The apostle Peter said of the epistles of Paul, that there are in them “some things hard to be understood,” and every man who has ever read those epistles has been made conscious of the truth of the saying. Indeed, some have thought that nearly all things in Paul’s writings are “hard to be understood.” But because some things are hard to be understood, there is no reason to say that they cannot be understood. The more difficult a thing is, the more need of study, and the greater will be the gain when study has made the subject clear.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.1

That it is not impossible to understand the hard things in Paul’s writings, is evident from what Peter further says of them. “Which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” It is only the unlearned and unstable that so wrest them. To wrest a thing is to pull or force it away from its natural position. The Bible is one book; every part depends on every other part. It is not like a chain, the last link has no immediate connection with the first, but every link is joined to every other link, so as to form the most perfect net-work. To some this makes it seem very intricate, but it is the beauty of the book. It is only because there is this interdependence of the various parts, that it can be understood. When a text is not wrested from its setting, and scripture is allowed to explain scripture, all may be understood.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.2

Of all the things which the unlearned wrest to their own destruction, those things which treat of the law of God are most frequently so mutilated. This is to be expected, since “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” And since the law comprises the duty of man and is the way of life, it is evident that where instruction concerning the law is perverted, destruction must follow. Among the texts which are perverted by the unstable, or which are a source of difficulty to many who are honest at heart, 1 Timothy 1:9 is prominent. As we have recently been asked to explain this text, we will quote it and consider it by the light of inspiration. It reads thus:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.3

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,” etc.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.4

It needs nothing more than a knowledge of the meaning of some of the simplest terms in our language, to show one that this text does not teach that righteous men are absolved from allegiance to the law of God, and that they may break it with impunity. For “lawless” means contrary to law, and if a righteous man should think himself at liberty to disregard the law, he would at once become one of the lawless ones, for whom the apostle says that the law “is made.” This shows the necessity for the righteous to keep the law, if they would retain their righteousness.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.5

That the law of God is binding upon all men may be shown in various ways. The gospel commission shows it. Said Christ to his disciples: “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Mark 10:15. The gospel is the “good news” of a Saviour “which is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10, 11), who is called Jesus, or Saviour, because “he shall save his people from their sins.” Matthew 1:21. The gospel, therefore, is God’s remedy for sin. But sin is the transgression of the law of God, the ten commandments. See 1 John 3:4 and Romans 7:7. Wherever sin is it is evidence that the law is there, and violated. Now God would not apply his remedy where it is not needed; but he has sent the gospel to every creature; therefore every creature is amenable to the law of God, and has broken it.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.6

This conclusion is plainly stated by Paul in Romans 3:9-20, a portion of which we quote:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.7

“We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: .... 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 before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.8

The law can speak only to those who are within its sphere, who are subject to its jurisdiction; but as a consequence of what the law says, it proves all the world to be guilty before God, because all have transgressed it; therefore the law has claims upon all who are in the world. Then according to 1 Timothy 1:9, the law is made for the whole world, for “there is none righteous, no, not one.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.9

The word rendered “made” in the text is from the Greek koimai. An illustration of one use of the word may be found in Matthew 3:10: “And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.” The idea conveyed by these words is that the edge of the ax is against the bad trees for their destruction, and the words “is laid” are the same in the original as the words “is made” in 1 Timothy 1:9. Now when we remember that they who keep the commandments of God shall enter into life (Matthew 19:17), and that the wages of sin is death, we can see in what sense the law is made for or is against the lawless and not the righteous.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.10

The same thought is expressed by the apostle in Galatians 5:17-23. There he says that those who are of the works of the flesh are “under the law,” and those works are set forth. But those who are led of the Spirit, who do not walk after the flesh, are not under the law; for after enumerating the fruits of the Spirit, he adds, “against such there is no law.” Why is not the law against such things, and against those who do them? Because those things are the very principles of the law, as the psalmist says: “Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord.” Psalm 119:1.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.11

The law has various offices, depending on the condition of men. Its primary office was to give life. This office it can fulfill only to those who have never sinned. So long as a person is sinless, the law is the best friend he can have; but when he has once sinned, the law has nothing but death for him. Its office then is that of a stern taskmaster, or rather of a jailer and executioner. It shuts up in prison all who violate it, keeping them in ward until the time set for the execution. Fortunately a way of escape has been provided from the execution of the death sentence. Christ was manifested to take away sin; and when sin has once been taken away, the law has no power over the man to shut him up. Christ sets at liberty them that are bound, and those whom he sets free are free indeed. He is now the only source of life, and the law, instead of comforting the sinner, is against him, continually standing in his way, and hurling itself again and again against him, never relaxing its severity until the sinner flies for refuge to the hope set forth before him. While its original office was to give men life, its office now, owing to the sinful condition of men, is to drive them to Christ for life. When the sinner goes to Christ, the law is satisfied, and pursues him no further. But he has not fled outside the sphere of the law, for that is impossible. In the Son, as well as in the Father, the law stands personified, so that now he who was a sinner can say, “Oh how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day.” Psalm 119:97. It is no longer a terror, but a delight, for there is “no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” Happy is the man who knows how to use the law in a lawful manner, for he shall prove it to be holy and just and good. W.SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.12

“Is It an Answer?” The Signs of the Times, 14, 27.

E. J. Waggoner

The Interior (Presbyterian) of June 28, contains a series of questions by one of its subscribers in Kansas, which are so pertinent that we believe our readers can derive benefit from their perusal. We hope that all will read them carefully, and give them a conscientious answer. Here they are:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.13

“Dear Interior: In the study of Sabbath-school lesson for June 10, the Westminster Teacher offers proof of the resurrection of our Saviour as follows: ‘The change of the Sabbath from the last to the first day of the week is a monument of Christ’s resurrection.’ In the consideration of this subject I am anxious and desirous of asking these questions: (1) By whom was the change made and when? (2) By what authority, human or divine? (3) If by human authority based upon no divine injunction, is it not a perpetuation week after week of a flagrant violation of a command of God, peremptory in its language and emphasized by its repetition? (4) If it is preached and taught in our Christian churches that the moral law shall forever stand, why has no change been made in the language of the fourth commandment? (5) Is it reasonable to teach our children the fourth commandment, enlarging upon the expressed punishments to follow its non-observance, and then by our example lead them to its absolute violation? (6) If God is an unchangeable God, he is not influenced by whims or fancies, but when he makes a law such as that in question he intends it to stand and expects our obedience. I cannot find in my life-long study of the word any divine direction, expressed or implied, to cease to keep holy the seventh day, or to substitute another. Can you? (7) Are we justified, as we array the solemn, oft-repeated commands of God to keep the seventh day holy, to follow the fashion instituted by the early Christians thereby placing in contrast a human sentiment and God’s imperative law? I have read defenses for the change, but have never seen quoted the divine ‘thou shalt.’ I have read all that can be advanced in Holy Writ for the change, but cannot find one single word of direction from God supporting it. Can we not, with as much justification on our side, hew lanes through every command of God to suit the purposes of humanity’s whims and fancies and sentiment! Honestly, is it right for us when God says, Thou shalt keep the seventh day holy, to say: ‘Well, Christ rose from the dead on the first day of the week, and we think that is the day that ought to be the Christian Sabbath, no matter what God’s thoughts or expressed commands may be on the subject.’ The early Christians, we read, met on the first day of the week. That may have been their prayer-meeting night; but it does not say that, as devout Jews, as well as devout Christians, they omitted the observance, the scrupulous observance, of the seventh day as their Sabbath. In conclusion I will say that if the foundation of our hopes for the future were as poor and visionary as this for the change of Sabbath, we surely would have a very sandy and very unreliable one indeed.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.14

These are straightforward questions, and need no comment. All that they require is an answer, and this is how they are answered by the editor of the Interior:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.15

“‘The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.’ Brother Parker would have us celebrate the finishing of creation and Passover the most momentous and glorious fact in the annals of the existence of God. But if he is determined on the letter alone let him show it to us. The fourth commandment does not command the sanctification of the seventh day. Did he ever think of that? On the contrary, with divine foreknowledge of the Christian Sabbath, it says, God rested on the seventh day; but he ‘blessed and hallowed’ what? the seventh day? The command does not say so. It says the “SABBATH DAY, meaning thereby that the ‘Sabbath’ should not be limited to the Jewish day, but should be transferred to the Christian day. If now, why does not the command say: ‘Wherefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and hallowed it’? The Lord did not say so because he intended not to say so. Notice how accurate the spirit of inspiration was. How this little substitution of ‘Sabbath’ for ‘seventh’ prepares the way for the honor due to Christ. Brother Parker can show no command for the sanctification of the ‘seventh’ day.’ It is the ‘Sabbath’-the institution, the one day in seven devoted to rest.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 422.16

“The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” Very true; but that doesn’t mean that the letter is to be carefully disregarded. The letter alone will kill, because mere outward observance of any commandment is actual violation of that commandment. The spirit gives life. Why? Because that comprehends all. Whoever keeps the spirit of a law must necessarily keep the letter also. A man cannot keep the spirit of the first commandment while he is worshiping false gods; he cannot obey the spirit of the eighth commandment while he is actually stealing; so it is impossible to keep the spirit of the fourth commandment while disregarding the day which that commandment says must be kept holy.SITI July 13, 1888, page 423.1

Notice particularly what wonderful perception the Interior has. It says that the commandment does not say that God sanctified the seventh day, but that he sanctified the Sabbath day, “meaning thereby that the Sabbath should not be limited to the Jewish day, but should be transferred to the Christian day.” But how can we who are slow of perception be made to know that that is so? Must we accept it on the authority of the Interior? We can’t do that, for we don’t believe that it has any special private faculties for knowing the mind of the Lord, that we have not; and we have no means of knowing what the Lord wants except by what he says. Now suppose that for the moment we allow that the commandment does not say that God sanctified the seventh day, but only the Sabbath, how does that prove that it contemplates the observance of the first day? It says nothing of a “Christian day.” Where is the “thou shalt” for thus expanding the commandment? If the commandment is unlimited, then what right has anybody now to limit it to the first day of the week? The Interior has added a cipher to a cipher, and supposes that it has thereby strengthened its position.SITI July 13, 1888, page 423.2

But we do not need to guess at what the commandment enjoins, nor to accept the opinion of any man. We have the most positive evidence that the Lord did actually sanctify the SEVENTH DAY. Read Genesis 2:3: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” So far as this argument is concerned, it matters not whether this was done immediately after the week of creation, or twenty-five hundred years later; the undeniable fact remains, that God did bless and sanctify the seventh day. And that shuts off all chance for guess-work about the fourth commandment being spread over the whole week. Such nonsense as that God simply performed a general act of sanctification, without reference to any specific day, so that if men wish to keep Sunday then that is the day which he sanctified, and if they want to keep Monday then that is the day sanctified, finds no shadow of support in the word of God.SITI July 13, 1888, page 423.3

We do not need, however, to go back to the record in Genesis for proof that the Lord blessed and sanctified the seventh day. The fourth commandment plainly teaches this. Granted that the last clause of the commandment says that God “blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it,” is the commandment so long that there is no connection between the first part and the last part? Certainly we may not accuse the Lord of having forgotten the first part of the commandment when he uttered the closing sentence. It is true that God sanctified the Sabbath day; but which day is the Sabbath? The commandment itself says: “The seventh day is the Sabbath.” That is God’s own declaration. That is, the name of the seventh day is “the Sabbath.” Other days are known solely by their numbers, but the seventh day has a name, and that name is Sabbath. So when the fourth commandment says that the seventh day is the Sabbath, and then follows that by the statement that God sanctified the Sabbath, it is then really a direct statement that God blessed and sanctified the seventh day, as is stated in Genesis 2:3.SITI July 13, 1888, page 423.4

Did the Interior answer its correspondent’s question? We submit that it has now even a larger task on its hands than it had in the first place, for instead of giving a “Thus saith the Lord,” it has deliberately contradicted the word of God. W.SITI July 13, 1888, page 423.5

“Religion in Japan” The Signs of the Times, 14, 27.

E. J. Waggoner

It is well known that much missionary work has been done in Japan, and that Christianity has been looked upon with favor by those high in authority; and it has been declared highly probable that the empire will erelong become officially “Christian.” The Emperor is expected, like Constantine of old, to declare Christianity to be the religion. This step has been looked for with a great deal of anxiety by those interested in foreign missions, as a wonderful victory for Christianity. We have before expressed our opinion on the subject, that if such a step is taken, it will be the worst thing that could possibly happen for real Christianity in Japan. The Christianity that would be adopted would be a formal religion, a matter of policy alone, and it would put an effectual stop to the growth of vital godliness.The empire would no longer be missionary ground, and the labors of devoted missionaries would soon cease. Those who accepted the State religion in obedience to the imperial edict, would be forever content with the form of religion, and so the last state of the empire would be worse than the first. We have no faith in charms, and we don’t think that the name of Christianity will make a man or a nation any better than will the name of the reality of paganism.SITI July 13, 1888, page 425.1

To show that our statement of the case is correct, we copy the following the London dispatch to the San Francisco Chronicle of June 10:—SITI July 13, 1888, page 425.2

“The Japan Weekly Mail in a recent issue summarizes the discussion now being carried on in Japan by several eminent publicists respecting the advisability of the people of that country embracing Christian religion. A movement started by some three prominent persons, is on foot to give an impetus to the speed of Christianity by laying stress on the secondary benefits its acceptance means. Those connected with the movement say the Christian dogmas are a bitter pill to swallow, but advised that it be swallowed promptly for the sake of the after effects. Fukuzawa, a well-known writer, urges this course, although he says he takes no personal interest whatever in religion, and knows nothing of the teachings of Christianity, but he sees that it is the creed of highly civilized nations. To him religion is only a garment to be put on or taken off for pleasure, but he thinks it prudent that Japan assume the same dress as that of her neighbors, with whom she desires to stand well.SITI July 13, 1888, page 425.3

“Professor Toyama, of the Imperial University, has published a work to support this view. He holds that Chinese ethics must be replaced by Christian ethics, and that the benefits to be derived from the introduction of Christianity are: (1) The improvement of music; (2) a unit of sentiment and feeling leading to a harmonious cooperation; (3) furnishing a medium of intercourse between men and women. Mr. Kato, the late, president of the Imperial University, who says that religion is not needed for the educated, and confesses his dislike to all religion, urges the introduction of religious teachings in the Government schools on the ground that the unlearned in Japan have their faith in the old moral standards shaken, and that there is now a serious lack of moral sentiment among the masses.”^{*Copies of the same copied article, and other sources, prove that the wording is “Fukuzawa” rather than “Fulka-Zawa,” “Toyama” rather than “Toyma,” “music” rather than “the mind,” and “Mr. Kato, the late president,” rather than “Kabolat, president.”}SITI July 13, 1888, page 425.4

And that is just as high as the standard religion would be in this country if Christianity were declared to be the national religion. A State religion never has and never will be adopted except from selfish motives.SITI July 13, 1888, page 425.5

“The Commentary. Free Gifts for the Tabernacle” The Signs of the Times, 14, 27.

E. J. Waggoner

NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
(July 21.-Exodus 35:20-29.)

Giving to the cause of God is a part of religion, and by no means as unimportant a part as many people suppose. It is a part of religion not because the Lord has need of the gifts, or because he can be propitiated by offerings, for God is not “worshiped with men’s hands, as though he needed anything,” but because men need to give for their own good. And from the earliest ages men were required to offer sacrifices to the Lord for this very reason.SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.1

As soon as man had fallen and the plan of salvation had been announced, sacrifices were required, that by the shedding of blood men might be enabled to realize something of the heinousness of sin; and that his faith in the promised Saviour might be kept in lively exercise. “The blood of the beast was to be associated in the minds of sinners with the blood of the Son of God. The death of the victim was to evidence to all that the penalty of sin was death. By the act of sacrifice the sinner acknowledged his guilt and manifested his faith, looking forward to the great and perfect sacrifice of the Son of God, which the offering of beasts prefigured. Without the atonement of the Son of God there could be no communication of blessing or salvation from God to man. God was jealous for the honor of His law.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.2

The offerings which form the subject of this lesson were, however, of a different nature from the sacrifices offered because of sin; they were free-will offerings of material for the building of the tabernacle. “Great and expensive preparations were necessary. Precious and costly materials must be collected. But the Lord accepted only the free-will offerings. Devotion to the work of God and sacrifice from the heart were first required in preparing a place for God. And while the building of the sanctuary was going on, and the people were bringing their offerings unto Moses, and he was presenting them to the workmen, all the wise men who wrought in the work examined the gifts, and decided that the people had brought enough, and even more than they could use. And Moses proclaimed throughout the camp, saying, ‘Let neither man nor woman make any more work for the offering of the sanctuary. So the people were restrained from bringing.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.3

“The repeated murmurings of the Israelites, and the visitations of God’s wrath because of their transgressions, are recorded in sacred history for the benefit of God’s people who should afterward live upon the earth; but more especially to prove a warning to those who should live near the close of time. Also their acts of devotion, their energy, and liberality, in bringing their free-will offerings to Moses, are recorded for the benefit of the people of God. Their example in preparing material for the tabernacle so cheerfully, is an example for all who truly love the worship of God. Those who prize the blessing of God’s sacred presence, when preparing a building that he may meet with them, should manifest greater interest and zeal in the sacred work in proportion as they value their heavenly blessings higher than their earthly comforts. They should realize that they are preparing a house for God.SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.4

“Many will expend much to erect comfortable and tasty buildings for themselves; but when they would prepare a place that they may receive the presence of the high and exalted One, they manifest a wonderful indifference, and have no particular interest as to the convenience, arrangement, and workmanship. Their offerings are not given cheerfully from the heart, but are bestowed grudgingly; and they are continually studying in what manner the sacred building can be made to cost the least, and answer the purpose as a house of worship. Some manifest more interest in building their barns, wherein to keep their cattle, than they do in building a place for the worship of God. Such value sacred privileges just in that proportion which their works show. And their prosperity and spiritual strength will be just according to their works. God will not cause his blessing to rest upon those who have so little estimate of the value of divine things. Unwilling and stinted offerings are not accepted of God. Those who manifest that earnestness to bring to the Lord acceptable offerings, of the very best they have, willingly, as the children of Israel brought their presents to Moses, will be blessed in that proportion that they have estimated the value of divine things.”-Great Controversy, Vol. I.SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.5

God might have ordained that his worship should cost nothing; yea, he might even now fill the treasuries of his church full to overflowing without taking a dollar from anyone, but everybody knows what the result would be; the church would be shorn of her power, for she would forget the words of the Saviour, “Without me ye can do nothing,” and gold would become her god.SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.6

“If any man will come after me,” said the Saviour, “let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” This denial means vastly more than merely abstaining from that which the world recognizes as sin-it means the giving up of legitimate comforts and enjoyments for the good of others; and following the Saviour means much more than simply not doing evil-it means doing good. It is walking even as Christ walked; and his life was one not of self-pleasing, but of self-denial for the salvation of others. He left the courts of Heaven and even laid down his life for us; and can we hope to be his disciples while selfishly enjoying all that we can of this world, and planning only, like the men of the world (Psalm 17:14), to leave the rest of our substance to our children?SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.7

While we cannot say that a people’s spirituality is always measured by their generosity, it is certainly true that their spirituality never rises above their generosity; always remembering, however, that the gift is measured not by its money value, but, as in the case of the poor widow (Luke 21:2-4) by the motive which prompts the gift. Those who give most from a sincere desire to advance the cause of truth, are blest most; not because the gift of God can be purchased with money, but because having given their means they will also give their prayers; and in so doing what they can to water others, their own souls will be watered.SITI July 13, 1888, page 427.8

“Back Page” The Signs of the Times, 14, 27.

E. J. Waggoner

It is stated that the Pope intends to invite the co-operation of the Catholic and other Governments in determined efforts to bring about the suppression of slave-dealing wherever it prevails. It would have been a good thing if some of Leo’s “infallible” predecessors had taken some steps of this kind; so far have they been from doing so, however, that the church of herself has trafficked in “slaves and souls of men.” True, Protestants have not been faultless in this respect, but Rome alone professes infallibility.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.1

In a recent article in the New York Evangelist, Rev. T. L. Cuyler says: “Some remarkable statistics have lately been published in regard to the Protestant churches in New York City. In a population of much over one million, the Methodist Churches have but 13,000 communicants. The Dutch Reformed, but 7,200. The Congregationalists have decreased from 2,450 to 2,315. The Presbyterians of all shades number 23,016. The Episcopalians, who attract many other denominations, report 33,000 members. The total membership of all these denominations, including 13,600 Baptists, is only 93,000. This is a sad showing for the great metropolis.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.2

How many are there of those who read the Bible through by course, who do not skip the tenth chapter of Genesis? And how many of those who read it in a perfunctory way, derive any benefit from it, or regard it as anything but a dry collection of meaningless names? How many are there who do not wonder what was the use of putting it in the Bible? We venture the assertion that the number who do not come under one of these heads is very small. Now there is no reason why that chapter should be skipped or lightly regarded. In the short space of fifty pages, of the book entitled “Sacred Chronology,” published and for sale at this office, the matter is made so plain that any child can understand it. Get the book and read it, and all of your subsequent reading of history will be aided by it.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.3

The following question has been received from one of our brethren, by the editors of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.4

“Are there any tent-meetings been held by our people in the California Conference this season? If there are, we should very much like to hear from those who are conducting them, what the interest is, and what progress the truth is making. We give of our means to support the work, and we like to hear how it prospers. Besides this, we like to pray for our ministering brethren in their labors, but how can we pray intelligently when we know nothing about where they are, nor what they are doing, nor whether they are in the field at all or not? “G.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.5

We print this just as it is received. We must confess that we think the points are well taken. As the question is addressed to us, we will answer as far as we are able, and that is, that there are supposed to be at this time, and to have been for nearly two months past, about seven tent-meetings in progress in different parts of the California Conference. That is as far as we can answer; the rest of the communication we submit to the brethren in charge of the tent-meetings, and in behalf of the inquiring brethren, request them to reply. Please let us hear from you, brethren, not only once, but often. We ought to have, and may we not hope to have, at least seven reports each week, from now onward?SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.6

Not long since it fell to Judge Biddle, of Philadelphia, to deliver a charge to the jury on the subject of lotteries, in which he said:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.7

“The history of public morality in regard to lotteries is quite curious. I have a lottery ticket issued as far back as 1761, to aid in building a church at Oxford, afterward presided over by a brother of President Buchanan. At the present day lotteries are held only by two classes of people; and, strange to say, the most difficult thing is to eradicate them among the first-named class.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.8

If, therefore, the holding of lotteries is immoral-and it certainly is-and if these very religious people cling most tenaciously to it, then these “very religious people” are very immoral. And in that case these “very religious people” are also very bad people. Then it logically follows that lotteries are in fact held only by one class of people, that is, by a very bad people.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.9

Quite recently someone, we think he was a clergyman, wrote to the Christian Union as follows: “I have long been a subscriber to your most excellent paper, and about the only thing that prevents it from giving perfect satisfaction is that every once in a while you bring out the doctrine of the Judgment day, and the second coming of Christ.” That doctrine was the one with which Christ comforted his disciples when they were sorrowing to think that he was about to leave them. It comforted Job in his deep affliction. Paul calls it “the blessed hope,” and speaks of the “patient waiting for Christ,” as though it was an event so much to be desired that people would need to exercise patience if it should be delayed. Indeed, in writing to the Hebrews he says: “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and He that shall come will come, and will not tarry.” This shows that the true followers of Christ will be in danger of growing impatient as they long for his coming. Again we read that only to those who “love his appearing” will he give the reward when he comes. What then must be the condition of those who don’t want to hear about it? The Lord will surely come, whether people desire his coming or not. How much better, then, to be ready, waiting for him, when he does come. Everyone who truly loves the Lord will love to hear of his soon coming.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.10

It is frequently stated by Spiritualists that Spiritualism answers the question asked by Job, “If a man die shall he live again?” As a matter of fact it does nothing of the kind. Spiritualism claims that there is no death, that a man continues to live forever; but the patriarch’s question was based on the fact that men do cease to live. If men never die, then there can be no such thing as living again. “Again” signifies “another time,” “once more,” and from the Bible use of this word alone, we know that death is a cessation of life. The prophet John was shown in vision those who had been slain “for the word of God,” and he says, “they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.” Revelation 20:1, 5. Here we learn that some who have died begin to live again at the beginning of a certain period of a thousand years, and that others do not live again until the thousand years are ended. Now as it cannot be said of a man that “he is in the city again,” unless he has at some time been out of the city, and has returned, so it cannot be said of any man that they “live again,” unless they have at some time ceased to live.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.11

The Rev. Addison P. Foster writes from Boston to the Advance that an irrepressible conflict is going forward in that city, of which no one can predict the issue. He says: “It is as yet a war without violence, but one no less determined for all that, and one in which the popular feeling is steadily rising. And it is a conflict which has its bearings on the condition of the whole country. I watch its progress with apprehension. Who can tell to what it may grow? The conflict is between the Catholics and Protestants, and the question at issue is whether Catholic principles and methods as dictated by an aged priest in Italy shall shape our municipal affairs.” It is high time for somebody to be waking up. Unfortunately for the Protestant population of Boston, the minions of the old priest in Italy have been awake all the time, and we fear that they will keep at all hazards the advantage which they have been allowed to gain.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.12

The Pope’s Encyclical on “Liberty” has the following:-SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.13

“Human liberty in individuals, as in societies or Governments, implies the necessity of conforming to a supreme rational law which emanates from God. The church is not an enemy of honest, legitimate liberty, but is an enemy of license. It condemns the false liberalism or naturalism which declares that there is no supreme law, and that everyone must form his own faith and religion. Such doctrine tends to destroy the consciousness of the difference between good and evil, between justice and injustice, and makes force the sole basis of society.”SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.14

Of this a Protestant journal says: “With a Protestant interpretation, it would be hard to improve his statement.” But the Pope is not a Protestant, neither are any of his followers, and they do not give Protestant interpretations to his utterances. When he speaks of the necessity of “conforming to a supreme rational law which emanates from God,” he does so with the understanding that he is that self-appointed representative of God; and so he means only that true liberty consists in obedience to the Pope of Rome.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.15

Man is a sinner, and though his environment may in some measure account for gross crimes against human law and order, it does not account for his depraved heart. The Rev. Dr. Parker well says: “When man did fall, he fell, not in a metropolitan alley, not in a London slum; he fell where the sunshine was broadest, where the rivers were deeper and calmest. When he fell, he fell amid surroundings which he himself had placed for his convenience and gratification. The only cure is not in change of circumstances, but in change of heart. That crucial change can be made only by the grace of God.”-Observer.SITI July 13, 1888, page 432.16

July 6, 1888

July 20, 1888