Review and Herald, Vol. 36, No. 6. (7/26/1870)

Review and Herald

Jul 26, 1870

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 26, 1870

Review of Wellcome and Goud.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

BY ED. J. H. WAGGONER.

(Continued.)

THE NEW COVENANT WAS MADE BY MOSES.

THE OPPOSERS OF THE LAW OF GOD have uniformly denounced us as followers of Moses, and accused us of adhering to the covenant made by Moses, while they have professed to reject all that was taught by Moses, and to listen only to the teachings of Christ. But while we pay a just respect to Moses as a prophet most highly favored of God. (Num. 12: 6–8), and regard him, not as standing opposed to Christ, but by inspiration of God's Spirit testifying of Christ (Deut. 18: 15; John 5: 46, 47), we nevertheless regard him only “as a servant for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after.” Heb. 3: 5. But we consider it no discredit to our names as Christian worshipers of the Most High God, that we obey the words which he has spoken, and keep his commandments, which an inspired writer has said “is the love of God,” (John 5: 3), regarding Jesus, his Son, as “the [only] mediator of the new covenant,” (Heb. 12: 24), and the only means of being free from the carnal mind, and so being brought into subjection to the law of God (compare Rom. 8: 7 with 5: 1). Or, in other words, we do not consider it inconsistent with our Christian profession to unite the keeping of the commandments of God with the faith of Jesus (Rev. 14: 12), and to do the will of the Father as well as to call Jesus, Lord. Matt. 7: 21. But Messrs. Wellcome and Goud have outstripped all parties who have ever written on the covenants, or on the mission of Moses, inasmuch as they have Moses make the new covenant with Israel as well as the old! It is hardly worth while to inquire whether those who recommend this book so highly noted this point, or if they noted it, whether they can indorse it: they indorse the conclusion aimed at in the book, to wit, that the Sabbath law is not binding. And years of observation have taught us that those who aim at that conclusion are not generally at all particular as to the means of reaching it.

The idea itself is not more singular and absurd than is their method of proving it. Thus they write:

“We have before remarked that there are but two covenants mentioned in the Scriptures as being made with the descendants of Abraham. The first was made with the FATHERS of Israel and Judah when the Lord took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; and was made at Sinai (Horeb). Now, if we can find a covenant made with Israel and Judah, beside the one made with their fathers at Sinai, we shall have found the new covenant; especially if it bears the aforesaid marks of that covenant. We will turn our attention then to Deuteronomy (which name signifies second law); and we find Moses, forty years after the exode from Egypt, (during which they had wandered in the wilderness and received the first covenant from Sinai), lodging by the springs of Pisgah, over against Beth-peor, in Moab. Here he recapitulates to the people their history in the wilderness, and the giving of the first covenant at Horeb (Sinai), together with its statutes and judgments; the fathers to whom that covenant was made being all dead, except Caleb and Joshua, because of their breaking that covenant.”

The first error in this quotation is that referring the term “fathers,” in Deut. 1–5, &c., to those who came out of Egypt, as it refers to the patriarchal fathers in every instance of its use. As much depends on this fact, in order to a proper understanding of this point, I will copy the passages where it occurs:

“Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Lord swore unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and their seed after them.” Chap. 1: 8.

“Behold, the Lord thy God hath set the land before thee; go up and possess it as the Lord God of thy fathers hath said unto thee.” Verse 21.

“Surely, there shall not one of these men of this evil generation see that good land which I sware to give unto your fathers, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh.” Verses 35, 36.

“And because he loved thy fathers, therefore he chose their seed after them, and brought thee out in his sight with his mighty power out of Egypt.” Chap. 4: 37.

The same expressions are found in chap. 6: 10, 23, and “thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” are named in verse 10. But as they lay particular stress upon chap. 5: 1–3, I copy their quotation and comment as follows:

“The Lord our God made a covenant [the first one] with us in Horeb (Sinai). The Lord made not this covenant [this second one, which I speak in your ears this day] with our fathers [in the wilderness], but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day,” Page 146.

A very little consideration, with a becoming freedom from prejudice, must have convinced them that their comment was a perversion of the text. Moses was therein speaking of but one covenant. The “fathers” referred not to those who came out of Egypt, but to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as in the other passages quoted. All of the words of Moses concerning the making of a covenant refer to a single transaction in the past, and not as their comment would make it, to one covenant in the past and one then present. There is an ellipsis in verse 3, which when supplied, at once shows the fallacy of their comment. “The Lord made not this covenant with your fathers, but [the Lord made this covenant] with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.” This properly places “this covenant” in the past, and he goes on to say in the next sentence, “The Lord talked with you face to face in the mount, out of the midst of the fire.” That only one covenant is there referred to, is so plain that many words are not necessary to prove it.

Again, they err in referring the name Deuteronomy [“second law”] to the new or second covenant. Any one who reads this book of Deuteronomy will see that it is a rehearsal of law given in the past, and not the introduction of another law or system of laws. The name is not derived from the Hebrew, as is well known. Dr. Clark says:

“We have borrowed the name of this book, as in former cases from the Vulgate Latin, Deuteronomium, as the Vulgate has done from the Greek version of the Septuagint, Deuteronomion, which is a compound term literally signifying the second law, because it seems to contain a repetition of the preceding laws, from which circumstance it has been termed by the Rabbins, mishneh ha-torah, the iteration or doubling. It appears that both these names are borrowed from chap. 17: 18, where the king is commanded to write him a copy of this law. The original is mishneh ha-torah, a repetition or doubling of the law.” He also says, “In Hebrew, like the preceding books, it takes its name from its commencement, elleh ha-debareem, these are the words.”

No one would ever think of making such an application of this name as is made by Messrs. Wellcome and Goud, unless it were to make a plea for a cause which was hard pressed for argument to sustain it.

Another reason for saying that Moses made the new or gospel covenant with the Israelites, they draw from Deut. 4: 29–31: “The Lord thy God is a merciful God.” On this they say:

“And though now scattered among the nations, as Moses said they should be, yet in this condition he presents to them the doctrine of mercy (Deut. 4: 29–31—a doctrine unknown in the first covenant, as facts had shown).” Page 145.

Had I first opened the book at this place, and read the foregoing, I should have been surprised at such a declaration; but a careful reading of the preceding pages had prepared me for any assertion the book might contain, however absurd it might be. Let the

reader bear in mind that by “first covenant” they mean the ten commandments; they then put Deut. 4 in contrast with the commandments, because Deut. 4 contains a recognition of the mercy of God, which the ten commandments do not! Whether they were so ignorant as to believe the statement they made, or whether they intended to presume on the ignorance of their readers I do not care to inquire. But I will quote from the ten commandments:

“For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me and keep my commandments.”

Here are introduced justice and mercy: justice against those who hate and disobey God, and mercy toward those who love him and keep his commandments (the ten commandments). And here I remark, though the idea has probably never suggested itself to Messrs. W. and G., that the ten commandments reveal the very elements presented in the gospel. We have found justice and mercy in the above quotation from the law. In Rom. 3: 23–26, the gospel system is fully set forth; Christ a propitiation, that God might be just, and the justifier of the believer in Christ. Now inasmuch as the law is established and not made void through faith, verse 31, the two must harmonize, as has been before shown. The law offers mercy to the loving and obedient, and the gospel secures this mercy while it maintains the justice of the law. But a single reading of Deut. 4, to notice its connections, will show the fallacy of the position of our authors, without any argument.

In speaking of this new covenant they say:

“In Christ’s sermon on the mount, recorded in Matt. chaps. 5, 6 and 7, we hear him contrasting his commandments of the new law with those of the old, and sums them up as follows: ‘Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.’ Matt. 7: 12.”

Here is an idea purely original with these authors: that “the law and the prophets” mean the gospel! Wonder if the same expression in Luke 16: 16, 17, refers to the same thing?

Our opponents have so long and so often affirmed that Christ, in Matt. 5, contrasts his commandments with the commandments of the decalogue, that it would be pleasing, if for nothing but the sake of variety, if they would attempt to offer a little proof on the point. When Christ said he came not to destroy but to fulfill the law, he could not have meant the gospel. Matt. 5: 17; and so in verses 18, 19, the law and commandments to be fulfilled, or done and taught, could not refer to the gospel, but to the law of his father. In verses 27–32 he comments on the law of marriage, showing the extent of the law, and the spirit of the institution. I heard Eld. Carr of Maine, who is proverbial for echoing the sentiments of Mr. Wellcome, say that the Saviour in Matt. 5: 28 presented a contrast with the seventh commandment of the decalogue! The commandment says, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” A contrast with this would read, Thou shalt commit adultery. The Saviour quotes the commandment, but does he then say that it is abolished, that its force is weakened, or that he has a substitute. No; he first repeats the commandment, and then says it can be broken by the look of the eye and desire of the heart. This truly magnifies the law, and instead of making it void, shows its strictness and the extent of its obligation. He certainly does not intimate that the commandment may now be broken, but he does show the purity of its morality, in that it reaches to “thoughts and intents of the heart.” And I would ask our authors and their associates in such teachings, If it be wrong—if it be adultery, to look upon a woman with lustful desires, by what is that wrong shown, or that action forbidden, if not by the commandment which says, Thou shalt not commit adultery? Where, then, is the contrast, of which you speak? And it will be noticed, that the Saviour does not directly say that it is wrong thus to look upon a woman, nor does he forbid it. But he does say that it is adultery, and thus rests it entirely upon the authority of the commandment which forbids adultery.

And so, as Paul says, instead of making void the law, he establishes it.

The Saviour did present a contrast between his teachings and the “sayings” of “them of old time,” and even many of the forms of their ceremonial and civil law, because these were temporary, and to cease at his cross. But he never contrasted his teachings with the ten commandments, nor with any of them, nor with any principle directly growing out of them: but he invariably vindicated them, both in his life and teachings. And if the opposers of God’s holy, just, and good law, still persist in recommending a contrast of the ten commandments I hope in charity that their lives may prove better than their teachings.

(To be continued.)

THOUGHTS BY A SICK-BED.

By L. Bush

Sitting by the bed of sorrow, Caring for the ones we love, Long we for the coming morrow, When the Saviour from above, Comes to take away our sadness, Comes to take away all pain, Comes to bring us joy and gladness, Comes upon the earth to reign.

Now we see with grief and anguish, Loved ones lying prostrate here; Care we for them while they languish, Speak we to them words of cheer. In our hearts how are we fearful? In the scales our hopes are laid, And we prayerful watch, and tearful, Trusting in our heavenly aid.

Close, O Lord, these scenes of sorrow, Unto earth return again; Bring, O Lord, this longed-for morrow, Take thy power on earth and reign. Make the waiting ones immortal, Take away our care and pain, Banish grief and give us gladness, Ever with us, Lord, remain.

Lord! thy waiting ones are crying, Calling to thee night and day; Dry our tears, and hush our sighing. Take all pain and death away. Come, Lord Jesus! hear them praying, O, our Saviour, come again; And our weeping hearts are saying, Even so, come Lord. Amen. L. Bush.

What Availeth Opposition?

By M. W. Howard

Much every way, might be answered at first thought; and doubtless much is accomplished, both good and ill; for opposition is a counteracting force, however applied. Very much of injury is certainly done by mankind's opposition to the workings of God's divine Spirit. It is a co-operation with Satan, and hinders souls from accepting Christ as a Saviour. It also hinders the progress of enlightened truth, barring hearts, which otherwise might accept, against that which is distasteful to fallen human nature, but which is needful to salvation.

Yet as I read and ponder the teachings of many Scripture lessons, I am ready to say in the words of another, “When God is for us, who can be against us?” and reversely, “When God is against us, who can withstand his power?” Like Saul of Tarsus, one may be “breathing out threatenings and slaughter;” but one manifestation of the Almighty can arrest and turn them. And some, even of the wicked, desire this. But this is not God's usual manner of working.

He would have all men repent, and come to a knowledge of himself. Yet none are compelled; if they choose to resist, resist they may, and “wonder and perish.” In their resistance they may be only neglectful, or they may use weighty words, clamoring like the priests in the days of the prophet Amos, when the cry was raised, “The land is not able to bear all his words.” Amos 7: 10. Or, they may be more demonstrative in their opposition, like Jehoiakim king of Judah, when seated in his winter house, listening to the roll read by Jehudi. Jer. 36. Surrounded by his princes, in whose countenances he might read encouragement, he ventured upon the rash act. What did he gain? This knowledge, for one thing: that though he and all his courtiers might disbelieve, the “uttered thing of God, would be;” for the writing was replaced, and “there were added besides unto them, many like words.”

In one respect, we must admit, Jehoiakim manifested more wisdom than many of our day. He did not act from hearsay, but sought out the matter himself. Jeremiah was already shut up in prison, for his bold speaking, and had forwarded his message through an amanuensis. Then, the written “roll was read in the Lord's house, in the ears of all the people” who were there to hear; but as it is often now, it was received second-hand by those whom it most concerned. But afterwards, at their own request, it was read in the ears of the princes, who reported it to the king.

Incredulous perhaps, or at least willing to leave margin for possible exaggeration, he controlled, or suspended his chagrin, sending for the roll, that it might be read in his own hearing. Notice his wrathful opposition. “When Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire.” Jer. 36: 23.

Behold the king, in undignified frenzy, snatching the roll from the hands of the man of God, cutting it in shreds with his penknife, and as if that were not sufficient destruction, casting the tatters into the fire! No doubt, the lookers on stood appalled, yet doubtless imagined that that was the end of that unwelcome “roll.” So mankind in opposition may strike hatefully at doctrines they do not love, with as little avail as was cutting the roll, or burning it with fire. For a brief space they may prevail, or fancy they will succeed, only in the end to perceive in the words of the poet,

“All-seeing, powerful God! Who can with thee contend? Or who that tries the unequal strife, Shall prosper in the end?”

The God whose purpose they seek to prostrate still lives; and opposers of his will, like the unsubmissive king, find that they have accomplished what is, as “the adding besides, many like words,” all their efforts proving but penknife weapons against the Most High.

They may, indeed, harass and perplex the children of God; but, often these harassments and perplexities are the very instrumentalities that stimulate to a grander faith, and a firmer grasp on God. Till in exaltation, even timid ones can exclaim, “The name of the Lord is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe;” Prov. 18: 10; or realize with Isaiah, “O Lord thou art my God, . . . a strength to the needy in distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, when the blast of the terrible ones is as a storm against the wall.” Isa. 25: 1-4. Is there discomfiture here? No! The harassed, perplexed ones, may walk serenely, being “kept from the fear of evil, because their hearts are stayed on God,” even when outward commotions are such, that those who have occasioned them are truly “as the troubled sea whose waters cast up mire and dirt.”

M. W. HOWARD.

Malone, N. Y., June, 1870.

Future Punishment.

By R. F. COTTRELL

THE PLACE.

In order to ascertain the truth concerning the nature of the final doom of the ungodly, it is a matter of importance to learn from the Scriptures concerning the place of future punishment. We are not left to conjecture in regard to the place where wicked men will receive the punishment due to their sins. Perhaps the reader is ready to say, We all know where they are to be punished; it is in hell. That answer is too indefinite, because the word hell in our English version of the Scriptures does not always mean the same thing. There are different terms in the original which are rendered hell in our Bibles. In those places where we have sheol in Hebrew, or hades in the Greek, it signifies the place or state of the dead, both good and bad, between death and the resurrection. It is not the place of future punishment; but it is a general name to comprehend the condition of all the dead, whether buried in graves, or in the ocean, or wherever they are. It is sometimes translated grave, but this term, though true as referring to those who are buried in graves, is not comprehensive enough to include all the dead. This is the hell from which our Saviour came forth, when he left the new sepulchre in which Joseph had laid him. The prophecy that his soul should not be left in hell, was fulfilled in his resurrection from the dead. Ps. 16: 9, 10. Acts 2: 25–31. All are to be brought from this hell—brought up from the dead—before the future punishment is inflicted.

The inquiry may now arise concerning the hell fire of which we read. That is not in the grave, nor in the “dark, unfathomed caves” of ocean. No, this is quite another thing. It is from another word, Gehenna, and is used to denote the place of future punishment. It refers to the valley of the son of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth of the city was deposited and fires were kept to consume it; and hence it is taken as a type or emblem of the fire of that future day when the enemies of God shall be punished, and the refuse and filth of earth shall be consumed. But is not that fire doing its work at present? We think not. The Judgment is not yet past. Men are first judged, then punished. It is not till the Son of Man shall come in his glory, and shall sit upon the throne of his glory, that he says to the wicked “Depart ye cursed into everlasting fire.” Matt. 25: 31, 41.

Do the Scriptures testify to the place where the wicked will receive their punishment? They do clearly state it; and consequently we need not set our imagination to explore the interior of the earth, or to

visit distant planetary worlds, to find it. We come, then, to the testimony.

“Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth; much more the wicked and the sinner.” Prov. 11: 31.

This text plainly states that both classes, righteous and wicked, shall be recompensed in the earth. But this is most especially and emphatically the case with the wicked: “much more the wicked and the sinner.” The saints have the promise of a “great reward in Heaven;” but the wicked have their portion entirely in the earth.

That is just what I believe, says a friend, I believe the sinner gets his punishment as he passes along through the world.

Stop a moment. The text does not say men are rewarded in this life. It speaks of a future recompense; but it is to be on the earth. It says they shall be recompensed in the earth, not are recompensed in this life. In this life the wicked often have their good things, and the righteous evil things? but the time of recompense is coming, and it will be upon the earth. How is this possible? What kind of recompense are they to have in the earth? The righteous are to have the earth for an everlasting inheritance. “Blessed are the meek,” says our Saviour, “for they shall inherit the earth.” Matt. 5: 5. The following will tell how both classes will be recompensed. “For the upright shall dwell in the land, and the perfect shall remain in it. But the wicked shall be cut off from the earth, and the transgressors shall be rooted out of it.” Prov. 2: 21, 22. And when this is done, “The righteous shall never be removed; but the wicked shall not inhabit the earth.” Chap. 10: 30. “For evil doers shall be cut off; but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth. For yet a little while and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be. But the meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.” Ps. 37: 9–11. Thus while we are learning of the place, we are learning of the nature, of future punishment. “The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein forever.” But the time is coming when the wicked shall not be. To be, is to exist. They are recompensed in the earth, but they are cut off and their existence ceases—their place is not to be found.

The earth, says an apostle, is reserved unto fire against the day of Judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But although the earth and elements are to melt with fervent heat, yet the fact is plainly taught that a new or renewed earth will succeed it; and that in that new earth there will be no more curse. Then all the inhabitants of the earth will join in a universal song of praise. 2 Pet. 3: 7–13; Rev. 22: 1; 22: 3; 5: 13. Hence the time will come when the wicked will have been punished, and the place where they met their fate will resound with the songs of the righteous.

R. F. COTTRELL.

Holiness and the Pilgrim Life

By JOS. CLARKE.

Items.

You will never conquer sin until you loathe it; and you will never loathe it until you see the beauty of purity and holiness in the character and word of God. This must be done by cultivating an acquaintance with God; and this can be done only by persistently striving, in a scriptural way, for continued nearness to him; therefore recollect do not turn things upside down by trying to be holy, so that he will receive you; but rather seek to him for help to sanctify you, that you may be holy; only strive daily for a close walk with God, which of itself will wean you from the world, the flesh and the devil.

Strangers and pilgrims here! Who is one? Where are they who are only strangers and pilgrims? “Let us invest,” say the pilgrims, “in such estate as will be contiguous to our destined home,” Pilgrims and strangers do not buy up village sites and sections of land on their journey; pilgrims and strangers do not buy up the inns they stop at, and the stores where they get their supplies, but buy what they want, rest occasionally, and press on.

One week before the flood, skepticism and immorality was at its hight of daring. So now the unbelief in the coming Advent increases as the time approaches, and never will be less until it is so near that remedy will be out of the question.

Error is like the clown, constantly changing his dress, and attitudes, and style of address. Truth needs no such shortlived advantages, nor does she seek them. Were the consequences of error harmless, truth would simply smile at error, as he continually hastens from one disguise to another.

The patient man does not say, “It is the last feather which breaks the camel’s back;” that is one of the maxims of the wicked man. The language of the patient man is, “The Lord hath given, and the Lord hath taken away, and blessed be the name of Lord.”

A rapid growth does not indicate longevity. The oak increases slowly, but it does not stand still. We may hope, if we are growing in grace; but if we are not making progress in holiness, we have no cause for hope.

There are no new truths, but there are new modes of expressing them. History is but a development of prophecy.

The Druids, in their day, were as popular as the Cardinals, of ours. Truth only is unchangeable.

Patience is necessary on many occasions. Never is more needed, than with children; a place where, I am sorry to say, it is least practiced.

The best and noblest trees are generally the longest in coming to maturity, so the strongest and best characters must have time in which to be developed.

When the soul is stirred by the Spirit of God, the treasures and honors of earth seem light and valueless, except as they are subservient to God and his cause.

Jealous, envious people are not always sensible that they are in very great danger of being of that class who fear not to speak evil of dignities.

As a sight of a poor-house incites to economy, so the fear of punishment (a healthy fear) stimulates to virtue.

Humility is unpleasant only to the proud; and pride is unpleasant only to the humble.

A proud man may hate pride, as the tiger sprang at his image in the mirror, not knowing it was himself. Purity of heart clears the intellect. Sensuality paralyzes the brain.

JOS. CLARKE.

Meat in Due Season.

By S. H.

Our meeting was not a camp-meeting, or tent meeting, only a quarterly meeting; but to us who love to be fed with meat in due season, it was truly a feast of fat things, a meeting we shall not soon forget. There are but a few of us in this place, and how we felt to rejoice to see them coming from the hills and valleys to meet with us, until the school-house was filled. In the usual hours of a day meeting, as some said, we heard as good as four sermons such as we sometimes hear. Bro. D. T. Bourdeau whom we esteem and love much for his works’ sake, spoke to us of the commandments of God and faith of Jesus. Rev. 14: 12. Some who are keeping the Lord’s Sabbath had never heard a discourse from this text. Their hearts were filled while he showed us that the commandments, or law, represented, or gave us a knowledge of, God’s character; that his law could no sooner be destroyed than his character; that from the beginning, like God, they were perfect, holy, just, and good; and would remain the same throughout all eternity. He spoke of Adam and Eve the first transgressors; of Cain, the first murderer; of the destruction of nearly all of the inhabitants of the earth for their sins, the transgression of the law; of God’s coming in a dream to Abimelech, king of Gerar, and warning him against transgressing his law; of Joseph, who had a knowledge of the character and commandments of the Most High, and knew how he must live to please God and prosper. Man has known from the beginning the exalted character of his Creator by his commandments.

He spoke of the faith of Jesus. Does our faith in Jesus destroy our exalted views of God’s character, and of the perfectness of his law, and our obligation to obey it? Does it make us think less of the law to have faith in him who has said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled?” We see from the words of Jesus that God would sooner destroy his works, than his word, or a jot or tittle of his law. But some say that Jesus fulfilled the law, and one of the commandments passed away; others, that Jesus fulfilled them, and that they all passed away or were destroyed; that he gave us the Father’s law again, after changing one commandment for his own glory; establishing a memorial of his own, and leaving his Father without a memorial of his creative work. Did that beloved Son in whom the Father was well pleased, come to destroy that law by which poor, fallen man could only have a knowledge of the character of his Creator? that law which only can make known to the poor heathen idolaters of earth the true God, the Creator of the heavens and the earth? Did he come to destroy or remove the blessing from that which his Father had blest, to remove the sanctification from that which his Father had sanctified? Did he come to rob his Father of his memorial of creation? Did he come to rob man of his Creator’s gift, the day God made for man? Was that his mission to earth? How he loves the works of his Father’s hands! To him how exalted is his character! how sacred his laws! He came not to destroy, but to fulfill. He kept his Father’s commands. He fulfilled all righteousness. In him was no sin. In his mouth was no guile. In his life was the law exalted and made honorable. He has commanded us to be perfect, even as our Father which is in Heaven is perfect.

How can we attain to this perfection? By having an understanding of his character. He has given us his law, easy to be understood by those who have the faith and testimony of Jesus, the keeping of which will give us a right to the tree of life, and an entrance through the gates into the city.

After Bro. B.’s sermon, time not being all taken up for the forenoon, Bro. A. C. Bourdeau, for whom we also feel much Christian regard and affection, he having for many years had great interest and care for the church in Vermont, helped us to understand more perfectly the fulfillment of prophecy as represented by the image, beasts, and angels on the chart. Surely we felt that the work of the enemy was almost done; and that the angel of mercy was crying with a loud voice, Get ready. He that tarries will not tarry long. Watch and pray. Be patient. Keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

In the afternoon Bro. A. Stone, whom we love as a Father, spoke to us. The Lord gave him freedom in speaking to us of the faithfulness of God in fulfilling his promises to his people: not one had failed, not one would ever fail. Praise God.

After his sermon, Bro. D. T. Bourdeau gave a stirring exhortation.

The Spirit of the Lord was with us. We felt that he was knocking at the door of the hearts of backsliders and unbelievers. At the close of the meeting we felt to rejoice as we saw that the brethren and sisters had been strengthened and encouraged, and backsliders made tender and awakened to a sense of their duty. The skeptic spoke of more confidence in God’s word, and of more love and respect for God’s servants. We felt that we had received meat in due season, for which we gave God glory.

But we are looking forward expecting a greater feast than this at the coming camp-meeting. May the Lord give his servants a double portion of his Spirit, that all may be filled. Some are going out of curiosity. May curiosity be turned to interest, and a desire to be fed with the bread of life. Some are going to learn. May light shine upon their pathway, and they be willing to walk in the straight and narrow way. “Who, then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord, when he cometh, shall find so doing.”

S. H.

Berkshire, Vt.

Keeping Good Company

A GOOD rule—to keep good company, and be one of the number.

Standing in Our Own Light

Most of the shadows that cross our path in life are caused by our standing in our own light.

Continue reading: Thoughts on the Book of Daniel