Review and Herald, Vol. 13, No. 8. (1/13/1859)

Review and Herald

Jan 13, 1859

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 13, 1859

THE SECOND DEATH.

By Jabez C. Chadwick, A. M.

The following sermon on the Second Death is from the pen of Jabez C. Chadwick, A. M., an elder of the Christian denomination. A brother has placed it in our hands in pamphlet form, dated Ithaca, N. Y., 1855. Thinking it will be of interest to our readers as a clear and concise presentation of the teaching of the Bible on the destiny of the wicked, we have concluded to insert it in the REVIEW. In his preface the author says:

"To prevent misunderstanding, it is proper to state, that the ensuing sermon on the second death, is not offered to the public as the sentiment generally embraced by the Christian connection. For it is conceded that probably the greater part hold to the doctrine of endless misery. A very considerable portion, however, of the connection believe in the final and absolute destruction of the wicked, so that their consciousness will utterly and forever cease. And it is confidently claimed that the advocates of this theory are not inferior to their brethren of the opposite opinion, either in talents, piety or usefulness. Moreover, the history of the Christians shows that from their first rise, as a distinct denomination, both of these views have been adopted and published, with the express understanding that there should be a mutual toleration."

THE SERMON.

"On such the second death hath no power." Rev. xx, 6.

The second death!—what is it? Is it endless misery—a death which never dies, as it is frequently called? Or is it a final abolishment, produced by the just and omnipotent wrath of God poured out without mixture upon the ungodly? This is a question of unspeakable importance. I do not say it is indispensable to salvation to believe the one or the other of these theories. Nevertheless, the honor of God, the cause of truth, and the enlightenment and well-being of mankind must be deeply involved in its solution.

Passing over but lightly, for the want of room, and for its comparative unimportance, the nature of the intermediate state, as it is commonly termed, I shall treat particularly and definitely of the final end of the wicked, here called the second death; and shall undertake to prove that it will not consist in endless positive misery, but in limited sufferings terminating in the utter and irreversible destruction both of soul and body.

The all-important point at issue, is the ultimate doom of the wicked. Is the doctrine of endless misery implied in the second death? Has God threatened to consign such as believe not, to endless torture? Is this "the terror of the Lord," which being known by Paul and others in the primitive age, led them to persuade men? Is this the counterpart to the assurance given that "he that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved"—a doctrine to be preached in all the world to every creature? Is the preacher to stand up in his pulpit, and proclaim the awful and spirit-withering fact, that infinite wretchedness is due for finite guilt, (for surely it can be no other,) and that the damned, after suffering millions and millions of years, will be no nearer the end of their wo, than at the moment of its commencement? And all this, while we are assured that God is love—that his ways are just and equal, and that he delighteth not in their death? If this be the real truth, let it be promulgated and believed. Let the preacher lift up his voice like a trumpet, and give the warning night and day—"in season and out of season."

Let him not speak in that reserved, half-hearted and wavering manner which is often observed; but let him stand up like a man—like an undaunted lion, and with heaven's eternal curse full in his view, let him speak out in thunder tones, whether men will hear, or whether they will forbear.

Otherwise, let him not venture upon a theory so unaccountable and fearful—so contrary to any natural notions of justice that the best enlightened entertain—so adverse to the disposition which is wont to be attached to the character of a father, that we cannot (it would seem) attribute it to the great Father of the universe, till we have first divested him of the heart of a father. Let not the damnation of endless misery be proclaimed, because it is the popular doctrine—because priests, and popes, and councils have decreed it—and because a preacher's place, honor and emolument cannot be secured without doing thus. Let not this doctrine be advanced, because it has been so long inculcated, and by such high dignitaries, and is thought necessary to impose proper restraints upon the wicked, and wake up serious attention to "the one thing needful." God will take care of his own truth; and if he has said the wicked shall be cast into hell, and die there, and be burnt up, root and branch, it is because he judged that such a denunciation was sufficient to answer all the lawful purposes of terror. Let not the doctrine of the second death, as scripturally defined, be kept back or evaded, or couched in uncertain terms, to accommodate the feelings of friends, or to escape the rod of excommunication, or any thing that is crossing to the flesh. Seeing "the Lord hath spoken, who can but prophesy."

Once more, let not this view of the matter be suppressed, through fear that we shall be stigmatized as universalists, or infidels. It is not naturally connected with either of these theories. What is the principal cause of men's running into these errors? Is it not the promulgation of the doctrine I am opposing? I wonder there are not ten driven to these extremes where there is one. It is natural for men to run from one extreme to another. It is by exhibiting "the truth as it is in Jesus," that I would reclaim universalists and skeptics. I would not despise their persons and treat them harshly, because they have erred. They are entitled to sympathy and respect. Let them, therefore, be told the plain truth, and faithfully warned of the second death, and consequently invited to Jesus for life and immortality.

But it is time to introduce the proof that the second death does not imply endless misery.

1. Endless misery was evidently not implied in the first death, or the death threatened in the Adamic law, and if it was not contained in that, it will follow from the law of analogy, that it is not contained in the second death. It will be readily seen that a second death implies a first. And there can be no reasonable ground to question that the death with which the second is contrasted is the death threatened to our first father in case he should eat of the forbidden fruit. God said to him, "in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die," or more strictly rendered from the Hebrew, "dying, thou shalt die." The plain meaning is, that he should at once become mortal, and at length expire.

This is the proper starting point. What, therefore, did this threatening imply? We have been gravely told that it was death spiritual, temporal and

eternal. But spiritual death it could not be; for this would confound the crime with the punishment. And eternal death it could not be, without either impeaching the veracity of God, or utterly closing the door of redemption. It is especially evident that it could not be eternal death, if (as is consequently held) eternal death means endless misery. In that case, redemption was out of the question, and man's last doom was sealed forever.

This conclusion cannot be avoided, by introducing the notion of a substitute. For God did not say that man should die, or a substitute for him. The threatening was to him personally and absolutely. Moreover, if a substitute were admissible in the case, the difficulty would not be obviated. For the substitute must, of course, be consigned to eternal death, i. e., endless misery; and hence what benefit could he be to the human family? Let no one here resort to the theory of equivalency; for it is unwarranted by the Scriptures, and the whole of it rests upon assumption. Remove the curse from man himself, and you are lost in the wild mazes of conjecture and inconsistency.

We come then to the plain fact in this case, viz: that the death threatened in the Adamic law was temporal, or natural death—the event so denominated the world over, and in all generations. And being simply death, without being qualified with eternal, endless, or irremmediable, it left perfect room (though it gave no intimation of the kind) for a recovery, if God pleased. And, blessed be his name, he was pleased to introduce a new covenant, with the promise of life and immortality, through faith in a coming Saviour. And this Saviour, although the pre-existent Son of God, by taking a part or portion of "flesh and blood," like the children whom he came to redeem—in other words, a human body in connection with a super-angelic spirit, could die the very death threatened to man, and survive; thereby abolishing death, and bringing life and immortality to light. Here is no contradiction of God's testimony. God meant as he said in the original threatening; and he has done as he threatened—all which is true of the theory which I am advocating, and of no other.

And when God threatened death to Adam, including his race, he excepted no part of him, and hence this death implied the destruction of the entire man, or the extinction of his life and being. But it placed no veto upon his recovery, as is the case with the second death. Hence the scheme of redemption was perfectly practicable, without any impeachment of the divine veracity.

If, therefore, there be any analogy between the two deaths, the second death will be as truly an extinction of life—a destruction of the conscious being of its subjects—as was the first. Its pains will indeed be vastly more severe, and a recovery from it be rendered absolutely impracticable, nevertheless it will be death. And this, with the qualification of second, to distinguish it from the Adamic law penalty, is the entire penalty of the gospel. Take any other view of it—extend it to endless misery; to an undying, immortal state, and you destroy the analogy between the two cases—you corrupt, and even annihilate the precision of language, and virtually "call evil good and good evil." In fact, the Bible, upon that principle, ceases to be a revelation, and becomes an unmeaning record. The conclusion from the above train of proof is plainly, that the second death does not consist in endless misery, but in limited pains and final destruction.

2. The scripture terms, phrases and declarations pertaining to future punishment do not necessarily imply endless misery. This is an important item, and should be examined with great care. I shall endeavor to notice all the texts which have any material bearing upon the subject.

The Saviour's final commission to his apostles contains this solemn and emphatic sentence, "But he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark xvi, 16. The words, damned, condemned, and judged, are translated from the same Greek word. The second definition is manifestly the one to be adopted here. To be damned is to be condemned. To what, then, is the unbeliever to be condemned? To the second death, most surely, which has already been described. There is no proof in this text that he is to be condemned to endless misery. But as man under the law was condemned to the first death, so the unbeliever under the gospel is to be condemned to the second death, which is destruction without remedy. Allow this to be a complete contrast to eternal salvation, which is unquestionably promised to the believer, and it furnishes no proof of endless misery.

"But is in danger of eternal damnation." Mark iii, 29. This is predicated of one that blasphemes against the Holy Ghost. But to say that eternal damnation is eternal misery is mere assumption—a begging of the question. Damnation here, as in the previous case, is condemnation. And such it will be, if the blasphemer is condemned to the second death, which is an everlasting destruction both of soul and body. The qualifying term, eternal, proves nothing for endless misery, because the condemnation is not to this, but to the second death, from which there is no reprieve. Everlasting death and destruction are appropriately termed eternal damnation. This passage utterly fails of proving the point at issue.

"It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, (Greek, gehenna,) into the fire that never shall be quenched." Mark ix, 43. But, until it is proved that the fire of hell may not continue after the sufferers are consumed, (which has not yet been done,) this passage is adduced in vain for proof of endless misery. It is the natural and necessary tendency of fire to consume that to which it is applied. And the wicked are, in their nature and constitution, consumable. Hence God threatens to consume, destroy, kill, devour and burn them up. It is said expressly that he is a consuming fire. Therefore, if the wicked are cast into gehenna, "into the fire that never shall be quenched," this fact, instead of proving the endlessness of their misery, proves directly the reverse. This passage does not furnish the requisite proof, allowing the unquenchableness of the fire to denote its endless continuance. But there is no necessity for admitting this. The phrase necessarily means no more than the continuance of the fire till everything subject to its power is consumed. It is frequently applied in scripture to scenes which have long since terminated, as to the destruction of Jerusalem, Idumea, &c. But give it the utmost latitude, and it does not prove unending misery, but simply the utter destruction of the wicked. God says in reference to his covenant people of old, "I will not contend forever, neither will I be always wroth; for the spirit should fail before me, and the souls which I have made." Isa. lvii, 16. This plainly teaches that if his wrath does not abate, (as it surely will not with regard to the finally impenitent,) it will inevitably cause them to cease to be. A thousand such texts as the one under consideration would only prove the reverse of endless misery.

"But he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Matt. iii, 12. The remarks just made will show the irrelevancy of this passage. Surely chaff that is "burnt up" is not always burning.

"Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Mark ix, 44. "Their worm dieth not," is evidently a figurative expression, denoting the successful and effectual means of their punishment. All, therefore, which the passage teaches is that these means will not fail, but continue unabatingly till their complete consumption or destruction is effected. Whatever their worm denotes, it is something which devours and wastes, and so must eventually terminate the existence of that upon which it preys. This idea is carried out more fully and forcibly in the additional clause, "and the fire is not quenched." Thus, the argument from this formidable passage is fairly disposed of.

(To be Continued)

CHRISTIAN MUSINGS.

In the still silence of the voiceless night, When chased by airy dreams, the slumbers flee, Whom in the darkness doth my spirit seek, O God, but thee?

And if there be a weight upon my breast, Some vague impression of the day foregone, Scarce knowing what it is, I fly to thee, And lay it down.

Or if it be the heaviness that comes In token of anticipated ill, My bosom takes no heed of what it is. Since 'tis thy will.

For oh, in spite of past and present care, Or anything besides, how joyfully Passes that almost solitary hour, My God, with thee!

More tranquil than the stillness of the night, More peaceful than the silence of that hour, More blest than anything, my spirit lies Beneath thy power.

For what is there on earth that I desire Of all that it can give or take from me, Or whom in heaven doth my spirit seek, O God, but thee?

SPIRITUAL INTERPRETATION.

By J. B. Frisbie

My mind was called to this of late while listening to a sermon. The subject was on spiritual discernment, founded on 1^st Cor. ii. The speaker commenced by saying that it was a mystery how a spear of grass grew, and we could not tell how nature colored the flowers, therefore the Bible was a mystery, except in christian duty, and that was so plain that a wayfaring man though a fool need not err therein. He talked largely about spiritual interpretation, and spiritual discernment and mystery, until the close of the discourse. It was called out by hearing that we understood the Bible literally.

But the thought occurs, What does Paul intend by spiritual discernment that the natural man cannot see? Is it not to discern that which the natural eyes cannot see, the saints' inheritance? But Paul, filled with the Spirit, could see this, as a prophet sees.

And what is spiritual interpretation? The rule we learn by their own application is simply this; when God's word says anything that crosses their creed exactly, that the Word means exactly the opposite or reverse of what it says. It says one thing and means another. This is to wrest or twist the Scriptures right around, which those who are better learned in the creed than the Scriptures, are necessitated to do, 2 Pet. iii, 16. A single example at this time must suffice. When the Bible says the soul shall die, they say it cannot, because it is immortal. Death does not mean death, but life and eternal misery, pain, &c. J. B. FRISBIE.

Holiness to the Lord

By D. F. Newton

For the Review & Herald.

“Holiness to the Lord.”

Beloved Editor: Is it not glorious, most glorious? Does not the very thought of holiness enkindle a flame most holy? I rejoice to see the question of purity, or entire consecratedness to God and his service, so clearly and forcibly advocated in your weekly. May the Lord incline you more and more to this blessed theme of full salvation, to pour in the liquid flame of the pentecostal, till the whole church of God kindle up to a flame most holy. Sad, it is, lamentably sad, to lose the spark from the divine altar once enkindled. The case alluded to in this article is one of fact, coming under my personal observation. I saw it weepingly and exclaimed,

What now? Where now?

Where now, brother, O where? Where are you? Once you were on the mount? tarried in the mount forty days, and forty nights, and when you came down your face shone brightly as Moses' did when he descended from the same mount of God. Once you professed the blessing of holiness, entire consecratedness, the sealing, sanctifying, influences of the Holy Spirit. You professed to enjoy the superlative grace—you believed it, preached it, prayed it, wrote it out, sent it abroad. You testified publicly, on every suitable occasion, to the saving efficacy of Christ's blood to cleanse from all sin. You published it gladly, sounded out the sweet sound of redeeming, sanctifying grace—you made it a special business, a prime object in your public and private ministrations. You enforced this entire consecratedness to God, brought it home to every heart powerfully as a present, indispensable duty and privilege. You also attended meetings especially for this same object. Holiness was the delight of your soul. You could say with the sweet singer of Israel, "My foot standeth in an even place, in the congregations will I bless the Lord." The cause of truth prospered wherever you went—sinners were awakened and converted, souls sanctified, led directly into this blessed gospel fullness.

But where now, brother? O where? Lips closed, are they? Where now the blessedness of which you spoke? What has God done? Is he not the same yesterday, to-day and forever? If the doctrine of holiness is the doctrine of the Bible, the sine qua non—indispensable to the world's salvation—the great safe-guard, the rock on which we must build, why not continue steadfast, unmovable, always abounding, firm to the end, increasing more and more? Ifs? there are no ifs about it. God speaks it, thunders it, flashes it. These glowing, sparkling truths, stand out—blaze out on the pages of inspiration like the sunbeams of noonday: "Be ye holy, for I am holy." "Without holiness no man shall see the Lord." Brother, how is it that those men in all ages, who believed in the doctrine of entire sanctification in this life, enjoyed it, lived it, witnessed it by every thought, look, word, action; held on to it definitely, publicly and practically were the men of the times?

This was the great secret of the Moravians, of their success—the philosopher's stone. What people under the sun were more signally blessed in saving souls than these same Moravian missionaries, so long as they held on to this pearl of pearls, "the joy of the Lord," went forward proclaiming it? God blessed their labors marvelously, even in the frigid zone. A great light sprung up to those sitting in darkness and in the region and shadow of death. So in the days of Wesley, Fletcher, Carvosso, Lady Maxwell. Mark also the labors of Bro. Caughy, the revivalist; why are thousands on thousands born into the kingdom annually through his instrumentality, blessed be God, filled with the Holy Spirit? The truth is, he pours in the liquid flame of full salvation—the burning lava of this gospel grace. "Holiness to the Lord" is written on his banner—"Come out from among them, be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing," is brought home with the sledge hammer of Omnipotent bearing. Look, moreover, at Dr. Palmer, and his consecrated wife; what are they doing? mark their footsteps—Satan trembles, falls as lightning at their approach. Wherever they go, God is with them to bless, convict, convert, purify and sanctify. What is the secret of their unparalleled success? The doctrine of holiness is first, midst, last, always. They believe it, profess it, enjoy it, live it, publish it; God owns it in the awakening, converting and sanctifying of thousands on thousands.

Close our eyes, our ears, our lips, hold our peace? At our peril we do it. "Beware therefore, lest that come upon you which is spoken of in the prophets:

behold ye despisers, and wonder and perish, for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you." Acts xiii, 40, 41.

Yours for the cause of truth and love. D. F. NEWTON. Ed. of Golden Rule, N. Y. city.

Confidence in God.

By C. W. Swift

It was vast confidence in God which nerved Elijah to face that haughty monarch, who had forsaken the commandment of his Lord, and pronounce that awful malediction, "As the Lord God of Israel liveth, before whom I stand, there shall not be dew nor rain, these years but according to my word." He possessed the same virtue as he knelt upon mount Carmel, and with his serene brow towards the quietly sleeping sea, which lost itself in the distance, that man of God is praying for rain, that the long curse may be removed. And as he finishes his prayer he bids his servant go and look towards the sea: he goes and looks, and returns and says, "I see nothing." Again and again the prophet pours his supplication into the ear of God till the seventh time his servant returns and says, "There is a little cloud, rising out of the sea, like a man's hand."

Methinks I see that minute speck, which so satisfied Elijah's faith, like the sail of a lone vessel, away out on the heaving bosom of the Mediterranean, which already began to surge against the base of that sacred mount. It increases, and ere long a mighty thunder-cloud rolls up the brazen heavens, and the refreshing shower causes the parched fields of Israel, which for three and a half years had not drunk a drop of dew nor rain, to again bloom in beauty.

Time rolled on and Ahab forgot the dreadful lesson he had learned, and became as sinful as before. Suddenly Elijah appears before him again, and pronounces another awful curse, which was dreadfully fulfilled; after which, we see him seated upon an eminence, and Ahaziah sends a troop of horse, and as a sweeping gallop brings them to the base of that isolated hill, they bid him come down, for their king wants to make a prisoner of him. Elijah spake, and from the bending heavens of his God, forked lightnings stretched the entire company dead on the plain. A second fifty came, and were eager to lay their unholy hands on that man who reposed so much confidence in his God, and met the same fate. Woe to the wicked servants of that ungodly monarch, who would lay violent hands upon that heaven-protected prophet.

Moses possessed vast confidence also, when he besought God, whose feet were as a glowing furnace, who made mount Sinai smoke, blaze and tremble, as though ten thousand cannon were constantly being discharged on its summit, to show him his glory. God put him in the cleft of the rock, and held his hand over him, for it was impossible for Moses to live and see what this mighty stretch of faith prompted him to ask of God. How came these men by so eminent a degree of this virtue? We answer, by holding constant communion with the Lord their God. Was not Moses forty days with Jehovah in the secret pavilion of burning fire on mount Sinai, prior to his asking so large a boon? Did not Elijah converse with God and angels as with friends, for years before he was whirled up to glory in a fiery chariot?

Brethren, since as Paul says, it is a fruit of the Spirit, and since we would possess like faith, let us walk in the same path, and hold constant fellowship with the God of Moses and Elijah. Then, on wings of confidence, we can mount the skies, and scale the walls of heaven.

C. W. SWIFT.—[Wesleyan.]

Direct Preaching.

By Watchman and Reflector

A brother in the ministry, who for many years had been a close observer of the way in which many of our traders do business, and how the love of wealth leads to acts of dishonesty, took occasion to preach on the passage in Luke xvi, 10. "He that is unjust in least is unjust also in much." The theme was "that men who take advantage in small things, of a purchaser or seller, have the very element of character to wrong the community and individuals in great things where the prospect of escaping detection or censure is as little to be dreaded." The preacher exposed the various ways by which people wrong others, such as borrowing, by mistakes in making change; by errors in account; by escaping taxes and custom house duties; by managing to escape postage; by finding articles, and never seeking owners, and by injuring articles borrowed, and never making the fact known to the owner when returned.

One lady the next week met the pastor, and said, "I have been up to Mr. —, to rectify an error he made in giving me change a few weeks ago, for I felt bitterly your reproof yesterday." Another individual went to Boston to pay for one article not in her bill, which was not charged when she paid it.

A man going home from meeting, said to his companion, "I do not believe there was a man in the meeting-house to-day who did not feel condemned." After applying the sermon to a score or more of his acquaintances, he continued, "Did not the pastor utter something about finding a pair of wheels, somewhere?" "I believe not, neighbor A. He spoke of keeping little things, which had been found." "Well, I thought two or three times he said something about finding a pair of wheels, and really supposed he meant me. I found a pair down in my lot a little while ago." "Do you know whom they belong to? Mr. B. lost them a short time ago." The owner was soon in possession of the wheels.

Christ our Surety.

By W. S. P.

Of all Christ's titles none suggests more weighty or welcome truth than that of SURETY. This is expressly given him in Heb. vii. 22. "Jesus was made a surety of a better testament," or covenant.

A surety is one who answers for another, who takes the place of another in any matter of responsibility, who undertakes any service for another. Thus Paul was surety to Philemon for Onesimus. Thus Judah was surety to his father for the safe return of Benjamin. More commonly suretyships relate to the payment of debts, or the fulfilling of covenants.

There is no question of the validity of Christ's suretyship for us, if, first, he acts voluntarily; if, second, the guaranty given is ample; and if, third, God freely accepts and fully approves of this arrangement. On all these points the Scripture is full and clear. Christ was not forced into this undertaking: "I delight to do thy will, O my God; I lay down my life, no man taketh it from me," must settle the first point. Isaiah liii, and many other scriptures, must settle the second. "A body hast thou prepared me—This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," must settle the third.

Our guilt would always bring us before God loaded with chains; our depravity would ever cover us with shame; our ignorance would render us liable to the most fatal mistakes; our misery would always present us in his sight as wretched objects; while our helplessness would show us all to be dead men. So that our need of a surety was beyond a question, and the love that gave us a surety beyond a parallel.

As our surety, Christ was made a curse for us; he bore our sins in his own body on the tree; he was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him, and thus he became the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth; having suffered for us until himself, by the eternal Spirit, said, "It is finished."

This is the great work of our Surety, that without which all else could do us no good. Sin was the only barrier to man's salvation. Christ hath borne our sins in his own person for us; blessed be his holy name. He answers the demands of the law.

He also secures our acceptance of the grace offered in the gospel, and our steadfastness in the ways of God. He heals our blindness, he cures our love of sin, in his strength our weakness vanishes away. This is all done efficiently by his Spirit, whom he sends to lead us in the ways of righteousness.

Let every child of Adam who hears this glorious message say, "Thou blessed Saviour, I take thee to be my surety. Unless thou pay my debts, they will remain ever unpaid. I accept thee in all thy offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. I trust thy grace. I have no confidence but in thee. My tears cannot wash away my sins. Even my blood could make no atonement, for it is the blood of a sinner. Christ is my all, and in all. O that my faith in him for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption may never, never falter. He is my Lamb, who taketh away my sins, my Ark of safety, my Rock of defense, my All. O that I loved him more. O that I may see his face, and be forever like him, and with him."

W. S. P.—[Am. Mes.]

Continuity of Christian Acts.

“PRAYING always, rejoice in the Lord always, in everything give thanks, always abounding in the work of the Lord.”

Here are exhortations to several exercises or states of soul or outward occupations, each and all of which are to be perpetual. Is there then no contradiction herein involved or impossibility commanded?

We may be sure that “the Father of spirits” has not violated any of the laws of spirit in what he has enjoined upon his children. The virtue of the new life is in beautiful harmony with the oldest and deepest nature. “His commandments are not” even “grievous.” The yoke of Christ is easy. All his commandments concerning all things are right. Complete christian devotion and obedience is “a reasonable service.” Rom. xii.

But these holy acts and states are compatible also from their own nature. They are substantially identical. Prayer, thanksgiving, expressions of hope and joy in God permeate a pious life as easily and beautifully as sunbeams penetrate pure and limpid water, diverted, reflected, and refracted, but not sullied, much less extinguished by the medium through which they pass—crossing each other without confusion. Prayer, praise, and holy joy pervading a pious life, mixing with the every-day and all-day works and cares of a christian, are like sunshine in water, coming from heaven and giving a heavenly radiance and beauty to the earthly element which they enter.

Nor is there any honest calling which may not be so sanctified. Have you ever entered into the deep and blessed meaning of those words of Paul speaking by the Holy Ghost, “Let every man wherein he is called, therein abide with God.” Can any state be holier or more blessed than that which is allotted to you by the providence of God, (without which not a hair of your head can fall to the ground,) and in which you are permitted and enjoined to “abide with God?”

How near to heaven, then, may be the Christian's life on earth—differing only in the tears which we are still compelled to shed over our manifold infirmities. And these, too, God will entirely wipe away (as well as all other tears) from the eyes of his children.—Sel.

An Apt Reply.

A NATIVE deacon, named Hagop, now has the charge of the Protestant Armenian church at Trebizond, in Asia Minor, as there is no missionary there. Mr. Wheeler of Kharpoot says of this man, that he has good abilities, an excellent judgment, a good knowledge of the Bible, and a pleasing address. To show his shrewd quickness in reply, he relates the following anecdote:

Some years since, the deacon was employed by an English mercantile house in Samsun, and was required to work on the Sabbath. This he steadily refused to do. His employer used all his ingenuity to convince him that it was necessary and right to do so then.

"What!" said he one day, "if an ass fall into a pit on the Sabbath, does not even the Saviour say that it is right to pull him out?"

"Certainly," said Hagop, "but if an ass has a habit of going every Sabbath and falling into the same pit, then his owner ought either to fill up the pit, or sell the ass."—Sel.

SUNDAY-KEEPING.

By Editor

A RARE bit of testimony in favor of the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, has lately fallen under our observation. If it be proper to dedicate an extract, we would respectfully dedicate it to all Sunday-keepers. If any have doubts of its authenticity, we will warrant them that it is as good as the Epistle of Barnabas and much more explicit. Unfortunately for them, the passage was omitted by the Council of Nice A. D. 325. It finds its appropriate connection in the last chapter of Luke, immediately after the 29th verse, as follows:

"Verse 30. And when they were entered into the house, Jesus continued talking and expounding the Scriptures unto them.

"31. And before the lights were brought, for it was not yet dark, he said unto them, Wist ye not that it behooved Christ to rise again from the dead on the third day?

"32. And behold this day hath been the first day of the week: henceforth therefore it shall be a Sabbath unto you; for the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath-day.

"33. Therefore ye shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath, throughout your generations. It shall be a sign unto you forever.

"34. From the second day of the week, even unto the end of the seventh day, may ye labor, and do all your work: but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God; for it is written, He rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made; wherefore the Lord hath blessed the first day and hath hallowed it.

"35. Behold now ye have walked hither from Jerusalem these threescore furlongs. This ought ye not to have done.

"36. But I wot that through ignorance ye did it, not having understanding to discern the day which the Lord hath made: go henceforth, and sin no more.

"37. Verily I say unto you, on the first day of the week, hereafter ye shall not do any work. Tarry here, therefore, and rest until the day be fully past, and then go straightway and tell the disciples what ye have heard, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever ye have been commanded.

"38. And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, the two disciples marvelled greatly within themselves if this were indeed Jesus who was risen from the dead; for he spoke as one having authority: howbeit they knew not his voice.

"39. Then the disciple whose name was Cleopas answered and said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no parable; now we understand that of a surety the first day of the week is the holy Sabbath of rest."

There! what can be plainer than that! If there only was such testimony as this, with a claim to inspired authority well established, the Sunday Sabbath would no doubt be placed above board. But mark! it will take testimony just as explicit as this to show a change in the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and which must show a much better title to inspiration. The need of some testimony of this kind in support of the darling offspring of tradition was doubtless felt in the early years of the Christian dispensation, as well as at the present day. But why should it be without such testimony in an age when pious frauds were considered a virtue, and when grievous wolves, ecclesiastical corruption, and holy(?) Fathers, lost their identity in each other? It need not. We may therefore reasonably suppose that some one, bolder than his brethren in the practice of pious impositions, conceived the idea of filling the vacancy with such testimony as the case might require, and bequeathing it to posterity as a divine legacy of inspiration. The providence of God, however little else it may have had to do with the Nicene council doubtless influenced its deliberations to preserve the Bible from this spurious reading. But the days of pious frauds are past, and therefore the Sunday institution, driven from its natural covert, has naught to hide its nudity from the peering eyes of the profane world. It has been unclothed from the robe of sanctity which antiquity has endeavored to throw around it; but haplessly for its friends and adherents, it has not yet been clothed upon with any more sacred or divine mantle.

Continue reading: THE SANCTUARY