HEALTH REFORM PUBLICATIONS.

Good Health, and How to Preserve It. A brief treatise on the various hygienic agents and conditions which are essential for the preservation of health. Just the thing for a person who wishes to learn how to avoid disease. Pamphlet, price, post paid, 10 cents.

Disease and Drugs.Nature and Cause of Disease and So-called “Action” of Drugs. This is a clear and comprehensive exposition of the nature and true cause of disease, and also exposes the absurdity and falsity of drug medication. Pamphlet. Price, 10 cents.

The Bath: Its Use and Application. A full description of the various baths employed in the hygienic treatment of disease, together with the manner of applying them, and the diseases to which they are severally adapted. Pamphlet. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

Hydropathic Encyclopedia.Trall. Price, post-paid, $4.50.

Uterine Diseases and Displacements.Trall. Price, post-paid, $3.00.

Science of Human Life.By Sylvester Graham, M. D. Price, post-paid, $3.00.

Domestic Practice.Johnson. Price, post-paid, $1.75.

Hand Book of Health—Physiology and Hygiene. Price, post-paid, 75 cents; paper cover, 40 cents

Water Cure in Chronic Diseases.By J. M. Gully, M. D. Price, post-paid, $1.75.

Cure of Consumption.Dr. Work. Price, post-paid. 30 cents.

The Hygienic System.By R. T. Trall, M. D. Recently published at the Office of theHealth Reformer. It is just the work for the time, and should be read by the million. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

The Health and Diseases of Women.By R. T. Trall, M. D. A work of great value. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

Tobacco-Using.A philosophical exposition of the Effects of Tobacco on the Human System. By R. T. Trall, M. D. Price, post-paid, 15 cents.

Valuable Pamphlet.Containing three of the most important of Graham’s twenty-five Lectures on the Science of Human Life—eighth, the Organs and their Uses; thirteenth, Man’s Physical Nature and the Structure of His Teeth; fourteenth, the Dietetic Character of Man. Price, post-paid. 35 cts.

Address,Health Reformer,Battle Creek, Mich.

Footnotes

1.For further information upon this subject, the reader is referred to “The Three Angels’ Messages” and the “United States in Prophecy,” published at theReview and HeraldOffice, Battle Creek, Mich.

2.Persons desiring to investigate this question still further, by addressing the author of these articles, will receive by mail, without charge, a tract in which he has discussed at length a branch of this subject merely alluded to in this communication.

3.“It is not clear that the apostle refers at all to theSabbathin this place [Col. 2:16], whether Jewish or Christian; his σαββατων,of sabbaths, or weeks, most probably refers to their feasts of weeks.”—A. Clarke, in loco.

4.“The days here referred to are doubtless the days of the Jewish festivals.... It is not a fair interpretation of this to suppose that the apostle refers to theSabbath, properly so called, for this was a part of the decalogue, and was observed by the Saviour himself, and by the apostles also. Itisa fair interpretation to apply it to all those days which are not commanded to be kept holy in the Scriptures.”—A. Barnes, in loco.

5.As it is not insisted that this translation is a correct one, I shall not turn aside for the purpose of showing, as might easily be done, from the original, that it is not admissible where the rule of strict construction is followed.

6.The honoring of the second day here alluded to rests upon the hypothesis that the breaking of bread spoken of in Acts 20:11, answers to the Lord’s supper. It is, however, by no means certain that this was the case, since scholars differ widely in opinion respecting the matter; some holding to the opinion that reference was made to the Lord’s supper, and others to the view that the breaking of bread referred merely to a common meal.

7.This point is an important one; and as we are anxious to satisfy the reader that it is well taken, we append the following remarks of Albert Barnes, who—though agreeing with the writer in theStatesmanthat this passage furnishes proof for Sunday observance—nevertheless frankly concedes, as will be seen, that the construction of the original phrase for “treasuring up,” is such as to admit of the idea that the work was to be done at home. He says: “The phrase in Greek, ‘treasuring up,’ may mean that each one was to put the part which he had designated into the commontreasury. This interpretation seems to be demanded by the latter part of the verse. They were to lay it by, and to put it into the common treasury, that there might be no trouble of collecting when he should come. Or, it may, perhaps, mean that they were individually totreasure it up, having designated in their own minds the sum which they could give, and have it in readiness when he should come.”

8.Instead of selecting a wealthy person, able to contribute ten dollars per week, as has been done above, let an individual be chosen from the poorer classes of Corinthians—say from among these who would be able to donate only twenty-five cents per week—and the reader will be more forcibly impressed with the unreasonableness of that construction which makes it necessary that so small a pittance should first be placed or devoted at home, and then carried to the church, and there deposited in the general collection.

9.Not a few eminent writers, such as Dwight, and Wilson, of Calcutta, who are followed by many lesser authors, quote Ignatius, as saying: “Let us no more Sabbatize, but keep the Lord’s day.” From the literal rendering of the original above given, it will be seen that these writers take an unwarrantable liberty with their author. The words of Ignatius are, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὴν κυριακὴν ζωὴν ζῶντες. To separate the noun ζωὴν from the preceding adjective, and connect it with the following participle, so as to read, “Living a life according to the Lord’s day,” is an unnatural separation of the words of the original. To drop out the word ζωὴν is unwarranted. If this word were spurious, then the rendering would be, “Living according to the Lord’s day,” the adjective κυριακη without the noun for “day” being expressed occurring frequently for “the Lord’s day.” But there is no ground for rejecting the word “life.” To color the language of an author for the sake of giving it point in favor of one side of a question is unworthy of a seeker after truth. In the present case there is really nothing gained by departing from the precise language of the writer. Another passage, often quoted as from Ignatius, is part of the spurious epistle to the Galatians. It is as follows: “During the Sabbath, Christ continued under the earth, in the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea had laid him. At the dawning of the lord’s day, he arose from the dead. The day of the preparation, then, comprises the passion; the Lord’s day contains the resurrection.” This certainly has some weight as the testimony of comparatively early writer, but it must not be ascribed to Ignatius.

10.Did it not appear to be indispensable to the enlightening of the reader, as to the consummate folly of the author of the epistle of Barnabas, we should not append, as we do, his language in the following note, since it is hardly worthy of a place in a chaste and dignified discussion. For its citation we hold those, responsible who have made this action necessary, and who value the testimony of a man so utterly devoid of common-sense: “Neither shalt thou eat of the hyena; that is, again, be not an adulterer; nor a corrupter of others; neither be like to such. And wherefore so? Because that creature every year changes its kind, and is sometimes male and sometimes female.” Chap. 9:8.

11.Since, writing the above, the following interesting item in theChristian Union, for Feb. 19, has been brought to my notice, and will serve to show that continued investigation on the part of scholars is rendering the authenticity of the writings of Justin Martyr more and more doubtful:—“Dr. Franz Overbeck has lately examined, with great care, the ‘epistle to Diognetus,’ which has been regarded as one of the most precious relics of the age succeeding that of the apostles. He urges several reasons for coming to the conclusion that the work was written later than the era of Constantine, and was intended by its author to pass as a work Justin Martyr’s. Critics had already proved it no genuine work of Justin, and if Dr. Overbeck is right, it can no longer be assigned to the age of Justin.”

12.The culpable carelessness of Dwight, Wilson, and other authors, in citing from the early fathers, is nowhere more noticeable than in the case of Irenæus. These writers quote him as saying: “On the Lord’s day, every one of us Christians, keeps the Sabbath, meditating on the law, and rejoicing in the works of God.” There is no reference given to the writings of Irenæus. And for good reason. After a most careful examination, we are persuaded no such passage is to be found in his writings. The mistake was probably first made by President Dwight, whose weakness of sight compelled him to depend upon an amanuensis. “For twenty years of his presidency,” we are informed by his biographer, “he was rarely able to read as much as a single chapter in the Bible in the twenty-four hours.” (Dwight’s Theology, London, 1821, vol. i. pp. 91, 95.) Others followed this high authority.In order to guard our readers against injuring the cause they would advance, we must mention another important instance of considerable negligence. In a number of works on the Sabbath, Dr. Justin Edwards’ “Sabbath Manual,” for example, we find not only the blunders already noticed, but another quite as bad. The language—“Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord’s day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead,” is ascribed to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, aboutA. D.162. The words quoted are in reality those of another Theophilus, who was bishop of Alexandria, at the close of the fourth century. We hand over these criticisms upon advocates of the first-day Sabbath to our seventh-day Sabbatarian friends, trusting to their honor and fairness not to separate them from the rest of this discussion. For our own part, whether it may be pleasant to the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath, we desire to have for ourselves, and to aid others to have, the whole truth. It was in this spirit that we gave room in our columns for a full presentation of the arguments on the other side of this question.

In order to guard our readers against injuring the cause they would advance, we must mention another important instance of considerable negligence. In a number of works on the Sabbath, Dr. Justin Edwards’ “Sabbath Manual,” for example, we find not only the blunders already noticed, but another quite as bad. The language—“Both custom and reason challenge from us that we should honor the Lord’s day, seeing on that day it was that our Lord Jesus completed his resurrection from the dead,” is ascribed to Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, aboutA. D.162. The words quoted are in reality those of another Theophilus, who was bishop of Alexandria, at the close of the fourth century. We hand over these criticisms upon advocates of the first-day Sabbath to our seventh-day Sabbatarian friends, trusting to their honor and fairness not to separate them from the rest of this discussion. For our own part, whether it may be pleasant to the advocates of the seventh-day Sabbath, we desire to have for ourselves, and to aid others to have, the whole truth. It was in this spirit that we gave room in our columns for a full presentation of the arguments on the other side of this question.

13.As a matter of independent interest and importance, we would ask all who are interested in the question of the posture in prayer of worshipers in the early church, to compare with Tertullian’s statement, that of Peter, bishop of Alexandria,A. D.300, who says: “We keep the Lord’s day as a day of joy, because of Him who rose on that day, on which we have learned not to bow the knee.” (Bibl. Patrum, apud Gallard, vol. iv., p. 107.) To the same effect is the decision of the Council of Nice,A. D.325, requiring, as there were certain ones who bent the knee on the Lord’s day, that it should be the uniform practice to give thanks to God, standing. (Canon, xx.)

14.The attempt to attribute the change of day to Constantine’s decree is hardly worth noticing. It is enough to remember that it was issued in the beginning of the fourth century. No one who knows anything of the writings of Tertullian and Origen dating back more than a century before Constantine, to say nothing of still earlier writers, will venture to ascribe the change to Roman Emperor’s decree. Besides, the language of the very decree referred to recognizes the honorable diameter of the first day of the week. It recognizes that day as already “venerable.”—The Christian.

15.For the extracts given in this connection, the reader is referred to “Sabbath and Sunday,” by A. H. Lewis, and to “The History of the Sabbath,” by J. N. Andrews.

16.The commandments as given above are supposed to be repeated by the individual Romanist in response to the injunction, “Say the ten commandments of God.”

17.The following citations will be found in a small tract published at the “ReviewandHerald” Office, entitled, “Who Changed the Sabbath?”

18.By consulting the figures given above, the reader will be able to demonstrate, not only the fact that the inhabitants along the line from Pekin to San Francisco, can hallow the same day, but also that the day which they hallow will be identical in some of its hours. For example: It was shown that the people of Rome commence their day six hours and fifty-five minutes later than do those of Pekin. Deducting these six hours and fifty-five minutes from twenty-four hours we have left seventeen hours and five minutes as the period of time during which the citizens of these two cities would be celebrating the Sabbath in common. Applying the same principle to other cities, we find that London and Pekin would worship together for sixteen hours and fifteen minutes; New York and Pekin, eleven hours and twenty minutes; Chicago and Pekin, ten hours and twenty-five minutes; S. Francisco and Pekin, eight hours and five minutes.

19.The gentleman might have cited the case of Alaska, also, as a parallel to that of Pitcairn’s Island. The inhabitants of this region, like those of the island mentioned, sailed eastward to this continent across the Pacific Ocean, and failed to drop the required day in their reckoning. The result was, that when we purchased that territory, they were found to be keeping Saturday instead of Sunday. We believe, however, that the mistake is now rectified.

Transcriber’s Notes:Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.Typographical errors were silently corrected.Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only when a predominant form was found in this book.Footnotes have been collected at the end of the text, and are linked for ease of reference.

Back to Index Next