IN EXTRA No. l,p.14, appeared the following short article, to which Eld.C., as appears from this reply, takes great exception on the ground that it present him in a wrong light before the public. The body of the article consists of extracts from what he has written to different papers; and the name of the paper in which each quotation was published, and the date when published are explicitly given, so that any one can verify the quotations if he so desires. We ask the reader to compare again carefully these quotations, and judge whether it is not Eld.C.’s own words which have placed him in the light in which he stands before the public, which to be sure is not a very enviable one. The article as published in Extra No.l was headed, “All Things to all Men,” and reads as follows:—RCASDA 192.1

“We notice quite a difference in the tone of Eld.C.’s arguments, according to the views of the paper for which he writes. Thus, while writing for the Methodist paper, the organ of a denomination which has strenuously maintained the unceasing obligation of the ten commandments, he says:—RCASDA 192.2

P.S.— Lest my position should be misunderstood before I have time to explain it, I will say here that I believe strongly as Sabbatarians do in the perpetuity of the holy immutable law of God, and every moral precept taught in the Old Testament. The Methodist Discipline (Articles of Religion, sect.6) exactly expresses my position on the law: ‘Although the law given from God by Moses as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; yet, notwithstanding, no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral.’ — Advocate, Sept. 24, 1887.RCASDA 192.3

“Now he knows, as all know, that the Methodist Discipline by the expression, ‘the commandments which are called moral,’ means the decalogue, the ten commandments, as they were spoken by God from Sinai, and written on the tables of stone. So the Methodists will get the idea that Eld. C. agrees with them in this, and so be much pleased. But when he is writing to an antinomian paper, as the Christian Oracle, of Des Moines, Iowa, instead of saying what s to be understood that no Christian whatsoever is free from obedience to the decalogue, he says that all Christians are free from it; for it has been nailed to the cross, and taken out of the way. Thus in the Oracle of June 9, 1887, we read the following from his pen:—RCASDA 193.1

“The simple facts, I believe, are these: Paul [in Colossians 2:14-17] refers to the entire Jewish system, the law of Moses as a whole, of which the decalogue was only a small part. Every word of the ten commandments, Sabbath included, was written by the hand of Moses, on parchment, right in with the rest of the law of Moses. (See Deuteronomy 5, and other places.) As an entire system, as a law taken in all its parts, it was a burdensome system, a yoke of bondage, a school-master designed only to lead us to Christ. It was against us and contrary to us, and as such it was nailed to the cross. The decalogue being written on parchment in the book of the law, it would be proper to speak of it as blotted out, nailed to the cross, etc., with the rest of the law.RCASDA 193.2

“Eld. C. would not dare address such language to the Methodist Advocate. If he did, it would not be published. This is being all things to all men with a vengeance.RCASDA 193.3

U.S. “

The article published in the Oracle, from which the foregoing extract is taken, Eld. C. says he did send to the Advocate, and the editor pronounced it “very fine,” and promised to publish it if space permitted. Personally, the editor might have been willing to do this. He has come in contact with arguments in defense of the true Sabbath. He understands how grave the situation of the Sunday institution is becoming, and has endeavored to defend it. He might be willing to resort to any expedient, even to the abolition of the whole law, to get rid of the Sabbath. We have before had occasion to note that the Sabbath controversy is forcing people either to accept the Sabbath of the Lord, or to retire to the “last ditch” of antinomianism; and some are making this latter move with great precipitation. But the consciences of the great body of the Methodist and Baptist denominations, have not yet reached that degree of depravity to which these men are trying to force them. And the influence of this fact is seen in the treatment of Eld. C.’s article by the Advocate.RCASDA 193.4

As abridged, says Eld. C., the article appeared as number eleven of the series of articles in the Advocate. We look over the article, and what do we find? — Every plague touch of the virus of antinomianism carefully removed. All expressions to the intent that the decalogue was “a part of the Jewish system, the law of Moses, written by the hand of Moses on parchment right in with the rest of the law of Moses,” that it was “a burdensome system,” “a yoke of bondage,” “against us,” “contrary to us,” and “nailed to the cross,” and “blotted out,” — all these expressions are carefully left out. Want of space is pleaded as an excuse for omitting these expressions. But these were the real gist and point of the article as sent to the Oracle. If the article must be abridged, why not take out some of the less important portions, instead of those vital and essential parts which show what his position really is, as it was published in the Oracle?RCASDA 194.1

It is useless to claim that the position of the Methodists as expressed in their Discipline, on the law, is the same as that of the Disciples. It is equally evident that the readers of the Advocate, the Methodists, will understand that Eld. C.’s position is exactly like theirs, and the readers of the Oracle, the Disciples, will understand that his position is exactly like theirs. If this has come about so far as the Methodists are concerned, by suppression of those declarations which show his real position, then the editor of the Advocate has misrepresented him; and yet he utters no protest against being placed in this false light before the readers of the Advocate. Indeed, he takes the same position himself in that paper, in the postscript to his article in the Advocate of Sept 24, as already quoted. The Methodist Discipline recognizes the distinction in laws, as ceremonial, civil and moral; and while the former are done away, the latter are immutable and perpetual; and this, Eld. C. says to the Methodists, “exactly expresses” his position. But to the Disciples, who do not acknowledge any such distinction, he says he believes it was an “entire system,” a “law in all its parts,” and all done away, nailed to the cross and blotted out. If these two declarations set forth one and the same position, it remains, at least to our mind, yet to be shown.RCASDA 194.2

We said that he would not dare address to the Advocate such language as he addressed to the Oracle. But this he says he did do; and we will take his word for it. We added, however, this: “If he did, it would not be published.” And this conclusion stands verified; for the Advocate would not, or at least did not, publish it. When Eld. C. will induce the Advocate to publish from him the statement that the decalogue, containing the commandments which are called moral, has been blotted out and nailed to the cross, and call it “very fine,” and induce the Oracle to indorse the position that “the law of God,” the “commandments which are called moral,” is a “holy and immutable” law, he will have done something toward proving that he does not designedly stand in a different light before the readers of those papers respectively. But then he would simply contradict himself in both papers.RCASDA 195.1

U. SMITH.

ELD. BUTLER’S WRONG STATEMENT. — NO.2

“I HAVE TRIED TO DO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS RIGHT.”