2. Was the law of God abolished by the death of Christ?
That we may answer this question in a proper manner, let us carefully consider Rom. iii. We will first examine that portion of the chapter which presents the human family as condemned by the law of God and speechless in his sight.
"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. iii, 19, 20.
This portion of scripture presents in a striking light the state of mankind without a Saviour. The Apostle had been presenting in the previous verses numerous quotations from the Old Testament, showing the fearful state of fallen man. The verses which we have quoted, present us with the holy standard of rectitude by which the unrighteousness of men is made manifest, and their fearful crimes left without excuse. "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law." How many, then, are under the law? The remainder of the verse determines this with certainty. "That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." This fact then is plainly stated: that the whole human family are addressed by the law of God; that all of its members without distinction of rank, or order, share in one general condemnation; and that condemnation is so just, that every mouth is shut, and all the world stands speechless before the bar of God. The twenty-third verse explains the cause of this: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
The law of God can justify no flesh in his sight. But why cannot the law justify sinful man? Because by the law is the knowledge of sin. Man is guilty of transgression, and the law of God discovers and manifests this fact. The law is God’s great rule of right; and as such, it shows every departure from rectitude and holiness. We have thus seen the sad state of fallen men. Let us now consider what God does for their salvation. If he takes back his law, one of two things must be true:—
1. He takes back an unjust law, and thus acknowledges that he was the cause of man’s condemnation. But this is false; for we have seen that the law is so just that none can plead against its righteous sentence. Hence if God has taken back his law we shall be compelled to adopt the second position; namely,
2. He takes back a just law, thus denying his own moral character as expressed in that law, and overthrowing his own moral government. God cannot lie; and it is manifestly absurd to teach that God has abolished the principles of his own moral government. Hence we conclude that God did not, and could not overthrow his own moral law, in order to save its transgressors.
We inquire again, What did the great Law-giver do in order to save men? If he did not take back his law, and abolish his own moral government, what did he do? It would seem that but one other thing could be done; namely, to put the law in force upon its transgressors. In other words, to execute its penalty upon the human race. If this were done, all must be destroyed; for all were its transgressors; and the wages of sin is death. Let us now with gratitude and adoration look at the wondrous plan which God has devised for man’s redemption: a plan in which justice and mercy meet together, and righteousness and peace kiss each other: a system of redemption by which God can be just and yet can justify him that believeth in Jesus. It is set forth by Paul in the following language:—
"Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." Rom. iii, 24-26.
In these words the great plan of redemption is set forth; but oh! what has it not cost! Man had broken the law of Jehovah and fallen under its awful and yet just condemnation. God could not reverse his holy law without destroying the moral government of the universe; but he so loved our race that he gave his only Son to die for perishing man. John iii, 14-17. He sent his Son to be the propitiation or offering for the sins of men. 1 John iv, 10. Christ came to take the curse of the law upon himself, and to offer his life as a ransom for its transgressors. Gal. iii, 13; 1 Tim. ii, 5, 6.
The Father had two objects of the dearest affection: his own perfect law, and his only Son. He would save man who had revolted from allegiance to that law, and openly set it at naught. To do this, the great Law-giver must sacrifice either his perfect law, or his beloved and only Son. The first he could not do; for God cannot deny himself; and he hath in all ages ever magnified his word above all his name; but he could give his only Son to die, that revolted man might have a sacrifice to bring to God that could avail to take away sin.
Jesus was delivered for our offenses, and raised again for our justification. He ascended into the true Tabernacle in heaven, the new covenant Sanctuary, where the ark of God stands, containing his holy law—as a great High Priest, to plead the merits of his blood in behalf of penitent men. Heb. ix; Rev. xi, 19. As the ancient high priest entered the typical tabernacle to sprinkle the ark of the testament with blood, even thus was it necessary that our great High Priest should act. The earthly high priest did not sprinkle the blood of sin-offering upon the ark that he might blot out the ten commandments which it contained, or that he might lessen the obligation of men to observe them. On the contrary, he entered the tabernacle with blood, because man had violated that holy law, and could not be pardoned without the offering of blood to take away sin.
Even thus did our Lord. By his own blood he entered the true Tabernacle, and presented himself before the Father on our account. In fulfilling the ministration of the true holy places, the two dearest objects of affection to the great Law-giver are again united. But how wondrous the union! Jesus, who has died for the transgressors of that sacred law, now stands as a great High Priest before the ark containing the law of God, pleading in behalf of men, the merits of his own sacrificial death. The Law-giver can accept the offering, and man, who has broken the law of God, can be pardoned.
It is evident, therefore, that the death of our Saviour sustains the same relation to the law of God, that the death of the victim in the ancient typical system sustained to that law. The design of either was not that man should have liberty to violate the law of God, but that man who had violated that law, might have the offer of pardon. The typical system could not, indeed, take away sin; but it pointed out the fact that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sins, and clearly pointed forward to the great Sacrifice which should be offered for the sin of the world.
If it were possible for God to give men an adequate idea of the immutability of his sacred law, he has given it in the spectacle of his Son dying upon the cross for us. Those who think that the death of the Son of God abolished the very law which made that death necessary, are requested to consider the following points:—
1. If the law that condemned man could have been abolished, it would not have been necessary that the blood of Christ should be shed, that atonement might be made for its transgressors. But the Son of God died because the law which man had broken could not be taken back. 2. But if the death of Christ destroyed the law which condemned men, then they are delivered from its just sentence, whether they repent or not: in other words, Universalism is true. 3. But this view makes the law of God, and the Son of God, both fall beneath the same blow, and without honoring God, or leading man to repentance; it destroys both the cherished objects of Jehovah’s affection; subjecting the Son of God to a shameful death, and overturning the moral government of the great Law-giver. 4. But the conditional offer of pardon made to man through the gospel of the Son of God, plainly evinces that the law of God still exists, and that men can only be delivered from it, on condition of repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.
Hence the law of the Most High is not abolished by the death of the Son of God. His death indeed permits mercy to enter and offer pardon to guilty man; but the law of God abides all the while; and when the work of mercy is accomplished, our great High Priest will leave the tabernacle of God, no more to plead for sinful men, and the penalty of the law, the second death, will be awarded to its transgressors.
It is clearly established, therefore, that the death of the Son of God did not blot out the law of God the Father. On the contrary, his death is that fact which, above all others, testifies to its immutability. But we cannot employ so strong language on this point as that which Paul has used in summing up this very argument. He says: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish the law." Rom. iii, 31. Having shown conclusively that the law of God was neither abolished by the teaching nor by the death of the Son of God, we will now examine the third question:—
(To be Continued.)
Tent Meeting at Shelby, Mich.
By John N. Loughborough; Merritt E. Cornell
OUR Meeting in this place commenced July 8th, and continued over three Sabbaths. Our congregations were quite large, considering the busy season of the year in which our meeting was held. Our congregation each Sabbath numbered about 100. On First-day, July 9th, we had about 600 out to hear the reasons of our faith. July 16th our congregation was about 1200, and the last day of our Meeting,13the 23d, about 2000 were present, as stated by many competent judges.
The increase of interest in this meeting from the commencement to the close was as great as the proportionate increase of the congregation. Instead of an uneasy, restless spirit, among the congregation, as is sometimes apparent in such a large concourse of people, the congregation were quiet and gazed steadily, anxious to catch every word from the lips of those addressing them. An interest seemed to be awakened throughout the community on the subject of the Sabbath; and many admit the truthfulness of our position. Some we trust will move out and obey the truth. At these meetings we sold upwards of $50.00 worth of books. These silent messengers we trust will settle conviction on the minds of those who thoroughly peruse them. Pressing invitations were given us by many individuals, men of influence, that we should return that way again, with the Tent if possible. If we could not come with the tent, they promised us that we should have the use of a large Academy in which to give a course of lectures.
When we stated to our congregations that their ministers could not establish Sunday-keeping by the Bible, they seemed anxious that they should try it: accordingly one Elder Russell came to present a discourse to the people, showing the claims of Sunday-keeping. This was on the last day of our meeting. We gave a discourse at 8 o'clock, in which we endeavored to maintain from scripture the three following positions: 1st. The Sabbath is not a Jewish institution; for it existed 2500 years before the commandments were given to the Jews. 2d. The fourth commandment, enforcing the Sabbath, required the observance of a definite day; and that the seventh. 3d. That Seventh-day is still to be observed; because that requirement (the fourth commandment) has never been altered, or abolished. At 10½ o'clock, Elder Russell, a minister of the Methodist Church, followed with a discourse in which he endeavored to fasten the observance of the first day of the week upon the fourth commandment. This controversy was carried on in candor, and the sequel was, many were convinced that we had told them the truth as to Sunday-keeping not being a Bible institution.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
M. E. CORNELL.
The Atonement.
By Editor
Our readers will be gratified to learn that Bro. J. M. Stephenson of Wisconsin designs giving the scriptural view of the atonement in the REVIEW. The position which this subject holds, between the law of God and its penalty, death, make it one of the greatest importance, especially to the remnant at this time. To be benefited by the presentation of this subject, our readers should carefully peruse each article when published.
Immortality Alone through Christ.
By Editor
Our readers may expect that this subject will be fully set forth in the REVIEW. Those inquiring for light, will please be patient. Bro. D. P. Hall of Wisconsin has favored us with a lengthy article on the subject, which will appear next week. He designs giving a full exposition of the subject, and answering all objections. Bro. Hall's articles will doubtless be read with the deepest interest.
Publication Supplies in Vermont
By Editor
Bro. Edwin Churchill of Stowe, Vt., has on hand a supply of all our publications.
Bro. Josiah Hart of Northfield, Vt., keeps a supply of all our publications, and will furnish the friends who wish to purchase at Tent Meetings.
Johnson, Vt., Tent Meeting.
By Frederick Wheeler; Josiah Hart
Our Tent Meeting at Johnson was one of interest and profit. The holy Spirit, in answer to prayer, was bestowed on the brethren at the commencement, and during the entire meeting. All seemed to feel that God was well pleased with the effort of his people to get the light of the third angel's message more fully before the minds of the people. Brethren Holt, Buck and Hutchins were present. On First-day there was a congregation of about 500 who listened with attention to the word spoken. It was a free place to present the truth. A good impression was evidently made on many minds; and we trust that the seed there sown, will, in some, bring forth fruit unto eternal life.
The time has evidently arrived, dear Brethren, that God requires an increasing effort on the part of his children for the spread of the light of present truth. Ah; let us awake to a sense of duty and the responsibility there is resting upon us. Says Jesus, "Ye are the light of the world," and adds, "Let your light so shine that men may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." It is not by our words only, but our works, that we show our interest in that cause we profess to love. God has caused the light of present truth to shine into our hearts, and he holds us responsible in holding up this light in that way that it may exert the greatest influence on those around.
And to those who are anticipating Tent meetings among them, we would say, We are well satisfied that God is well pleased with this effort. But in order to accomplish the greatest amount of good, those who come to labor with the Tent, need the united co-operation of the church. Dear Brethren, get your hearts deeply imbued with the truth. Do not wait until the time of meeting to get revived and harnessed for the work; but enter into the spirit of the work now. Get on the whole armor; and then come up to the meetings (not simply to enjoy a pleasant interview with the brethren, but) prepared to labor for the Lord. Let all your preparations for the meetings, as well as your prayers and exhortations when there, be such as to carry conviction to all, that you believe and feel that the last message of mercy is being given to the inhabitants of earth. Thus laboring, we confidently expect to enjoy the blessing of God, and see the cause of truth move onward. What we do must be done quickly.
FREDERICK WHEELER.
JOSIAH HART.
P. S. We would say to the brethren, that we intend holding one or two Tent meetings in New Hampshire, and three or four in Massachusetts, (if the Lord will,) as soon as suitable arrangements are made. One in Dartmouth or vicinity, one in the vicinity of Springfield, and one in Ashfield, or near there—subject to alteration by the brethren. Will the brethren consult together and fix the location and give us information, that we may fix the time, and give notice through the Review.
F. W.
J. H.
NEW TRACT.
By Editor
WHY DON'T YOU KEEP THE SABBATH-DAY?
This Tract is chiefly composed of statements relative to the Sabbath, and its change, collected from Catholic Books, Catechisms, &c. We think it contains all the matter of this kind, of value, which has appeared in the REVIEW, and all that is quoted by preaching brethren. We think it an excellent work for general circulation.
It is a Tract of 36 pages, neatly put up in paper covers—price 4 cents. The following is from the preface:—
It has ever been the boast of Protestants, that "the Bible, and the Bible alone," is their rule of faith and practice; while Catholics contend that the written Word is not a sufficient rule. We here give the rule of both:—
THE RULE OF PROTESTANTS:—"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be perfect, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS." 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.
THE PAPISTS' RULE:—"All Scripture, &c. Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it." Note in Douay Bible, 2 Tim. iii, 16, 17.
It is the shame of Protestants, that, especially on the Sabbath question, they leave their own rule, and take that of Papists. This they most certainly do, in endeavoring to sustain the observance of First-day as the Christian Sabbath by the testimony of the uninspired "Fathers;" this, too, without a word of inspired testimony.
Here is a stain upon the face of the Protestant church, which she can wipe away only by turning from the tradition of the first day of the week, to keep the Sabbath of the Bible. By listening to the voice of tradition, especially on the Sabbath question, instead of the "Bible, and the Bible alone," Protestants have placed deadly weapons in the hands of the Catholic church, with which she has slain her thousands, which might have been rescued had the Protestant church followed her own rule of faith and practice. And if the Protestant church will reject the plain testimony of the written word of God, and, contrary to her profession, sustain herself in her errors by the traditions of the so-called Fathers, will not her case be most intolerable in the day of Judgment?
The rule of Protestants is ours. The "Bible, and the Bible alone," shall be our rule of faith and duty. And shall it not be yours also, brother Protestant? If it is, you will turn from the sabbath of the Papal church, to the Sabbath of the written word of God.
Protestants will agree that Dan. xi, 32-35, applies to Papacy. "And such as do wickedly against the holy covenant," &c. Verse 32. To learn what the Catholic church has done against God's holy covenant of the ten commandments, please see the ten commandments, as she gives them to her children, on pages 15 and 16. There the second commandment is taken out, the Sabbath of the fourth is changed, and the tenth is divided into two, to make up the ten. Is not that doing wickedly?
St. Paul calls this same power, the "man of sin." 2 Thess. ii. And why? Ans. "Sin" being the "transgression of the law," there is no power that could be more worthy the name than that which has thus mutilated the law of God. In this, he has "exalted himself above all that is called God." In his arrogant assumption, he has even thought "to change the times and laws of the Most High." Dan. vii, 25.
Protestants not Guided by Scripture.
["Doctrinal Catechism"—pp. 101, 174, 351—355.]
“Q. HAVE you any other proofs that they are not guided by the Scriptures?
A. Yes; so many, that we cannot admit more than a mere specimen into this small work. They reject much that is clearly contained in Scripture, and profess more that is nowhere discoverable in that Divine Book.
Q. Give some examples of both?
A. They should, if the Scripture were their only rule, wash the feet of one another, according to the command of Christ, in the 13th chap. of St. John;—they should keep, not the Sunday, but the Saturday, according to the commandment, ‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath-day;’ for this commandment has not, in Scripture, been changed or abrogated.”
“Q. Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?
A. Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her;—she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.”
“Q. Do you observe other necessary truths as taught by the Church, not clearly laid down in Scripture?
A. The doctrine of the Trinity, a doctrine the knowledge of which is certainly necessary to salvation, is not explicitly and evidently laid down in Scripture, in the Protestant sense of private interpretation.
Q. What say you of infant baptism?
A. One-third part of the whole human race die before they reach their seventh year: it is therefore a matter of the last importance to know whether infants should be baptized; for the Scripture declares that baptism is necessary to salvation; and yet the Scripture does nowhere tell us clearly whether Christ intended infants to be baptized. If it did, why should we have Baptists, who have never been able to see this truth clearly laid down in Scripture? Here, then, we have a truth, upon which the salvation of one-third part of the whole human race depends, which is not to be found in Scripture.
Q. When Protestants do profane work upon Saturday, or the seventh day of the week, do they follow the Scripture as their only rule of faith,—do they find this permission clearly laid down in the Sacred Volume?
A. On the contrary, they have only the authority of tradition for this practice. In profaning Saturday, they violate one of God's commandments, which he has never clearly abrogated,—‘Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath day.’
Q. Is the observance of Sunday, as the day of rest, a matter clearly laid down in Scripture?
A. It certainly is not; and yet all Protestants consider the observance of this particular day as essentially necessary to salvation. To say, we observe the Sunday, because Christ rose from the dead on that day, is to say we act without warrant of Scripture; and we might as well say, that we should rest on Thursday because Christ ascended to heaven on that day, and rested in reality from the work of redemption.
Q. Is it not said, in the Book of Revelation, that St. John was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, that is, Sunday; and is not this Scriptural proof that Sunday is the day to be observed in the new law?
A. Are we then to observe this particular day,14merely because St. John had a revelation upon it,—must we observe, as a day of rest and holiness, any day upon which an apostle was in the Spirit?
Q. But it is called the Lord's day.
A. . . . Does this text tell you not to work upon that day,—does it tell you that the obligation of keeping Saturday is done away with, or that it was not the day of the resurrection or ascension which St. John here calls the Lord's day?
Q. Is it not said in the Acts,—‘And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and is not this sufficient Scriptural authority for the observance of the first day of the week?
A. But does this text abrogate the observance of Saturday the seventh day, or allow Protestants to do profane work on that day? Certainly not. They should then rest upon both days, if they hold the above text as any argument. The text in question does not say that the Apostle preached, or that the people assembled every first day of the week, but merely on this particular day, for which a good reason is given, namely, that St. Paul was to depart next day. It is quite clear, however, that they met every Saturday; for the same Acts say, St. Paul preached in the Synagogue every Sabbath, and exhorted the Jews and the Greeks. Besides, it is not wonderful that the disciples came together on this first day of the week, since according to Acts ii, they continued DAILY in the temple breaking bread.
Q. Does not St. Paul order the Galatians and Corinthians to make collections on the first day of the week?
A. Yes; but, again, this does not abolish the observance of Saturday. St. Paul does not say that the people would be at church on that day,—that they were to keep that day, to the exclusion of Saturday, holy,—or that these collections were to be made at church, but merely that every man should lay up by himself in store upon that day.
Q. What do you conclude from all this?
A. That Protestants have no Scripture for the measure of their day of rest,—that they abolish the observance of Saturday without warrant of Scripture,—that they substitute Sunday in its place without Scriptural authority,—consequently, that for all this, they have only traditional authority. Yet Protestants would look upon a man who would . . . keep the Saturday and profane the first day, as a victim of perdition. Hence we must conclude, that the Scripture, which does not teach these things clearly does not contain all necessary truths, and, consequently, cannot be the only rule of faith.
Q. Does it not appear from all this, that Protestants teach, in many things, what is opposed to Scripture, and that the Catholic doctrines are much more Scriptural?
A. This is very evident from all we have said, and must be considered indisputable.”
Four Added to the Little Church
By A. C. Morton
From Bro. Morton.
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—The third angel's message is still rising in this place. The Lord will work deliverance for his people. Those who are honest at heart will have their eyes opened to the truth. The tent meetings recently held in this place by Brn. M. E. Cornell and J. N. Loughborough, although some15what disturbed by Satan's mischief-makers, have been attended with much good. Four have been added to our little church, who are striving to keep the commandments. Two of them had never made any profession before embracing present truth. Elder Manning Curry, who has heretofore preached that there was no Sabbath, has been brought to see the Sabbath as it stands in the fourth commandment. Although strongly opposed, we feel determined to press on until we gain the prize: knowing that if we are faithful, there is a crown laid up in store for us.
I remain yours in love of the truth,
A. C. MORTON.
Delhi, Mich., Aug., 3d, 1854.
"Mark Them Which Cause Divisions."
By Editor
We are informed that Russell, Case, &c., of Mich., are determined to make division among the churches in that State; and from different sources we learn that they are uniting with Wyman and Chapin of this State, with a determination to divide the flock, and raise up a party at all hazards. They even talk of starting a paper in which to vindicate their own course, and expose us, especially Mrs. W's views. From what we know of these men, and their present excited state of feeling, we may expect from them the most gross misrepresentations, and shameful abuse.
They have been sources of severe trials to the churches for a year or two past; while their brethren have suffered much from them, and have labored patiently and faithfully with them. And now, as they are set aside by the churches, they are determined to injure them as much as possible. They will doubtless be joined and cheered on by the bitterest enemies of the present truth.
Knowing that our brethren scattered abroad are liable to be exposed to the influence of these men, is our reason for noticing them. What they may say of us, can kindle in our bosom no other feeling than pity to them, and those deceived by them. We would not mention them, were it not our duty to point out dangers to which some may be exposed. We advise our brethren to have as little to do with them as possible. Theirs is a spirit of war, and they will find much less to do if they are left to themselves to finish their short work of death. Brethren, be not deceived and led from the work of God by them.
FAITH.
I envy no quality of mind or intellect in others, said Sir Humphrey Davy—not genius, power, wit or fancy; but if I could choose what would be most delightful, and I believe most useful to me, I should prefer a firm religious belief to every other blessing; for it makes life a discipline of goodness, creates new hopes when all earthly hopes vanish, and throws over the decay, the destruction of existence, the most gorgeous of all lights; awakens life even in death, and from corruption and decay calls up beauty and divinity; makes an instrument of torture and shame the ladder of ascent to paradise; and, far above all combination of earthly hopes, calls up the most delightful visions, palms and amaranths, the gardens of the blessed, the security of everlasting joys, where the sensualist and the sceptic view only gloom, decay, annihilation.
Faithfulness Through Great Tribulation
By Lydia M. Locke
From Sister Locke.
Dear Bro. White:—I praise God for the privilege I enjoy of hearing from the little remnant that are endeavoring to do the will of God. My dear friends, let us prove faithful, relying with unshaken confidence upon the promises of God, for they are sure; and though we have to pass through severe trials, we have the promise that his grace shall be sufficient, and let us remember that the great multitude which John saw, [Rev. vii.] which no man could number, were those that came out of great tribulation, having their robes washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb. I rejoice that the eyes of my understanding have been opened to see the precious truths of God's word, and that he has given me a heart to obey. We shall reap in due season if we faint not. Let us watch therefore, and pray always that we may be accounted worthy to escape all the things that are coming on the earth, and to stand before the Son of man.
Your unworthy sister,
Lydia M. Locke.
Salem, Ind., Aug, 7th, 1854.
COMMUNICATIONS.
By S. Myers
From Bro. Myers.
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—It is a little over a year since I was brought to tremble at the word of the Lord, which says, The seventh day is the Sabbath. Having read before, the writings of Grew, Marsh, Crozier, and some others, as published in the Harbinger and tracts, with all their excuses for not observing the Sabbath of the fourth commandment from its being a peculiarly Jewish institution; to the impossibility of keeping it near the North pole, and the gaining time by sailing around the earth—as if its Author was not acquainted with geography, or did not know that the Jews would be dispersed into every country under heaven. It began to look to me as if it was dishonoring God to observe a day instituted by men and disregard the day set apart by the Creator as a commemoration of his great work, and given to Israel for a perpetual covenant, and a sign forever between him and the children of Israel.
It is a great wonder to me how people can claim to belong to the family of Israel, or expect to receive the promises made to Abraham and his seed, when disregarding the perpetual covenant and receiving not the sign that God has required Israel to receive between him and them forever. O, what a field of blessed meditation there is in the subjects of the Sabbath and Sanctuary in heaven, opened to the faithful believer. How it opens and beautifies the Scriptures of truth. It shows us so clearly that the time is near when he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. To the brethren scattered abroad I would say, Let not the distracting influence of the no-Sabbath position swerve you from your anchorage. The Lord's Sabbath is a rock that the storms, hail and rain of the last days will not wash from under those that build thereon. Let your hearts be stable, and your conversation in heaven, from whence we look for our King.
S. MYERS.
Plumb River, Ill., Aug., 1854.
Simplicity of Faith.
The simplicity of faith was once illustrated by a pastor thus:—
“I was preaching,” he said, “my ordinary weekly lecture in the evening, when I was sent for in great haste, to visit a woman who was said to be dying, and who very much desired to see me. I closed the service as soon as I could, and went immediately to her house. She was a member of my church, whom I had known very well for years—with whom I had been acquainted ever since her first serious impressions, before she became a communicant. As I entered the room where she lay, I found it filled with her friends who had gathered around to see her die. Making my way through the midst of them, I reached the side of her bed, and found her apparently in the last agonies of death. She was bolstered up in her bed, gasping for breath, almost suffocated by the asthma; and the whole bed shook by a palpitation of her heart, which seemed to be shaking her to pieces. It appeared to me that she could not live a quarter of an hour. I said to her—
“Mrs. M., you appear to be very sick.”
“Yes,” said she, “I am dying.”
“And are you ready to die?”
She lifted her eyes upon me with a solemn and fixed gaze, and speaking with great difficulty, she replied—
“Sir, God knows—I have taken him—at his word—and—I am not afraid to die.”
It was a new definition of faith. “I have taken him at his word.” It struck me in an instant as a triumph of faith. “God knows I have taken him at his word, and am not afraid to die.” It was just the thing for her to say. I have often tried to think what else she could have said that would have expressed so much in so few words.
I prayed some four minutes by her bedside; and recited to her some passages of God’s word, and was about to leave her for a moment to her friends, whom she seemed anxious to address. She held me by the hand, and uttering a word at a time, as she gasped for breath, she said to me—
“I want to tell you—that I can—trust—in God—while—I am dying. You have—often told me—he would not forsake me—and now I find—it true. I am—at peace. I die willingly—and happy.”
In a few minutes I left her, uttering to her such promises of the Saviour as I deemed most appropriate. However, she did not die.
She still lives. But that expression of her faith has been of great benefit to me. It has aided me in preaching, and in conversation with inquiring sinners very often. It gave me a more simple idea of faith than I ever had before. It put aside all the mists of metaphysics, speculation, and philosophizing. It made the whole nature of faith plain. Everybody could understand it: “God knows I have taken him at his word.”—Pastor’s Sketches.
Light on the Sabbath Truth
By C. Green
From Bro. Green.
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—It is but a short time since I received light on the truth of the Lord's holy Sabbath, and other important truths connected with the third angel's message. At that time there were but few Sabbath-keepers here. But thanks be to God, the third angel's message has been here, and our number is nearly thirty. Brn. Phelps and Sheffield gave us a course of lectures which unfolded the truth to us: truth that had long been hid.
I look upon the Bible in a new light. It now seems plain; whereas before it was like a sealed book to me. O glorious light! I now see the mission of Jesus in its true character. My all is for him. I hope to be among that number, when he comes, who will hear the blessed words, "Come ye blessed of my Father." Let us all try to be faithful. The promise is sure; for Christ has said it. Brethren and sisters, press on; the prize is in view, and in a little while we shall be with Christ.
Yours in love,
C. GREEN.
Hebron, Jeff. Co, Wis, Aug. 3d, 1854.
Walking in the True Light
By Julia E. Grems
From Sister Grems.
DEAR BRO. WHITE:—We love to read the epistles from our brethren and sisters, to learn that they are striving for the kingdom, buffeting with the tide of human opinion, striving in all things to be like our lovely Pattern, following the example of the meek and lowly Jesus. I thank God that I was ever permitted to see the light, and was inclined to walk therein: that I ever heard the third angel's message, and was disposed to heed its warning voice. I cannot enough praise our God who has brought me to behold the true light, and said unto me, "Walk ye in it." For some time I walked with the M. E. church, wholly ignorant of my situation, supposing I was keeping all the commandments, and walking according to the rules laid down in God's word, and therefore serving him acceptably; but when my eyes were opened, oh! how different every thing looked to me! The commandments of God were seen in a new light: his words, as written in the Book of books, the Bible, were different from what I had supposed: the goodness and wisdom of our Creator seemed written more plainly than ever before upon every page of Holy writ: his plan of salvation seemed doubly beautiful: his love seemed to call for stronger expressions of gratitude: all his attributes were seen in brighter light: all was changed.
I rejoice in the love of God, in peace arising from keeping all his commandments, and in doing his holy will as far as we have light. I desire to become more and more like my blessed Saviour. "O what wondrous love is this," that caused God the Father to give his well beloved Son as a ransom for us when sunk so low in the abyss of sin and iniquities, and to raise us from the gulf of despair into which we had fallen, and placed our feet on the Rock that cannot be moved, even Christ our Lord. Truly I can exclaim with the poet,
"I love the holy Son of God,
Who once this vale of sorrows trod,
Who bore our sins a dreadful load,
Up Calvary's gloomy mountain."
I am determined to prove faithful, God being my helper, that I may be permitted to enter into the rest prepared for all those who love the appearing of our Saviour.
Yours looking for Christ,
JULIA E. GREMS.
Hebron, Jeff. Co., Wis., Aug. 7th, 1854.