Review and Herald, Vol. 18, No. 6. (7/2/1861)

Review and Herald

Jul 2, 1861

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 2, 1861

THE SABBATH

By J. M. Aldrich

For the Crisis.

THE SABBATH.

BY J. M. ALDRICH.

BRO. GRANT: With your permission I will again intrude upon the columns of the Crisis with a few comments on your second article in answer to the questions of T. M. Preble on the Sabbath. Though it would afford me pleasure to extend my remarks on the subject, I will endeavor to be brief. You base your remarks in your second article on your former assumption that the ten commandments constituted the "first covenant," which is now "done away" and "abolished" because it was not "faultless," &c. I think I succeeded in showing clearly in my former article that the ten commandments were not "that first covenant," but rather the conditions thereof, as they are also the conditions of the second or new covenant. But what is the second covenant? Paul says [Heb. viii, 6] that it is a "better covenant," "established on better promises," clearly implying that the first covenant also contained promises; but the ten commandments contained no promises. But the prophet Jeremiah [Jer. xxxi, 31-34] informs us concerning the second covenant; and Paul [Heb. viii, 8-12; x, 16, 17] repeats it, saying, "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people; and they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for all shall know me from the least to the greatest; for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Here then, on the authority of Paul and Jeremiah, we have the second covenant, and also the "better promises" upon which it is "established." But you claim something else as the second covenant, viz., the ten commandments minus the fourth or Sabbath commandment; and that you have found it elsewhere in the New Testament. Query. What is there about the Sabbath commandment so obnoxious that it may be said of the nine commandments that they are a "better covenant" than the ten, and "established on better promises?" What about the Sabbath so faulty that it should be needful to introduce a new covenant? Do you find one day in seven any too much for needful rest, and for religious duties? No one claims it. Does it "gender to bondage?" Then why do you continue to observe one day in every seven? The fourth commandment requires us to observe no more!

But I will notice directly your promiscuous quotations, which you term the second covenant, but which I must say are not thus termed by either Christ, prophet, or apostle. You say, "As we are now under the second, of course nothing that was in the old is binding upon Christians unless it is incorporated into the new." Also, "If a State or nation adopts a new constitution, there is nothing in the old one that is binding excepting what is associated with the new;" and "when the new one is ratified and adopted, the old one has no more authority." I admit that the foregoing is good logic, but where will it lead you? Your proposition of course implies an act of incorporation, an act adopting the "new constitution," an act of ratification, &c. But where shall we find such act? When the ten commandments were spoken from mount Sinai, there was indeed an act suitable to the occasion. There were the assembled hosts of Israel. The Lord Almighty came down upon the mount. There God spoke with his own voice; and there too were the tables of stone with his matchless law engraven thereon with his own finger. And how grand, yet terrific, the scenery!—the quaking mount—the thunder and lightnings—the thick cloud—the fire and the smoke—the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud, &c. Such was the occasion of the enactment of the ten commandments. Now if they were to be abolished, and the nine reenacted as a new code, might we not reasonably expect the Bible to contain a record of such reenactment, with attending circumstances worthy the magnitude thereof? Such indeed is implied in your proposition as above stated; but you failed and must fail to produce any such record. It is true you have found interspersed through the New Testament the precepts contained in the nine commandments, but where is anything said about their being "incorporated into the new" covenant? Where and by whom were they "ratified" and "adopted" as "a new constitution" or covenant? Because you find Christ and the apostles at different times and places in the course of their ministry and in pursuance thereof, to have spoken authoritatively the precepts of the nine commandments, do you therefore claim that they were at those different times and places thus "ratified" and "adopted" as a new law or "constitution?" and yet still more, as the new or second covenant? Why could you not include the fourth precept? I think Christ and the apostles have authorized its observance by implication if not expressly; and were I to undertake to re-adjust God's law (which I hope I may never do), I certainly should include the precept of the fourth commandment as well as of the other nine.

But now let us look a moment at what you term the new covenant. In your article you have it placed in contrast with the ten commandments as the "old covenant." You quote each commandment of the decalogue as recorded in Ex. 20, and against each of them you place the same precepts as found at different places in the New Testament until you have thus matched them all except the fourth, against which you mark "wanting." For the first precept of the "new covenant" you quote [Matt. xxii, 37, 38] the words of Jesus, spoken in the latter part of his ministry in answer to the question of the lawyer: "Which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment." Allow me to quote the two following verses: "And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." In these two commandments Christ sums up the contents of the two tables of stone, embracing in the first our duty to God, and in the second our duty to man; and if all the law hangs on them, most assuredly the fourth commandment hangs there with the rest. But, query: Did not Christ put forth this first precept of your new covenant before the old covenant was abolished? If so, how do you reconcile therewith your statement, saying, "We cannot be living under two covenants at the same time?" You have not said, however, in your article when the ten commandments were abolished. I assume therefore, some definite period—perhaps the death of Christ. Be this as it may, the discrepancy is quite as apparent in regard to the other precepts. Your second precept was uttered by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. x, 14. Query again: Does not this precept come in altogether too late? Paul was not converted till after the death of Christ, and this precept was not put forth by him till over twenty years afterwards. It cannot be that idolatry was admissible during all that intervening time! Third precept. Matt. v, 34, which is a portion of Christ's sermon on the mount—the same sermon in which he says, "I came not to destroy the law," &c. Query again: This third commandment of your new covenant was spoken by Jesus some two or three years before he tells the lawyer what he says is "the first and great commandment." How do you reconcile this arrangement? Fourth precept: "Wanting." Will you allow me to supply? "The Sabbath was made for man." This statement of Christ clearly implies that "man" is required to observe it "according to the commandment;" otherwise the Sabbath must have been made in vain. Fifth precept: Eph. vi, 2,

and the remaining sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth precepts you quote from Rom. xiii, 9. Query again: Were Christians under no obligations to observe the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth and tenth commandments during all the time intervening between the abolition of the old covenant and the writing of these precepts by Paul some twenty-five years or over thereafter, or after his conversion and the death of Christ? Such is your logic; for you say "that nothing that was in the old covenant is binding upon Christians unless it is incorporated into the new;" and as you have given the order of their incorporation into what you are pleased to call "the new covenant," you will be forced to admit that during all this intervening time such obligation did not exist.

Again: You present the same argument in another form. You ask (on the assumption that you have proved the law to be "dead"), "But how shall a man be condemned for covetousness if the law is dead which says, 'Thou shalt not covet?'" And you answer, "He could not be, unless this part of the old covenant be incorporated into the new; but in the new we read, 'Thou shalt not covet.'" But according to your order of incorporation, it does not read thus till some twenty-five years or more after the law is "dead" as you affirm; hence, from your own reasoning, during that time a man could not be condemned for covetousness; and so in regard to the other precepts!

Again: You make a vital mistake by confounding "the law of Moses" or the ceremonial law with the moral law. You refer to the apostolic conference that "was held at Jerusalem to decide whether the Gentiles who had become the disciples of Christ should keep the law of Moses" [Acts xv], and then in connection say, "In Paul's letter to the Romans he shows most conclusively that 'the law of Moses' is dead," quoting at length Rom. vii, 1-7. You then undertake to identify what you then term "the law of Moses," which you say Paul "shows most conclusively" to be dead, with the moral law, by incorporating it with verse 7, which says, "Thou shalt not covet," &c. It is very clear that that law which says, "Thou shalt not covet" is the moral law; and I also affirm that Paul in Rom. vii, 1-7 was speaking of the moral law, but I deny that he said there anything about "the law of Moses." But in Acts xv the writer was unmistakably speaking of "the law of Moses," or the ceremonial law, as any one can see by reading the chapter, for the dispute among the disciples was on the subject of circumcision; hence you err in confounding the two laws. Had you simply argued that "the law of Moses" is "dead," I should of course offer no objections; but when you seek to identify that law with the moral law, and claim that you have proved it to be "dead," or "abolished," I demur.

The apostle in Rom. vii, 1-7 does not say that "the law is dead," but says "ye are become dead to the law," which is quite a different thing. But you think that you have the proof in verse 6: "That being dead wherein we were held;" but the marginal reading is, "Being dead to that wherein we were held," which harmonizes with the former quotation. But what is the drift of the Apostle's argument? He is simply showing the relation the Christian ("ye brethren") sustains to the law, in contrast with his former position as a sinner, when "under the law," i. e., under its condemnation. If a man commit crime against the law of the State—if he steal, for instance—he is then "under the law," i. e., under its condemnation, and is "held" by it, perhaps paying its penalty in the State prison. Should the governor of the State, however, pardon him, he is no longer under its condemnation; he is "delivered from the law;" but because he is thus pardoned and delivered, is the law dead? Would the man then have license to steal? Certainly not. Should he steal again he would again be under its condemnation. So of the Christian. He has renounced sin, ceases to transgress God's law, has received pardon, and is no longer "under the law,

but under grace," i. e., the favor of God; as Paul says, "But now are we delivered from the law, being dead to that wherein we were held."

But if the Apostle's argument on the law should seem to be couched in obscure language, and difficult to be understood, we need have no difficulty if we will only allow him to draw his own conclusions; we certainly should be content therewith. Let us look at some of his conclusions: Verse 7: "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin but by the law." How could a "dead" or "abolished" law have convinced Paul of sin?

Again: After showing some of the effects of the law upon himself, he says [verse 12] "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good." Why, I ask, need such a law be abolished?

Again: Chap. iii, 31. "Do we then make void (i. e., abolish) the law through faith? God forbid. Yea, we establish the law." What can be more emphatic? Surely if Paul by his reasoning establishes the law, he does not by the same process abolish it.

But you say, "The Sabbath was expressly for Israel as may be seen from the following: 'And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that 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.' Deut. v, 15. You say that 'this reason could not apply to any people but Israel, because no other nation were then delivered from Egypt.' To show the fallacy of this argument, we will only apply the same to another similar text: 'I am the Lord your God which brought you out of the land of Egypt; therefore shall ye observe all my statutes and all my judgments and do them.' Lev. xix, 36, 37. Shall we apply your 'reason' to this text? If so we are not bound to observe the statutes of God, because we were not delivered from Egypt!"

You say, "The Sabbath was a sign between the Lord and the children of Israel to commemorate their great deliverance," and quote a part of Ex. xxxi, 17, as proof thereof. But the whole verse shows that it was a "sign" to commemorate God's work of creation. Let us see. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." Does not, therefore, the keeping of God's rest day very significantly commemorate his work of creation? But there was a sign to commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egypt. It was the institution of the Passover, Ex. xii, 14; xiii, 9. So Israel were not under the necessity of keeping the Sabbath to commemorate their deliverance from Egypt; for they had a much more appropriate memorial.

You close your article by making a slight apology for Sunday keeping, "as commemorative of the deliverance of the Saviour from the power of death." As I have already extended my article to such length, I will not now attempt to answer this part of the question, but will close by propounding to you again the questions of T. M. Preble, though slightly altered, viz., Is the keeping of the first-day Sabbath (?) enjoined upon Christians by the teachings of the New Testament? If not, why should they keep the first day?

Yours for the truth.

Somerset, N. Y., Feb. 18, 1861.

JESUS, SWEET NAME.

FROM THE LATIN OF BERNARD.

Jesus, the very thought is sweet! In that dear name all heart-joys meet; But sweeter than the honey far, The glimpses of his presence are.

No word is sung more sweet than this; No name is heard more full of bliss; No thought brings sweeter comfort nigh Than Jesus, Son of God Most High.

Jesus! the hope of souls forlorn, How good to them for sin that mourn! To them that seek thee, oh, how kind! But what art thou to them that find!

No tongue of mortal can express, No letters write its blessedness; Alone, who hath thee in his heart Knows, love of Jesus! what thou art.

O Jesus! King of wondrous might! O Victor! glorious from the fight! Sweetness that may not be expressed, And altogether loveliest.

The Quaker's Corn Crib.

A man had been in the habit of stealing corn from his neighbor who was a Quaker. Every night he would go softly to the crib and fill his bag with the ears which the good old quaker's toil had placed there. Every morning the old gentleman observed a diminution of his corn-pile. This was very annoying, and must be stopped—but how? Many a one would have said, "Take a gun, conceal yourself, wait till he comes, and fire." Others would have said, "Catch the villain, and have him sent to jail."

But the quaker was not prepared to enter into any such severe measures. He wanted to punish the offender, and at the same time bring about his reformation, if possible. So he fixed a sort of trap close to the hole through which the man would thrust his arm in getting the corn.

The wicked neighbor proceeded on his unholy errand at the hour of midnight with bag in hand. Unsuspectingly he thrust his hand into the crib to seize an ear, when, lo, he found himself unable to withdraw it. In vain he tugged, and pulled, and sweated, and alternately cried and cursed. His hand was fast, and every effort to release it only made it more secure. After a time the tumult in his breast measurably subsided. He gave over his useless struggles, and began to look around him. All was silence and repose. Good men were sleeping quietly in their beds, while he was compelled to keep a dreary, disgraceful watch through the remainder of that long and tedious night, his hand in constant pain from the pressure of the clamp which held it. His tired limbs, compelled to sustain his weary body, would fain have sunk beneath him, and his heavy eyes would have closed in slumber, but lo, there was no rest, no sleep for him. There he must stand and watch the progress of the night and at once desire and dread the return of morning. Morning came at last, and the Quaker looked out of his window, and found that he had "caught his man."

What was to be done? Some would say, "Go out and give him a good cow-hiding just as he stands, and then release him, and that'll cure him." But not so said the Quaker. Such a course would have sent the man away embittered and muttering curses of revenge. The good old man hurried on his clothes, and started at once to the relief and punishment of his prisoner.

"Good morning friend," said he, as he came in speaking distance. "How does thee do?"

The poor culprit made no answer, but burst into tears.

"O, fie!" said the Quaker, as he proceeded to release him. "I'm sorry that thee has got thy hand fast. Thee put it in the wrong place, or it would not have been so."

The man looked crestfallen, and begging forgiveness, hastily turned to make his retreat.

"Stay," said his persecutor—for he was now becoming such to his offender, who could have received a blow with much better grace than the kind words that were falling from the Quaker's lips—"stay, friend thy bag is not filled. Thee needs corn, or thee would not have taken so much pains to get it. Come, let us fill it!" (And the poor fellow was obliged to stand and hold the bag while the old man filled it, interspersing the exercise with the pleasantest conversation imaginable—all of which were like daggers in the heart of his chagrined and mortified victim.)

The bag was filled and the string tied, and the sufferer hoped soon to be out of the presence of his tormenter, but again his purpose was thwarted.

"Stay," said the Quaker, as the man was about to hurry off, having muttered once more his apologies and thanks, "stay, Ruth has breakfast ere this; must not think of going without breakfast. Come, Ruth is calling!"

This was almost unendurable. This was "heaping coals" with a vengeance! In vain the mortified neighbor begged to be excused; in vain he pleaded to be released from what would be to him a punishment ten times more severe than stripes and imprisonment. The Quaker was inexorable and he was obliged to yield.

Breakfast over, "Now," said the old farmer, as he helped the victim to shoulder the bag, "If thee needs any more corn, come in the day time and thee shall have it."

With what shame and remorse did that guilty man turn from the dwelling of that pious Quaker! Everybody is ready to say that he never again troubled the Quaker's corn-crib. I have something

still better than that to tell you. He at once repented and reformed, and an informant tells me that he afterwards heard him relate, in an experience meeting, the substance of the story I have related, and he attributed his conversion, under God's blessing, to the course the Quaker had pursued, to arrest him in his downward course.

SPIRITUALISM.

By John Norton Loughborough

DEAR BRO. WHITE: I have a few quotations which I use in lecturing on Spiritualism, taken from the Banner of Light, which some of the brethren request me to send to the Review for publication, so that they can get them. The first is a report of a Spiritual conference held at No. 14, Broomfield St., Boston, Wednesday evening, Jan. 9, 1861. The question up for discussion was:

"What are the means by which we may determine genuine spirit manifestations from those originating in the earth life?"

Dr. Gardner said: "The means of determining the genuineness of spiritual manifestations, is probably vague with all of us, and every one must do it on his or her own plan. The better a person is acquainted with mental phenomena—the power of one mind over another—the better he can answer the question.

"There cannot be so thorough proof, however, as on other and more tangible matters. False communications have at times been proof of the power and control of spirits, for facts have been given, interblended with falsehood, beyond their knowledge. Communications have been given through mediums from persons who have been in the flesh at the time, the mediums all the time being innocent of any deception; but it seems to me the spirits of the absent ones become so tangibly present by the use of their own thoughts, as to influence the power of the medium. The best test we can apply to communications, after all is our own reason."

Mr. Wetherbee said: "We cannot tell ourselves what we are; and we are just as near spirits now as we ever shall be."

Mr. Davis said: "The question, as I understand it, is, How are we to distinguish between true and false manifestations? It seems to me the truth of the communications may be a safe guide; but mediums may give false communications, and yet be innocent; for they are unconscious of any attempt at deception practiced by the spirits through them."

Dr. Gardner said: "I will state a fact under my own observation. Mrs. Hatch was speaking in the Melodeon, a few years ago, and delivering a discourse of a very high order. During the time, her spirit visited Buffalo, and held converse with the medium in a circle which was being held there, and so impressed herself upon her identity that she told those present that 'Cora Hatch is here.' On coming out of the trance, Mrs. H. told her husband and myself that she had been to Buffalo, and visited awhile there. She narrated a conversation there, and requested a memorandum to be made of it, and sent to Buffalo, and said the same thing would be done there, and the letters would pass each other on the route, and thus prove a test to all parties. This was done according to direction; and a few days after, a letter was received from Buffalo, giving the same particulars. This fact proves that living spirits can communicate with each other."

Mr. Burke said that he "thought the Doctor was honest in what he said, but was the victim of deception on the part of the mediums."

Mr. Edson said: "There is no need of accusing everything of falsehood because there are some counterfeits."

I have some testimonies from the Banner of Light, of Jan. 19, 1861, professing to be communications from spirits, which I will give for the curiosity of the reader. The first is professedly from Kneeland Chase, and I used it with considerable force the other day against a Spiritualist who raised a query about the Bible account of the death of Moses, and wanted to know if we ever knew of an individual giving an account of their own death and burial! It is as follows: "Oh,

my God I am in trouble. I am dead—there is no doubt about that; but I did not know it till some time afterwards. I know this place; I know what I have come for; I know about your paper; I have read it; but I have never seen any body come in this way—never heard anybody talk in this way."

"I have got a strange story to tell I was murdered; and I know who murdered me. It wasn't Billey by any means. It wasn't anybody who was charged with my murder; But I know who did it. My God! I wish I didn't."

"I have two or three favors to ask here. One is, I should like to have all my body buried together. I don't want one part of it in New Hampshire and another in Massachusetts. I want Dr. Jackson to send my stomach home. It is a queer question to ask, perhaps, but it is a favor, and I ask it. That body served me well, and I wish to take care of it now. No matter if it has been buried for months, I want it all together. I could have analyzed it right. There was not poison enough to detect. I was murdered."

"It is no use to say my horse killed me—that is a foolish story. No one will ever believe it who knew about the horse. I wasn't so stupefied or drunk that I didn't know I wasn't alone, and that I was murdered as some one thought who was determined to murder me. And I confess I did not know who it was until after death; but I do know now, and I have a right to use the knowledge as I choose to. There can be but little done in the dark now-a-days. It was dark in the barn, but when I came to my senses, after death, there were plenty to tell me who did the deed, but not until I was discreet enough to use it properly."

The spirit of Charles Hovey is represented as saying, "I find as great a variety of religions here as on earth. Each has his or her own peculiar views; and, as far as I can see, spirit-life is a perfect type of natural life. I have not changed, except from one body to another; and I believe that is the case with all I meet here. They still cling to that which was their faith on earth, and will, until they find something that suits them better. At all events, I shall."

Harry Henshum is represented as saying, "I died most four years ago. I have been in a kind of a place between here and nowhere. I can't tell what I have been doing. I have lost track of most everything, not excepting myself."

I have a list of nineteen predictions in the shape of prophecies that were made by the spirits at Chagrin Falls, Ohio, September 20, 1860. Five of these predictions were to be fulfilled before this time, but four of them have failed, and the fifth which has proved true, was what all the political papers said was coming. The other fourteen apply to the future, and refer to what is to be the result of the present crisis of our nation. We will wait and see if they will be fulfilled. Those which refer to the past I will give in this article.

1. "Next winter congress will get in a broil. They will fight. Blood will flow."

2. "My consciousness is that this nation will be dead as a nation before the fourth of March."

3. "Almost simultaneous with the close of the November election, will be another crash among the banks similar to the one in 1857." Just what all the political papers were warning the people of.

4. "We will have no more presidents. The present one (Buchanan) will not serve his time out."

5. "The Republican candidate will get the popular vote, but will not be elected."

We have just had quite a time with a Spiritualist at Clinton who came into the tent and preached a discourse against the inspiration of the Bible, and tried to set up reason as a substitute, and told us after that he did not submit to evidence or authority. The Lord helped us to give him a perfect rout, and successfully meet all the fog which he tried to throw against the Bible. He undertook to claim that every man had an inspiration from God which was infallible, referring to Spiritualism. But it was not a very hard matter to show that if his arguments against the Bible were just (although he could not sustain them), there were ten contradictions in Spiritualism to one in the Bible, according to their own admission. He left town with appointments unfulfilled, and the people en masse satisfied that Spiritualism could not stand.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.

Crane's Grove, Ills., June 26, 1861.

Suffer Little Children.

SOME think that the little child cannot be converted, because he is too young to understand religion. They might just as well say he cannot live on food because he cannot tell how the grass that feeds the ox is turned into flesh and then nourishes him. They might just as well say he cannot be warmed with his clothes because he cannot tell how the grass the sheep eats is turned into wool, and how wool is made into cloth. The greatest man that ever lived cannot tell how the grass is turned into flesh, or into wool, and thus made to nourish or warm us.

The little child can eat the food and live; the philosopher can do no more. He can put on his garments and be warm; the great and learned can do no more.

A poor blind beggar once cried out in the street, and asked Christ to have mercy on him. What did he want? Lord, that my eyes might be opened. How could he tell how Christ could open his eyes? And when he found them cured what could he say when they asked him, "How opened he thine eyes?"—"By what means he opened mine eyes I know not; but one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, I now see." Could the greatest man that ever lived say more?

Every child knows what it is to love his mother, but can he tell you any more about it than that he feels? Can any man say more? Every child can take hold of his father's hand, and go with him in the dark, and that is having faith in his father; but he cannot tell what faith is.

A little child once got lost in the woods, and night came on, and it grew dark, and they could not find him for a long time. At last he lay down under a log, cold and afraid, and cried as loud as he dared. At length he heard some one calling. He was afraid at first that it was a wild beast. Then he plainly heard his own name. Still he did not stir. But when the voice came nearer, and he heard his own name called, he stopped crying, and jumped up and went toward the voice. He could not see anything, but he heard his father's voice, and ran to him. Thus he could have faith, though he could not tell what faith was. The child Samuel could say, "Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth," though he could not know the voice of the Lord from the voice of Eli.

So the little child can believe in Christ, and love him, though he cannot know all the deep things in religion. He can live upon the sincere milk of the word, and grow thereby, and that is all that is necessary for his being gathered to Christ.

The beautiful rose does not know how the dews of the night refresh it and revive it, but they do. The modest lily that peeps up and catches a few of the bright sunbeams, does not know how they make it white and pure, but they do. The valley that lies at the foot of the mountain does not know how the gentle rills that run down the sides of the mountain, bursting out from hundreds of little springs, make it bright and fertile, but they do. So the little one does not know how he believes in Christ, and how he lives by faith, but he does. And the tall tree of the forest, and the giant oak on the hill, can no more tell how they are nourished by the rain and sunshine, than the little violets that grow in a crack of the rock; and the lofty tree in the garden, and the frail lily are alike, for they know not how. When the child has said that he feels love to Christ in his heart, could a Newton with all his great mind say more?

Continue reading: THE CAUSE