 
Son Jesus Christ. But hear life "Watchman" further : 
"Instance; Suppose I can now be sealed an heir of the 
kingdom by keeping the seventh day according to the law of 
Moses; of what avail to me are the groans of Calvary? Of 
what avail is the whole gospel arrangement'?" 
We append to this a single question : What good does the 
blood of Christ do me, if I am still under obligation to keep 
the commandments of God? Rom. iii, 31. The "Watchman" 
adds: 
"All such as depend on the keeping of the Sabbath, in or-
der to be sealed for the kingdom, are depending on the works 
of the law instead of the gospel; they have forfeited the mer 
oy of God in Christ, unless they repent—so certain as Christ is 
our law-giver." 
To this we answer : 
1. We are not sufficiently Antinomian to believe that justi-
fying faith makes "void the law" of God ; or that the " blood 
of Christ," when sprinkled upon the mercy-seat, (the top of the 
ark,) blots out the holy law contained within that ark. Hob 
ix, 4; Rev. xi, 19. 
2. But look at the directions which this "Watchman" has giv-
en : (1.) We must become truly sorry, (penitent,) that we have 
kept the commandments; (2.) We must ask God's forgiveness 
for the same, and promise through grace to do so no more for 
ever, or we have forfeited the mercy of God in Christ—" 00 
certain as Christ is our law-giver." Now it is an interesting 
fact that the writer of this article in the " Watchman" has pub-
licly taught the duty of keeping the seventh-day, only he had 
the seventh day come on the day which the "Popes have 
sabbatized " In the "Bible Advocate" for Sept. 23d, 1847, he 
writes as follows : 
"I must keep that day of the week that can be proved to be 
the seventh, for I then believed, and do now believe, that the 
seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God." 
We present the next remarks of the " Watchman," without 
comment, to show who it is that posseses the judging spirit: 
"The spirit and kindness of the gospel, by those who bear 
this message, is exchanged for the spirit of the law, which 
said, Do this, and live ; disobey one jot or tittle, and be damn- 
ed. �
It says, as in ancient times, ' An eye for an eye, and a 
tooth for a tooth;' it severs the dearest christian friends, leav-
ing the christian to weep and sigh on account of snob sad ef-
fects, while the once loved one, now made into a Jew, rejoices 
in a kind of frenzied, fiendlike spirit of Humph, and in the 
language of the Pharisee, cries out, I thank God that I am 
not as other men; I em sealed; I am holier than thou!" 
The " Watchman" concludes as follows : 
" We would affectionately warn all our readers to beware of 
the smile and apparent love that appears on the first presenta-
tion of this (so called) message. Meet the argument promptly 
with the word of God, and you will soon find that we have spo-
ken truthfully—will shortly hear your doom from the lips of 
the infatuated Judaizer ; and, if you are steadfast in the gos-
pel, you will rarely be visited by them the second time.—
Brethren, abide in Christ. 
J. TURNER. 
We have in these paragraphs presented the entire article of 
the " Watchman," the preface excepted. It eonoludes with 
an affectionate warning against the deception of those who 
present the third angel's message. The brethren must " meet 
the argument promptly with the word of God," that is with 
the weapons which the " Watchman" has here presented. 
They must show these "infatuated Judaizers" that "the 
three angels, (Chap. xiv, 6-12,) who in turn fly through the 
midst of heaven, bear the latest messages of mercy to this fall-
en. world;" and that "the third angel made his circuit" be- 
fore these deluded Sabbath-keepers commenced "their work of 
extravagance." They must show these persons that since the 
close of the latest message of mercy, a " message of vast im- 
portance" has been heard concerning the state of the dead.—
They must show the Sabbatarians that though Rev. xiii proves 
that the Papal beast should continue but forty and two months, 
yet the beast there referred to is not the Papal beast, but the 
dragon; and they must prove to these poor fanatics that the 
dragon was crushed and bound with a sword instead of being 
bound by an angel "with a great chain:" they must show 
them that this message was given at a time when it was so 
far from the oppression of the two-horned beast, that no-
body knew what the two-horned beast was: they must show 
them that the two-horned beast is one of the ton horns of " the 
first beast." And that the third angel's message which is the 
latest message of mercy was given some seven years since.—
And finally that "the law was all nailed to the cross," so that 
whosoever shall now be guilty of keeping the commandments, 
has committed adultery, and Christ has become of no effect to 
such, for "they have forfeited the mercy of God in Christ, 
unless they repent." 
We think with the Editor of the " Watchman" that if his 
brethren are able to maintain all this they will not be very 
likely to be visited a second time by those who "keep the 
commandments of God."—But with pain and sorrow of heart 
we confess that this answer of the " Watchman" to the ques-
tion, "What of the night?" sounds much more like the lan-
guage of is man talking in his sleep, than the voice of a faith-
ful watchman.—In the language of inspiration we answer : 
"Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep 
the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." The mor-
ning of deliverance to God's saints cometh ; the night of trouble 
and darkness begins already to enshroud a wicked world. 
Ye who rose to meet the Lord—. 
Ventured on his faithful word, 
Faint not now, for your reward 
Will be quickly given. �
J. N. A. 
 
THE REVIEW AND HERALD. 
ROCHESTER, THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1852, 
A PRESSING WANT OF BIBLE ARGUMENT 
Is seen in those who relate what they have heard of the 
faults of individuals .s arguments against the truth. For it 
is a fact, that in any ease of importance, a man will produce 
his best evidence, and if he resorts to slander and ridicule, 
and offers what he has heard of the faults of individuals to 
bring into disrepute the faith of anybody of Christians, it shows 
that he has nothing better to present. Such a being is to be 
pitied. Poor creature ! Feeding upon the hear-say faults of 
others, and dealing them out to prejudice those with whom he 
has influence, to bring them into the same low, narrow chan-
nel with himself. 
But those who keep the commandments of God may expect 
to meet with opposition of this character. We think this may 
be learned from the following scripture : 
"Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they 
may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through 
the gates into the city. FOR without are dogs, and sorcerers, 
and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whoso-
ever LOVETH AND MAKETH A LIE." Rev. xxii, 14, 15. 
The father of lies, the devil, and his devoted children have 
ever been extensively engaged in lie-making, and they have 
always found admirers, who have loved their lies when made ; 
but here the losing and making lies by one class, is mentioned 
in connection with another class who do the commandments of 
God. This will be seen fully in the history of the "remnant" 
on whom the dragon was to make war for keeping the com-
mandments of God, and having the testimony of Jesus Christ. 
Rev. xii, 17. 
Let advent ministers, who report what they have heard re-
specting those who keep the Sabbath, look back eight or ten 
years, and see what opposition they then met with. Stories 
of ascension-robes, insanity produced by believing the Lord 
was coming, do., dos prejudiced the public mind, and wore 
the most powerful weapons used against the advent. Would 
not those who now take a similar course relative to Sabbath-
keepers, were they placed back eight or ten years with the 
spirit they now possess, join with the meanest and most bitter 
opposition to the hdvent? Let the candid answer. 
The following is from the Advent Shield of May, 1844 ; 
"But the most wonderful and overwhelming of all argument., 
which have ever been presented against the doctrine, is 'Mr. 
Miller has built some stone wall on his/arm/IP But I forgot 
myself; I said the most wonderful; there is another quite its, 
equal : 'Mr. Miller refuses to sell his farm ill' How, 0! 
how can Christ come, when Mr. Miller will not sell his farm? 
But this is not all; for the truth is, Mr. Himes has pub-
lished and scattered, (a large part of them gratuitously,) 
more than five million of books and papers. He must be en-
gaged in a speculation; and how can the Lord come? 0! 
how CAN he come?'" 
frr As the Committee, Agents, and the Soattered Brethren 
would doubtless wish to know our present condition as to means, 
we would say to them that we were obliged to borrow $90, 
which we still owe. Should not all those interested in the pa-
per, and who would esteem it a privilege to help sustain it, be 
invited to contribute 7 
Bro. Andrews, Letters 
Now being published in the REvinw AND HERALD will be 
read with deep interest by many, and we hope that all our 
readers will carefully examine them. We are pleased with 
the candid and thorough manner in which Bro. Andrews is 
treating the subject. As we have before said, those who have 
the truth can afford to be fair. They will be willing to let the 
strength of argument on both sides be seen, while those who 
are on the side of error, and have to argue against facts, often 
show the weakness of their position by their unfairness, and 
their sweeping, denunciatory assertions. 
The importance of the subject of the Sabbath, when realised, 
is sufficient to lead every candid inquirer after truth, to give 
it a prayerful and thorough investigation. Let no one think 
that the subject is beyond their grasp Study it, and pray 
over it, until this precious truth shines into your mind, and 
you are filled with peace and joy, the result of believing, and 
of obeying God. 
0' Hymn Boon.—We noticed some months since, that we 
wished to publish a collection of appropriate Hymns, larger 
than our small Hymn Book now in use ; but have not been 
able to commence the work until now. We intend to get it out 
as soon as circumstances will allow. Let those who are inter-
ested in the Hymn Book send in select or original Hymns im-
mediately, applicable to our faith and hope. 
We do not design to get out a large book cumbered with Hymns 
of no special interest, but a small, choice collection of those 
only which are appropriate. We very much need more good 
Hymns on the Sabbath, and hope the friends will send them in 
at their earliest convenience. 
EV" We can supply those who wish, with any or all of the 
Nos. of Vol. II. There fare several hundred of No. 14, con-
taining Bro. Mead's illustrated article, also of Nos. 11 and 12, 
containing Bro. Andrews' Review of 0. R. L. Crozier. Let 
those who can circulate them judiciously, send for them. 
re The entire cost of Printing Materials is $600, of which 
$296 are receipted in this and the previous number. It is 
necessary that this sum should be received the present month, 
as it must be paid about the middle of June. Let the friends 
bear it in mind, and be in season. 
Appointments. 
There will be a Conference of the brethren in Rochester 
and vicinity, to commence May 28th, at 6 o.'clock PM., and 
hold over Sabbath and First-day. The Meeting will be held 
at No. 124 Mount Hope Avenue. The Advent Brethren in the 
city and region round about are cordially invited to meet with 
us. 
It is thought best to have a Conference in Canaan, Me., at 
the residence of Bro. Robert Barnes, to commence Friday, June 
1 1 th, at 2 o'clock P. M., to continue over the Sabbath and 
First-day, and longer if thought best. Bro. Joseph Bates and 
other servants of the Lord are invited to attend. 
S. W. FLANDERS. 
Brn. G. W. Holt and II. Edson will hold meetings as fol-
lows: Champlain, N. Y., the 6th and Gth of June, and at Farn- 
ham, C. E., the 8th, at 5 o'clock P. M. where Bro. Rockwell 
may appoint. 
There will be a Conference of the brethren in Melbourne, 
C. E, at the house of Tire. Asa Hazeltine, to commence Fri-
day, June 11th, at 2 o'clock P. b1, and hold over Sabbath and 
First-day. Brn. Holt and Edson expect to attend. A gen-
eral attendance of the brethren is desired. 
For the Brethren, �
JOHN LINDSEY. 
Publications. 
THE REVIEW AND HERALD, Vol. I, bound in paper covers. 
" Vol. II, 
�
Vol 
CI 
EXTRA COPIES of Nos. 6, 8, 11, 12 and 14 of Vol. II. 
THE ADVENT REVIEW, containing thrilling testimonies rela- 
tive to the past Advent movement. 
THE BIBLE SABBATH, or a careful selection from the publica- 
tions of the American Sabbath Tract Society, including the His- 
tory of the Sabbath. 
PERPETUITY of the LAW of GOD. 
THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH. 
THE PARABLE, MATTHEW XXV, 1-12. 
Brief Exposition of the Angels of Rev. xiv, 
For Printing Materials. 
I 
A Friend indeed, . . $25 50 E. R. Seaman, . . . 5 00 
J. C. Bowles, �
. . . 6 00 C. Stevens, . . . . �
1 09 
A. Woodruff, �
. . . 6 00 E. Potter, 
�
5D 
Letters received since May Ath. 
G. W. Holt, W. Morse, S. Griggs, F. H. Howland, F. Wheel-
er, J. G. Foy, S. W. Flanders, S. Everett, L. H. Prior, J. 
Bates, E. L. Barr, J. II. Waggoner, A. A. Marks, M. L. Dean, 
J. Lindsey 2, N. N. Lunt, S. M. Bassett, T. B. Mead, F. H. 
Shimmer, E. M. Barrows, J. Barrows, 0. Hewett, W. S. In-
grasfitm, S. W. Rhodes, D. Moody. 
Receipts. 
N. Mead, S. 13. Craig, D. Clow, J. Louden, N. A. Perry, B. 
P. Thompson, M. Cramer, J. Lewis, S. Aldrich, T. Angel, H. 
A. Hannaford, G. F. Smith, E. Andrews, S. C. Gilbert, E. El-
mer, A. 11. Huntley, C. Davis, E. Hardy, 11. B. Simone, Sis-
ter Woodard, [will Bro. Rhodes give us her first name,) each 
$1. 
N. Denison, Is. Hall, a Sister, L. Titus, each $2. 
J. C. Bowles, E. Goodwin, B. W.Rhodes, each 415. Ti,Har-
mon $3. T. B. Mead $4.