Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 25.

THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CLEANSING

Review and Herald

Dec 15, 1868

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 15, 1868

THE SANCTUARY AND ITS CLEANSING.

[At the suggestion of Bro. R. F. Cottrell we republish the following article from REVIEW, Vol. vii, No. 9. He says: “Would it not be well for the benefit of beginners and those investigating our position, to republish the first half [we make room for the whole] of the article from Bro. Andrews on the Cleansing of the Sanctuary, in REVIEW Vol. vii, No. 9? You refer us to this in your pamphlet on the Visions, and I have turned and read it. The confession of error in 1844 is there set forth so clearly that I thought I would like to have beginners examine it.”]
In 1844 the whole Advent body was disappointed with respect to the second advent of the Saviour. Since that disappointment many confessions have been made respecting that mistake. That a confession of error should be made by all who then proclaimed the coming of the Lord, we think no one disposed to deny. Thus far we stand on common ground with all who profess the Advent faith. Now we ask why it was that those who then expected the Saviour were disappointed? It is at this point that a difference of opinion begins. Three answers have been returned: 1. Because the 70 weeks are not a part of the 2300 days. 2. Because that the 70 weeks were not then dated from the true decree. 3. Because that the earth is not the sanctuary. Here are three confessions of error. Which one of them shall be adopted as the proper confession? Those who make the first of these confessions, acknowledge that the evidence sustaining the original date of the 70 weeks, viz., B. C. 457, is not capable of being set aside; and that if the 70 weeks are the first 490 days of the 2300, “it is as clear that the 2300 days ended in the autumn of 1844 as it is that the sun arose this morning.” But if the 2300 days ended in 1844 it is demonstrated that no part of the earth is the sanctuary, for, as yet, no part of the earth is cleansed. It follows, therefore, that those who make the first of these confessions, viz., the denial that the 70 weeks are a part of the 2300 days, do it because they are not willing to yield the view that the earth, or a part of it, is the sanctuary.
But how is it with those who make the second confession? They do not deny that the 70 weeks are a part of the 2300 days. They acknowledge that Gabriel, in Dan. ix, completed the charge given him in Dan. viii, 16, which was to make Daniel understand the vision; which, according to verse 27, he did not accomplish in chapter viii. Compare chap. viii, 16: “And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision;” verse 27: “And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it;” chap. ix, 21–23: “Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation. And he informed me, and talked with me, and said, O Daniel, I am now come forth to give thee skill and understanding. At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved; therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.” Consequently they admit that the 70 weeks, which were “cut off,” form the first 490 days of the long period in “the vision” which Gabriel was explaining; and that the remainder of the 2300 days extended 1810 days from the termination of the 70 weeks. But as the earth was not burned in 1844, they move the date of the 70 weeks forward thirteen years to the 20th of Artaxerxes, thus moving forward thirteen years the date of the commencement of Christ’s ministry, and of his crucifixion, and of the commencement of the gospel to the Gentiles. In doing this, however, they are not agreed among themselves; some of them contending that Christ was crucified in the spring, A. D. 37, and others that he was crucified in A. D. 41. The 70 weeks are thus set forward because Christ did not come in 1844. Those who set them forward reason thus: The earth is the sanctuary, and Christ must come and burn the earth in order to cleanse the sanctuary. But besides the absurdity involved in deranging the date of the crucifixion thirteen years, this view has proved itself an entire failure, the year 1854 being the extreme point to which the days were extended.
It is apparent, therefore, that those who deny the connection between the 70 weeks and the 2300 days, and those who attempt to set the 70 weeks forward thirteen years, have each the same article of faith to which they tenaciously cling, which is the grand cause of each of these important errors. It is this doctrine that causes all the trouble, viz., that the earth is the sanctuary, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary is effected by the second coming of Christ. What mighty array of evidence, then, can be adduced to prove that the earth, or a part of the earth, is the sanctuary, that men should be willing to yield almost anything else rather than acknowledge that in this they may have been mistaken? In examining the third confession we shall see.
The third confession is an acknowledgment that the Advent people were mistaken when they said that the earth was the sanctuary, and that Christ must come and burn the earth in order to cleanse the sanctuary. We have seen that those who make the first two confessions, cling with tenacity to the view that the earth, or a part of it, is the sanctuary. Hence they look upon those who make this confession as sinners above every other class of Adventists. But what are the reasons which sustain those who make the third confession?
1. They are unable to deny the connection of the 70 weeks and 2300 days, or to set the 70 weeks forward thirteen years. To do this would be to deny the plainest evidence.
2. But they confess that the earth is not the sanctuary, because that the Bible never calls it by that name. The word is used in the Bible 146 times, but it is never applied to the earth.
3. The Old Testament, by a hundred plain testimonies, designates the tabernacle of the Lord as his sanctuary. Even the two or three texts that are supposed to teach that some part of the earth is the sanctuary, are readily reconciled with this cloud of witnesses.
4. The New Testament tells us that there are two covenants, and names with distinctness the sanctuary of each. This covers all the ground and settles the sanctuary question beyond all controversy. The sanctuary of the first covenant was the tabernacle which Moses erected as a pattern of the true tabernacle. Heb. ix, 1–5: “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made, the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shew-bread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle, which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.” The sanctuary of the better covenant is the true tabernacle itself, which the Lord pitched and not man, of which Moses erected a copy. Heb. viii, 1–5: “Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an High Priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens; a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched and not man. For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law; who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle; for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much, also,he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.”
The sixteenth of Leviticus plainly teaches that the sanctuary of the first covenant was cleansed by blood at the conclusion of the yearly round of services, because the sins of the people had been borne there. The ninth of Hebrews teaches that the new covenant sanctuary must be cleansed for the same reason, but with better sacrifices than the former. Verses 22–24: “And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of the things in the Heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”
If these plain testimonies are allowed, they settle the question that the earth is not the sanctuary; that the sanctuary is the tabernacle of the Lord; and that the tabernacle is cleansed with blood and not with fire; and that the work of cleansing the sanctuary is the conclusion of the work of the High Priest before leaving the tabernacle of God. Consequently the cleansing of the sanctuary precedes the revelation of our great High Priest.
This is the third confession. Is it not as fair and honorable a confession as the first or the second? It is not a confession that the 70 weeks are not a part of the 2300 days, or that the 70 weeks should be set forward thirteen years. Overwhelming evidence forbids such a confession. But it is a frank acknowledgment of erroneous views respecting the sanctuary. In making this confession we do not reject the smallest portion of divine testimony, but on the contrary a multitude of testimonies constrain us thus to confess.
It is proper that we here point out the fact that we are not the class who refuse to confess their mistakes. Those who make either the first or second confession are compelled thereby to deny the plainest evidence. And they do this rather than to admit that the earth is not the sanctuary, notwithstanding their error respecting the sanctuary has been exposed before them. Those who make the third confession correct the real error of the Advent people; and they do it without sacrificing any part of the truth of God. The clearest evidence constrains them thus to act. The charge of refusing to confess the mistake in 1844, we think certainly returns upon those who make it. It is because they will not confess a manifest error, viz., that the sanctuary is the earth, or a part of it, that they are constrained either to deny the connection between Dan. viii and ix, or to set the 70 weeks forward thirteen years. Had those who the past year raised a false excitement on time, been willing to confess their error respecting the sanctuary, they would have been saved from the disastrous position into which they led many. We would earnestly request such to examine their Bibles once more, and see what that testifies respecting the sanctuary.
A few words may be called for at this time relative to the work of our great High Priest in cleansing the heavenly sanctuary. This subject was clearly and thoroughly discussed in REVIEW No. 7. Extended remarks, therefore, are not needed.
It has recently been denied by certain persons, that the sanctuary is now being cleansed, although they profess firm faith in the termination of the 2300 days in 1844, and also acknowledge that the sanctuary to be cleansed is the one of which Paul speaks in Heb. ix, 23. Their position is as follows: 1. The 2300 days do not extend to the cleansing of the sanctuary, but to the antitypical day of atonement. 2. That there is a preliminary work to be done on that day, that has already occupied eleven years, and that will be continued as long as human probation lasts. 3. And then the grand work of the day of atonement, the cleansing of the sanctuary, will commence, and will occupy seven days! 4. Finally, that there is no probation when Christ ministers in the holiest. We believe that we have stated this position correctly, though we can hardly see how a greater absurdity could be seriously put together. Let us notice each point in order.
1. This point is a direct contradiction of the word of God. Dan. viii, 13, 14: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Those who occupy this position insert at least eleven years between the termination of the 2300 days and the cleansing of the sanctuary, and then mend the matter by contending that the 2300 days were not to extend to the cleansing of the sanctuary, but to the antitypical day of atonement, a period which is nowhere mentioned in the Bible! If eleven years can be inserted between the termination of a prophetic period and the event which the prophet said should transpire at its termination, then no one can show why fifty years might not also be inserted with equal propriety. Such a position, though not intended by those who maintain it, directly charges the Author of the Bible with falsehood. This position is at the foundation of those that follow; their truthfulness may be judged of by this.
2. This second position is necessarily based upon the first. For it is by corrupting Dan. viii, 14, and making it read, “then shall the antitypical day of atonement commence,” instead of “then shall the sanctuary be cleansed,” that they are able to insert at least eleven years between the termination of the 2300 days and the event which the prophet said should transpire at their termination. But if we were to turn to the type and ask those who occupy this singular position, to prove that the various offerings mentioned in Num. xxix, as occurring on the tenth day of the seventh month, were to transpire on that day before the high priest entered the most holy place, they would certainly be brought to a stand. For the Bible is silent on the point whether the burnt-offerings, &c., in question were offered before the work in the holiest or after that work. For aught that appears to the contrary, these offerings might have been made after the high priest came out of the holiest, at the time mentioned in Lev. xvi, 23, 24. Yet it is by assuming that the work mentioned in Num. xxix, 7–11, was prior to the work in the holiest that these persons become bold enough to corrupt the words of the prophecy. But if it could be proved that these offerings were prior to the work in the holiest there would then be no difficulty in showing that the conclusion drawn from this work is entirely erroneous.
For, first, the types of the spring were fulfilled with reference to time. Now their fulfillment is recorded in the New Testament, so that we have a divine exposition of this part of the typical system. The passover was killed on the fourteenth of the first month; the sheaf of first fruits was waved on the sixteenth; and the feast of weeks, or Pentecost, occurred on the fiftieth day from the offering of the first fruits. Lev. xxiii. Each of these types was fulfilled exactly as to time. Christ, our passover, was sacrificed for us on the fourteenth day of the first month. 1 Cor. v; John xviii; xix. He arose on the day of the first fruits, the fruit of them that slept. 1 Cor. xv. And the antitype of the feast of weeks, or Pentecost, took place on that very day, in the out-pouring of the Holy Spirit. Acts ii. Now there was the same work of burnt-offerings, &c., on the day of first fruits, and the feast of weeks, that there was in the day of atonement. This may be seen by reading Lev. xxiii, 10–21; Num. xxviii, 16–31. The fulfillment of these types shows us this fact: That the great events for which the passover, the day of first fruits, and the Pentecost, were respectively noted, met their antitype on the very days of the types.
More preliminary and circumstantial offerings did not prevent the grand event of the day from meeting its antitype at the time pointed out in the type. Now if this principle, which is drawn from the manner of the fulfillment of the types at the first advent, be applied to the work on the tenth day of the seventh month, it will remove all ground of objection. The grand work on the day of atonement was performed in the holiest. The tenth day of the seventh month of some year, is the point at which its antitype must be realized. One word should here be added relative to typical fulfillment, viz., that the antitype commences on the day of the type, but may extend forward a great distance. We are still feeding on Christ our passover; we are still keeping the feast of unleavened bread; and the Holy Spirit, which came down on the day of Pentecost as the antitype of the feast on that day, still abides with the church of Christ. Read carefully 1 Cor. v, 7, 8; John xiv, 16. So of the work in the holiest on the day of atonement. Its antitype must commence at that time, and of course must occupy a space corresponding to its magnitude and importance.
But, second, if we are to have a long preliminary work preceding the cleansing of the sanctuary, that work must transpire before the 2300 days end. How any one can fail to see this is a mystery to me. If the 2300 days ended in 1844, then this supposed preliminary work had transpired prior to that time. But if the preliminary work is now going on, the 2300 days have not ended. But the evidence that the 2300 days have ended is unanswerable; therefore, the cleansing of the sanctuary must now be transpiring. And as a consequence all reasoning to the contrary is fallacious.
3. Relative to the third point named in this theory a few words should be offered. It is this: That the antitype of the preliminary work of the day of atonement occupies many years, while the grand work itself is performed in seven days! According to this theory, the Saviour ministers in one apartment of the temple in Heaven more than 1800 years, and in the other seven days! If two such absurdities as these are a part of the divine plan, they look like a sad reflection on the wisdom of God. But let us consider this point once more. The sins of all the people of God for 6000 years have been brought before Jehovah in his sanctuary. Now all this work of removing the sins of the people of God from the sanctuary, and the blotting out of all their transgressions, requires, according to this view, seven days! And those who hold it admit that this work of removing the sins of God’s people from the sanctuary, is the cleansing of the sanctuary, but deny that the 2300 days reach to the commencement of the work!
4. But human probation must close when our Lord enters the holiest. Who said so? It is not in the type, nor is the antitype thus explained in the New Testament. If it be said that the work in the holiest was not the offering of blood for particular individuals, but for all the people, we answer that the other offerings out of which so much is now being made, were precisely of the same character. They were not offered by individuals, but, like the daily morning and evening sacrifices, were offered in behalf of the whole people. So that there is just as much mercy implied in the sin-offering in the holiest as in the other offerings on that day. If it be said that the work in the holiest was to cleanse the sanctuary, we answer, that this is but a part of the truth. It was also for the sins of the people. The priest just as much made atonement for the sins of the people on that day as he did for his own sins. Read carefully Lev. xvi; Heb. ix, 7. And this twofold work of the high priest seems fitly to typify the twofold work of our Lord in the most holy place. For the sins of the whole church for 6000 years may be disposed of as individual cases, and all the while that the great work is being accomplished, the blood of Jesus still may avail for us in the presence of God. This would be in accordance with the twofold character of the type.
But it will be asked if the offering of the high priest in the holiest could avail for a sin committed while he was there before God. On this point the Bible is silent. But no argument in favor of this new theory can be raised here, for as far as we know in the whole work of the year the transgression preceded the offering; that is, this was at least as much the case in one apartment as the other. How then is it with our Lord? He shed his blood before entering the tabernacle in Heaven at all. And that blood once shed avails for sins committedbefore or after his death. So that a moment’s reflection will show that this objection bears equally against forgiveness being found in either apartment.
Finally, great stress is laid on Lev. xvii, 3–5, to prove that the only place for forgiveness is the first apartment. If the reader will examine verses 1–7 he will see that the great design of this statute was to prevent the people from sacrificing in the fields to devils. This chapter in no way contradicts the testimony of the preceding chapter, that the high priest with the blood of sin-offering did make atonement in the holiest because of the transgression of the people in all their sins. The chapter has manifestly no reference to the subject for which it is quoted. But let us look at the matter. What is the antitype of all the ancient sacrifices? We answer, the one offering of the Son of God. This, like those sacrifices, was not in the tabernacle but in the court of the tabernacle. Our Lord was slain on Calvary by sinners, even as sinners slew the offerings in the court of the tabernacle. But we have now no such thing to do. Our Lord died once for all. If others wish to crucify the Son of God afresh, they alone must bear the responsibility.
In conclusion we quote the New Testament to show that the blood of Jesus avails for us in both the holy places of the heavenly tabernacle. Heb. x, 19, &c. Or, as rendered by Macknight: “Well then, brethren, having boldness in the entrance of the holy places, by the blood of Jesus,” &c. Let either of these translations be correct, the words are a complete refutation of the doctrine that probation closes with our Lord’s entrance within the second veil. Thank God, we have boldness to enter there by the blood of Jesus.

LOOKING UNTO JESUS.

Our Guide through valleys dark or bright, Our Shade by day, our Star by night; Though high or low our course may be, Dear Saviour, we will look to thee.
For grace to cleanse the soul from crime, For love to melt, for faith sublime To pass through fire, or walk the sea, Dear Saviour, we will look to thee.
The tempter leaves his trembling prey; The raging passions cease to slay; The world drops off, the soul gets free; Dear Saviour, when we look to thee.
In sorrows deep, in troubles wide, In billowy death's devouring tide, When earth and all its pleasures flee, Dear Saviour, we can look to thee.
In Heaven, the saints' bright, happy home, No sorrow, sin, nor pain, can come; As known, they know; as seen, they see; There all, dear Saviour, look to thee.

FAITH AND WORKS.

[BRO. SMITH: The following, extracted from an article entitled “Identity of Religion, Morality and Politics,” published in the Church Union, is so much to the point of the subject of Faith and Works that I send it to the REVIEW, if you deem it worthy of an insertion. S. B. WHITNEY.]
Inasmuch, therefore, as no religion is complete or perfect without the moral element—for God will not be “mocked” by mere belief in himself, and adulation; he is not a child to be “pleased with a rattle and tickled by a straw!” he demands virtual compliance with his will, his law, his commandments. And fearfully has Jesus given the fact to all his church, with encircling nations, which is the only key to an understanding of even Paul’s Epistle to the Romans—which, in the eyes of numbers, gives birth to faith as only justifying to salvation and introduces predestination—when he remarked, “No man can enter Heaven except he that keeps, or obeys, the commandments of the Father.” And the explanatory commentary on this verse is consecutive in the immediately following declarations in the same chapter.
Here we have the will of God declared by the Fountain Head of the church, and there is no resource of artifice, sophistry, or logical legerdemain, that can exonerate the soul from the tremendous obligation to obey the commandments, which, added to faith, complete the character of the Christian. And who can dare limit the circle of the commandments? They are as illimitable as Omnipresence. They bind in harmony nature among the stellar worlds; they are the ligaments of concord among spiritual agencies. When Jehovah spoke order as the first law of creation in the physical, he also decreed the same regularity for the moral and the mental. The commandments are his exercitative will, and must reign absolute and peremptory, or all will perish. They comprise life; they are the gist and gravamen of vitality! This law, issuing from the throne, was spoken to Adam in Eden for his good—reason being allowed on the principle of free moral volition. It censured Cain for cutting off the innocent Abel; it charged the righteous Noah to build the ark; it tried the faith and confidence of the holy Abraham; it was promulgated amid the solemn splendor of Sinai; it identified Israel as the holy people, and would have consecrated Judea as the mightiest, the happiest, and foremost, of all nations, had the Hebrews trenched firmly upon obedience to this moral law, instead of incongruously showing their mere faith in the temple service, which Isaiah denounced, as vide his book, chapter first, inclusive.
By disobedience to this moral, and, of course, to political law—a complaint every prophet, from Samuel to Malachi, utters with doleful lamentations—the Jews became so incorrigibly callous as to be in the dismal, cheerless category of rejecting the God their father Abraham had obeyed to all extremity, as witness the history of Isaac. Had they only been in sincerity and simplicity zealous for the will of God, and morally dutiful in things domestic, social, and political, as well as things pertaining to worship in the “temple,” they would never have had the heart to discard the Saviour, and to their ruin and dispersion. They would have carefully and diligently “searched the Scriptures” instead of the Talmud, and would, with the traditions, not have made the word and will of God of none effect. See now what mere faith, attending scrupulously to religious things, could do without works; or as it ought to have been translated, obedience to God’s moral will. This singular people is scattered everywhere, idolizing gain and trade, and hating the haughty Edom, whom they regard as all Gentiles; but our Lord hath predicted their fate, and relying on the truth of Christianity, I defy all Jewry to return as unbelievers to Jerusalem! In no character will they be “gathered” save as Christians. “Thou shalt never return till thou sayest, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord!”
And Christ, when he came down to earth to be the propitiation for our sins and those of all mankind, did he not invariably carry the moral law and the political as identical upon every stage of his action, and into every precept? Why, the whole of the sermon on the mount is one tissue of moral enjoinments. The moral law, as given on Sinai and illustrated in the history of Israel, is still intact and obligatory on Christians. What! can you deny a truism so plain? If you are saved only by faith—and “no man can be justified by the deeds of the law,”—is murder, robbery, or arson, to be overlooked in man’s faith? Does faith consecrate them? It would, to follow from your conclusion, or the drift of it, in unsophisticated minds! Moral law, or the observance of it, is irrevocably obligatory, or all will be confusion and death. Come, let us look into the matter as Christian philosophers. “The just are saved by faith,” said the prophet, and after him the apostle. It is the JUST, not the unjust! NONE IS JUST BUT THE OBEDIENT to the commands, for they are the standard of justness. So, if no one can be justified by the mere deeds or doings of the law, without belief in the divinity of Jesus—which is the distinct meaning of the text, neither can any that obeys not the commandments. It is because of the identity of religion and morals, or of faith and works. They are inseparable, —ARE ONE; to separate them is to destroy religion as effectually as the separation of soul and body will any man.
I will anew in confirmation of this, point to the scene of the last Judgment, when the Lord will commend some and condemn others according to their “works,” or obedience to the commandments. How remarkable it is that he says there nothing about faith, however indispensable in the pious character! All the whole stress of his observations in judgment is leveled on works—“Depart, ye that work iniquity!”
How is this, that while Christian communities are so intent on consecrating faith and praying and singing, and neglecting the necessary vigilance and diligence of obedience, the Lord should vaticinate it as the governing principle of the last day?
It is, I believe, because all do believe—the very devils in hell believe and tremble—but few square their action with the divine injunctions! All worship mammon and riches; and this, for one item, is a gulf-wide separation from obedience! It is covetousness under a more graceful illusion. No nation, politically, obeys God; for evidence see the wars and armaments of Christendom!
My own “institutes” of the Christian religion, without consulting either Calvin, or Arminius, are, that, though faith in Jesus Christ is vitally important, the sine qua non of salvation, to go before all other obligations as the ever-living principle, and salvation is by his merits alone, not by ours in anything we can or may do, still he hath affixed a condition, and made it a sort of STANDARD, that we be harmless; slay no one; rob no one; burn no one’s house; cheat no one; violate no one’s daughter, or wife—in fact, that we be “harmless as doves.” The law, the commandments, demand nothing more. When, therefore, any one believes and worships in the church, he must also be innocent; for how else can the religious community “get along” unless all be innocent obedience. Thus, it logically follows that though by our action, and even body or prayers, we never can save our souls, still if we do them faithfully God will endow our souls with wings, provided we have faith to know our destination, and to know him to whom we are going to find the way.
That this is the sum total of all religion without the garnishing of multiples of speculations, I believe. On this will I trench; on this live and die; for what else is the Bible?

SCOLDING.

By JOS. CLARKE

Change the “o” to “a,” and we have scalding. I have tried this method to my satisfaction. In the end no good can be obtained by it. Scolding is an unmitigated vice, without one genial quality, or one redeeming virtue. It is of satanic origin and continuance. Its effects are evil, and its existence is a curse.
Scolding cannot be cured by scolding. As well might one blasphemer attempt the conversion of his profane companion, as for a scolding person to scold another out of scolding.
The person who is so unfortunate as to have this habit confirmed, must be met with a smile. You speak pleasant words, and meet the rough, scolding person with mildness; and never mind if his harsh tones, and unfeeling expressions, tear your heart till it quivers with pain, be pleasant and kind. Do this day after day, month after month, and year after year, if you are indissolubly linked to a scold; but if not, flee from his baneful presence, when you have done what you can.
Like begets like; and parents who scold make scolding children; and, on the contrary, the reverse is true. I know of a very correct, lovely family. What is the secret of their loveliness? Says the father, I never gave my children a cross word. But he reads to them much with his sweet voice, and his children have come up in the sunshine of his smiles, and that of a mother of like character. May God protect them from the scolding, unfeeling world. Unless he does, their fine feelings being too sorely smitten might cause broken hearts.
I say I have tried it; not that it is habitual, but has been occasional. The Lord forgive me; brother, forgive. It has ended. With God's help, not another scolding expression shall pass my lips. It is not effective. You may think it so, but you are mistaken. If you choose you can curry your horse with a grub-hoe, or cut your boy's hair with a jackknife, or shear your sheep by tearing out the fleece; but in either case you will be regarded as a monster by boy and beast.
I have a nice little home, but I would give it all, and go out to work by the day, if I could say, as my friend can, that he never gave a cross word to those under his control. And this to me is a never-ceasing regret. How much pain we might have saved if we had always done as he has. And he has a fine reward.
Well, the truth must be told, but not in a scolding way; no, we must be careful how we walk in a flower-garden, lest we even inadvertently step on some delicate flower. Ah! my brother, rough men like you and I must be on our guard.
In the family, in the school, in the church, the parent, the teacher, the elder, will do well, not only to avoid scolding, but to practise the opposite virtue; and in the discipline of refractory ones, there are lawful means of punishment when kind words fail of causing reform. We must strive lawfully. A reproof given by one having authority, with gentle tones and tearful eye, has an effect to reform; while the opposite course hardens and exasperates hearts already hard and corrupt. Let us tread softly, carefully, along the pathway of life, righting up, as we go, the poor, crushed flowers which heedless feet have trodden down. JOS. CLARKE.

CHOSEN BATTLE GROUND.

By R. F. COTTRELL

In the conflicts of opposing armies much often depends upon selecting the most favorable position in the field of action. The general who knows the situation of the field the best, and skillfully seizes the advantage of position, other things being equal, will be pretty sure to gain the victory. Hence when one army is posted in a strong position, the skillful opposing general will not venture to meet them upon their own chosen ground, but will maneuver to decoy by strategy the enemy from his position, or by some coup de main force him to change his well-formed line of battle.
In spiritual warfare also it is important to choose, as far as possible, the most advantageous ground, and not unnecessarily venture upon the chosen ground of the enemy. There is something in this. By our own acts we may put ourselves in a position where it will be next to impossible to overcome. The youthful warrior fancies that he has great strength, and without fear throws himself upon the Devil’s chosen battle ground. Then he finds himself in difficulty, and repents too late his rashness. He prays, “Lead us not into temptation;” and then goes right into temptation. This is unwise. This is not exercising the same skill in spiritual things that they do in temporal things.
Some have ventured on the enemy’s battle ground by choosing to associate with evil companions, joining the gay and thoughtless crowd, seeking for pleasures with the lovers of pleasures, at the festival, the circus, or the theater; and, worse still, have contracted the most intimate connection, lasting as life, with those who have chosen to serve the god of this world, laying all upon the altar of fashion and frivolity, giving themselves over to the spirit that works in the hearts of the disobedient. These have been decoyed upon the Devil’s battle field, and the chances against them are heavy, to say the least. I do not say this towound such. I would not add affliction to their bonds, or add one pang to their sufferings. I pity them from my inmost heart, and would they might still get the victory. But if I can deter one who is not thus unequally yoked with an unbeliever, to avoid the snare, and keep off the chosen ground of their most deadly foe, my object in these remarks will be accomplished.
How can you love God with all your heart while you voluntarily set your love upon one who is an enemy of God, and possesses qualities that are hateful in his sight. God is love; and to love God is to love one that is altogether lovely. How can you love the opposite at the same time? It seems as difficult as it is to serve God and mammon; a thing the Lord Jesus expressly says we cannot do.
Let no one who would love God undertake so hopeless a task. While you may choose the battle ground that gives some prospect of success, and not willingly throw yourself into the arms of the Devil, you are none too strong to cope with the enemy under the most advantageous circumstances. Keep to your stronghold, and not presumptuously seek a battle on his own chosen ground, venturing into the very jaws of death.
R. F. COTTRELL.
Continue reading: TO THE WAITING AND TRIED ONES