Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 9, 1861
THE SABBATH.
By M. E. Cornell
WHILE laboring at Chesaning, Mich., our cause received effectual aid from two or three sermons preached against it by Eld. J. B. Russell of the M. E. Church. As some of the arguments were somewhat new and novel, I will give them from my notes together with the substance of my reply.
RUSSEL. I will admit that we are to rest the Sabbath day according to the fourth commandment.
REPLY. This very text with its connection clearly shows that when the disciples rested according to the fourth command they rested the day before the first day.
R. God does not attach evening and morning to the seventh day. It was left as indefinite time.
REPLY. "The evening and the morning were the sixth day," and the seventh of course must commence at the end of the sixth. That Moses understood it so, is evident from his experience as recorded in Exodus.
R. In Ex. xii, the Sabbath is mentioned and no reference had to the creation.
REPLY. The convocation days of Ex. xii, were on particular days of the month, and had no reference to the weekly Sabbath. Any one can see this at a glance.
R. Let our friends go back and take up the right day to begin the year, if they are so afraid of tradition. I love consistency.
REPLY. There is nothing about years or months in the moral law. Our Saviour taught the Scribes and Pharisees that they made the fifth commandment of God void by their tradition, and explained to them wherein; and all the force of his charge now comes against the nominal churches, for their treatment of the fourth commandment. See Matt. xv. 1-9.
R. If Christ or the apostles had wanted to celebrate the first day they did not dare to do it till after Christ's resurrection for fear of the Jews.
REPLY. Would they desire to celebrate the resurrection of Christ before he rose? Was there not as much fear of the Jews after Christ arose as before? See John xx, 19. "When the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews," &c.; and yet the Elder has quoted this very text to show that the disciples kept the first day. Where now is consistency?
R. We admit the first day as indefinite as the seventh; so we stand on equal footing here.
REPLY. How then could the Sabbath be changed? Could it be transferred from the seventh, indefinite, to the first, indefinite? (!) Did Christ rise on an indefinite day? But if Christ arose indefinitely after the disciples rested, then they must have rested as indefinitely before he arose; hence your example of celebrating the indefinite resurrection day, on the definite Sunday shows our duty to celebrate the indefinite seventh day, or the definite Saturday, "according to the fourth command" after apostolic example.
R. I assume the re-enactment of the law.
REPLY. Well to say "I assume," for it would be hard proving the re-enactment of a law, which he himself admits never was abolished.
R. There is no direct command for the change of the Sabbath.
REPLY. Neither is there any indirect command for the change. But have we a right to change a direct definite command, without any direct authority for so doing? Is not God wiser than men? If so would he leave us to infer the change of his definite moral law?
R. Watson says, "a day," leaving it to each people to determine for themselves. The Hebrews could not determine by the fourth commandment what day was to be their Sabbath.
REPLY. If they could not determine what day to keep we cannot determine what day they kept. In the name of common sense, then from what day and to what day was the Sabbath changed?!
But is Watson wiser than the Almighty? What right has he to substitute "a" for "the?" Is not this adding to the word of the Lord? God says "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." The day is as definite as the institution, and both are as definite as the Lord himself. If we are at liberty to take any day we please, by the same rule we may have any Lord we please, for one is as definite as the other in the Bible. The true Sabbath is a sign of the true God [Eze. xx, 20], as also the counterfeit Sabbath is the sign of the counterfeit god.
R. Quotes "after eight days," and remarks, This second meeting was on the next first day, for Sunday and Sunday is eight the world over.
REPLY. True the next Sunday would be eight, but the text says, "after eight days," and this would bring the second meeting as far ahead as the ninth day, at least. There is no rule of language in existence that would make "after eight days" just a week, unless it be the rule you apply to the fourth commandment, viz., that when God says, "The seventh" he means the first.
R. Quotes Acts xxi, 27, and remarks, If they would lay hands on Paul on the Sabbath, I don't wonder that God should change the day.
REPLY. This seventh day had no reference to the Sabbath, but to the law of purifying. See Numbers vi. But even if it had been the Sabbath, who knows that such a violation of it would be a sufficient cause for changing it to another day? By that rule it must have been changed thousands of times; besides there would be no telling where to find the first day by this time, for you will not deny that worse acts have been performed on your Sunday many times. If this is your rule I do not wonder you say it is indefinite!
R. Quotes Matt. xix, 16, and says, All the ten commands were quoted by the Saviour except the fourth or Sabbath; that was left out. If it was so important why did he not mention it? Simply because it was not yet determined what day they should keep as disciples.
REPLY. This argument must be false, because it is based upon a false assumption. Christ did not quote one of the first three commandments to the young man. Are they therefore not binding? Is not this handling the word of God deceitfully?
In conclusion we gave the people chapter and verse for the example of Christ and the apostles, in regard to the Sabbath, and showed that there was but one clear, unmistakable instance of a meeting for worship on the first day of the week in the New Testament, and that was an evening meeting at Troas, with reference to Paul's going away the next day. See Acts xx, 7. In strong contrast with this we showed where Christ and the apostles preached on many different Sabbaths in different places.
As the contrast was being drawn, and it was evident that the congregation saw it, Eld. R. cried out, "I claim every one of those texts for the first day." This capped the climax. Astonishment was depicted in many countenances. It was evident that a drowning man had caught at a straw. It is believed that this effort resulted in favor of the truth, for when such miserable subterfuges are resorted to, to establish a position it must open the eyes of the honest.
At the close of Eld. R.'s meeting I had the privilege of reading the above notes to him in the presence of many witnesses; and he acknowledged them all correct except two or three words which I changed as he directed.
M. E. CORNELL.
CHRISTIAN HOLINESS.
By Hannah More
CHRISTIANITY then, exhibits no different standards of goodness applicable to different stations or characters. No one can be allowed to rest in a low degree and plead his exemption for aiming no higher. No one can be secure in any state of piety below that state which would not have been enjoined on all, had not all been entitled to the means of attaining it.
Those who keep their pattern in their eye, though they may fail of the highest attainments,162will not be satisfied with such as are low. The striking inferiority will excite compunction; compunction will stimulate them to press on, which those never do, who, losing sight of their standard, are satisfied with the height they have reached.
He is not likely to be the object of God's favor, who takes his determined stand on the very lowest step in the scale of perfection; who does not even aspire above it, whose aim seems to be, not so much to please God as to escape punishment. Many however will doubtless be accepted though their progress has been small; their difficulties may have been great, their natural capacity weak, their temptation strong, and their instruction defective.
Revelation has not only furnished injunctions, but motives to holiness; not only motives, but examples and authorities. "Be ye therefore perfect (according to your measure and degree) as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." And what says the Old Testament? It accords with the New—"Be ye holy, for I the Lord your God am holy."
This was the injunction of God himself, not given exclusively to Moses, to the leader and legislator, or to a few distinguished officers, or to a selection of eminent men, but to an immense body of people, even to the whole assembled host of Israel; to men of all ranks, professions, capacities, and characters, to the minister of religion, and to the uninstructed, to enlightened rulers, and to feeble women. "God," says an excellent writer, "had antecedently given to his people particular laws suited to their several exigencies, and various conditions, but the command to be holy was a general (might he not have said a universal) law."
"Who is like unto thee, O Lord, among the gods? Who is like unto thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?" This is perhaps the sublimest apostrophe of praise (rendered more striking by its interrogatory form) which the Scriptures have recorded. It makes a part of the first song of gratulation which is to be found in the treasury of sacred poetry. This epithet of holy is more frequently affixed to the name of God than any other. His mighty name is less often invoked than his holy name. To offend against this attribute is represented as more heinous than to oppose any other. It has been remarked that the impiety of the Assyrian monarch is not described by his hostility against the great, the Almighty God, but it is made an aggravation of his crime that he had committed it against the Holy One of Israel.
When God condescended to give a pledge for the performance of his promise, he swears by his holiness, as if it were the distinguishing quality which was more especially binding. It seems connected and interwoven with all the divine perfections. Which of his excellences can we contemplate as separated from this? Is not his justice stamped with sanctity? It is free from any tincture of vindictiveness, and is therefore a holy justice. His mercy has none of the partiality, or favoritism, or capricious fondness of human kindness, but is a holy mercy. His holiness is not more the source of his mercies than of his punishments. If his holiness in his severities to us wanted a justification, there cannot be at once a more substantial and more splendid illustration of it than the noble passage already quoted, for he is called "glorious in holiness" immediately after he had vindicated the honor of his name, by the miraculous destruction of the army of Pharaoh.
Is it not then a necessary consequence growing out of his perfections, "that a righteous God loveth righteousness," that he will of course require in his creatures a desire to imitate as well as to adore that attribute by which he himself loves to be distinguished? We cannot indeed, like God, be essentially holy. In an infinite being it is a substance, in a created being it is only an accident. God is the essence of holiness, but we can have no holiness, nor any other good thing, but what we derive from him—It is his prerogative, but our privilege.
If God loves holiness because it is his image, he must consequently hate sin because it defaces his image. If he glorifies his own mercy and goodness in rewarding virtue, he no less vindicates the honor of his holiness in the punishment of vice. A perfect God can no more approve of sin in his creatures than he can commit it himself. He may forgive sin on his own conditions, but there are no conditions on which he can be reconciled to it. The infinite goodness of God may delight in the beneficial purposes to which his infinite wisdom has made the sins of his creatures subservient, but sin itself will always be abhorrent to his nature. His wisdom may turn to a merciful end, but his indignation at the offence cannot be diminished. He loves man, for he cannot but love his own work; he hates sin for that was man's own invention, and no part of the work which God had made. Even in the imperfect administration of human laws, impunity of crimes would be construed into approbation of them.
The law of holiness then, is a law binding on all persons without distinction, not limited to the period nor to the people to whom it was given. It reaches through the whole Jewish dispensation and extends with wider demands and higher sanctions to every Christian, of every denomination, of every age, and every country.
A more sublime motive cannot be assigned why we should be holy than because "the Lord our God is holy." Men of the world have no objection to the terms virtue, morality, integrity, rectitude, but they associate something overacted, not to say hypocritical, with the term holiness, and neither use it in a good sense when applied to others, nor would wish to have it applied to themselves, but make it over, with a little suspicion, and not a little decision, to puritans and enthusiasts.
This suspected epithet, however, is surely rescued from every injurious association, if we consider it as the chosen attribute of the Most High. We do not presume to apply the terms virtue, probity, morality to God, but we ascribe holiness to him because he first ascribed it to himself, as the aggregate and consummation of all his perfections.
Shall so imperfect a being as man then, ridicule the application of this term to others, or be ashamed of it himself? There is a cause indeed which should make him ashamed of the appropriation, that of not deserving it. This comprehensive appellation includes all the christian graces, all the virtues in their just proportion, order, and harmony; in all their bearings, relations and dependencies. And as in God, glory and holiness are united, so the Apostle combines "sanctification and honor" as the glory of man.
Traces more or less of the holiness of God may be found in his works, to those who view them with the eye of faith. They are more plainly visible in his providences; but it is in his word that we must chiefly look for the manifestations of his holiness. He is everywhere described as perfectly holy in himself, as a model to be imitated by his creatures, and, though with an interval immeasurable, as imitable by them.
The great doctrine of redemption is inseparably connected with the doctrine of sanctification. As an admirable writer has observed, "If the blood of Christ reconcile us to the justice of God, the Spirit of Christ is to reconcile us to the holiness of God." When we are told therefore that Christ is made unto us "righteousness," we are in the same place taught that he is made unto us sanctification; that is, he is both justifier and sanctifier. In vain shall we deceive ourselves by resting on his sacrifice, while we neglect to imitate his example.
The glorious spirits which surround the throne of God are not represented as singing hallelujahs to his omnipotence, nor even to his mercy, but to that attribute which, as with a glory, encircles all the rest. They perpetually cry, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, and it is observable, that the angels which adore him for his holiness are the ministers of his justice. Those pure intelligences perceive, no doubt, that this union of attributes constitutes the divine perfection.
This infinitely blessed Being then, to whom all the hosts of heaven are continually ascribing holiness, has commanded us to be holy. To be holy because God is holy, is both an argument and a command. An argument founded on the perfections of God, and a command to imitate him. This command is given to creatures, fallen indeed, but to whom God graciously promises strength for the imitation. If in God holiness implies an aggregate of perfections; in man, even in his low degree, it is an incorporation of the christian graces.
The holiness of God indeed is confined by no limitation; ours is bounded, finite, imperfect. Yet let us be sedulous to extend our little sphere. Let our desires be large, though our capacities are contracted. Let our aims be lofty, though our attainments are low. Let us be solicitous that no day pass without some augmentation of our holiness, some added height in our aspirations, some wider expansion in the compass of our virtues. Let us strive every day for some superiority to the preceding day, something that shall distinctly mark the passing scene with progress; something that shall inspire an humble hope that we are rather less unfit for heaven to-day, than we were yesterday. The celebrated artist who has recorded that he passed no day without drawing a line, drew it not for repetition, but for progress; not to produce a given number of strokes, but to forward his work, to complete his design. The Christian, like the painter, does not draw his lines at random, he has a model to imitate, as well as an outline to fill. Every touch conforms him more and more to the great original. He who has transfused most of the life of God into his soul, has copied it most successfully.
"To seek happiness," says one of the fathers, "is to desire God, and to find him is that happiness." Our very happiness therefore is not our independent property. It flows from that eternal mind which is the source and sum of happiness. In vain we look for felicity in all around us. It can only be found in that original fountain, whence we, and all we are and have, are derived. Where then is the imaginary wise man of the school of Zeno? What is the perfection of virtue supposed by Aristotle? They have no existence but in the romance of philosophy. Happiness must be imperfect in an imperfect state. Religion, it is true, is initial happiness, and points to its perfection; but as the best men possess it but imperfectly, they cannot be perfectly happy. Nothing can confer completeness which is itself incomplete. "With thee, O Lord, is the fountain of life, and in thy light only we shall see light."
Whatever shall still remain wanting in our attainments, and much will still remain, let this last, greatest, highest consideration stimulate our languid exertions, that God has negatively promised the beatific vision, the enjoyment of his presence, to this attainment, by specifically proclaiming that without holiness none shall see his face. To know God is the rudiments of that eternal life which will hereafter be perfected by seeing him. As there is no stronger reason why we must not look for perfect happiness in this life than because there is no perfect holiness, so the nearer advances we make to the one, the greater progress we shall make toward the other; we must cultivate here those tendencies and tempers which must be carried to perfection in a happier clime. But as holiness is the concomitant of happiness, so must it be its precursor. As sin has destroyed our happiness, so sin must be destroyed before our happiness can be restored. Our nature must be renovated before our felicity can be established. This is according to the nature of things as well as agreeable to the law and will of God. Let us then carefully look to the subduing in our inmost hearts all those dispositions that are unlike God, all those actions,163thoughts, and tendencies that are contrary to God.
Independently therefore of all the other motives to holiness which religion suggests; independently of the fear of punishment, independently even of the hope of glory, let us be holy from this ennobling, elevating motive, because the Lord our God is holy. And when our virtue flags, let it be renovated by this imperative injunction, backed by this irresistible argument. The motive for imitation, and the Being to be imitated seem almost to identify us with infinity. It is a connection which endears, an assimilation which dignifies, a resemblance which elevates. The Apostle has added to the prophet an assurance which makes the crown and consummation of the promise, "that though we know not yet what we shall be, yet we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is."
In what a beautiful variety of glowing expressions, and admiring strains, do the scripture worthies delight to represent God; not only in relation to what he is to them, but to the supreme excellence of his own transcendent perfections! They expatiate, they amplify, they dwell with unwearied iteration on the adorable theme; they ransack language, they exhaust all the expressions of praise, and wonder, and admiration, all the images of astonishment and delight to laud and magnify his glorious name. They praise him, they bless him, they worship him, they glorify him, they give thanks to him for his great glory, saying, "holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of the majesty of thy glory."
They glorify him relatively to themselves.—"I will magnify thee, O Lord my strength—My help cometh of God—the Lord himself is the portion of my inheritance." At another time soaring with a noble disinterestedness, and quite losing sight of self and all created glories, they adore him for his own incommunicable excellences; "Be thou exalted, O God, in thine own strength." "Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!" Then bursting to a rapture of adoration, and burning with a more intense flame, they cluster his attributes.—"To the king eternal, immortal, invisible, be honor and glory forever and ever." One is lost in admiration of his wisdom—his ascription is "to the only wise God." Another in triumphant strains overflows with transport at the consideration of the attribute on which we have been descanting; "O Lord, who is like unto thee, there is none holy as the Lord." "Sing praises unto the Lord, O ye saints of his, and give thanks unto him for a remembrance of his holiness."
The prophets and apostles were not deterred from pouring out the overflowings of their fervent spirits, they were not restrained from celebrating the perfections of their Creator, through the cold-hearted fear of being reckoned enthusiasts. The saints of old were not prevented from breathing out their rapturous hosannas to the King of saints, through the coward dread of being branded as fanatical. The conceptions of their minds dilating with the view of the glorious constellations of the divine attributes; and the affections of their hearts warming with the thought that those attributes were all concentrated in Mercy—they display a sublime oblivion of themselves, they forget everything but God. Their own wants dwindle to a point. Their own concerns, nay, the universe itself, shrink into nothing. They seem absorbed in the effulgence of deity, lost, in the radiant beams of infinite glory.—Hannah More.
WHAT DO WE LIVE FOR?
WHat do we live for?
Is labor so lowly,
Toil so ignoble, we shrink from its strain?
Think it not—labor
Is godlike and holy,
He that is idle is living in vain.
What do we live for?
The question is sounding,
Low in the silence, and loud in the din,
And to each heart-ear,
With warm pulses bounding,
Answers come thronging, without and within.
What do we live for?
To sow, by all waters,
Fruit-bearing seeds of deeds for all years;
To toil in the ranks
With earth's sons and daughters,
Manfully striving with doubtings and fears.
What do we live for?
We live not to rust out,
Slothful by standing aloof from the strife;
A thousand times better,
More noble to wear out,
Batter'd and burn'd in the hot forge of life.
Lovest thou me?
"Simon, son of Jonas lovest thou me?"—John xxi, 16.
Many things arise which throw a doubt upon our love; our Lord may well therefore put the question, "Lovest thou me?" We cannot love Jesus except we know him. We do not know Jesus except we believe in him. We do not believe in Jesus except we surrender ourselves and all we have to him. Just in proportion to our faith in Christ will be our love to Christ: "Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious." Do you love to read of Christ, to hear of Christ, to think of Christ, to speak of Christ, to work for Christ, to commune with Christ, and do you desire if the will of God be so, cheerfully to suffer for Christ? Does Jesus appear to you as the chiefest among ten thousand, and the one altogether lovely? If Christ could only be obtained for purchase, what wouldst thou give for him? If he could only be acquired by labor, what wouldst thou do for him? If he could only be procured by suffering, what wouldst thou suffer for him? Do you love him? Then you desire to please him, you fear to offend him; then you are willing to deny yourself for him, and you will seek his interests before your own. Love is often better proved by what we do than by what we say, or even than by what we feel. After the first flash of excitement is over, love settles down into a habit, and instead of inflaming us with violent emotions, inspires us with gratitude, and leads us to a self-denying obedience. "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." We must judge by what a man does rather than by what he says, whether he loves Christ or not. Some doubt their love to him, when no one else can; and some feel sure they love him, when others stand in doubt of them.
"For this is the love of God that we keep his commandments; and his commandments are not grievous."—1 John v, 3.
THE ATHEIST SILENCED.
BEING in Manchester some time since, when a certain infidel lecturer was announced to lecture on atheism, we went, out of curiosity to hear him. After indulging in a large amount of scurrility and blasphemy for about an hour and a half, he concluded by saying that the only safe rule of faith was to believe nothing that wasn't capable of mathematical demonstration; and that as the existence of God could not be demonstrated, it ought not to be believed.
When he had sat down, a gentleman whom we instantly recognized as Burlington B. Wales, Esq., whose essays and lectures on language (recently delivered at the Collegiate Institution) have won for him the reputation of a distinguished linguist, rose to reply to the remarks which had been made by the lecturer.
On being invited to take a position on the platform, he said that he had no intention of wading through the continent of mud which the lecturer had been so long constructing; he should only fasten upon his two closing remarks, namely, that nothing should be believed that was not susceptible of mathematical demonstration; and that the existence of God not being susceptible of mathematical demonstration, ought not to be believed. Now, in relation to the first position, it was a fundamental axiom in mathematics that every circle must have a center; but he need hardly tell the lecturer, that while it was absolutely necessary to admit this center, its existence had never been demonstrated.
“Let this table,” said Mr. Wales, laying his hand upon a circular table which was upon the platform, “Be considered a yard in diameter; now where is the center? It is not in either of the semi-diameters, for they are equal; and if it be in one it must be in the other; so you prove too much, for you show that there must be two centers in one circle, which is an absurdity, and destroys the very thing you are laboring to establish. It cannot be between them for they are in contact. You are thus driven to this conclusion, that this mathematical center is a point devoid of parts, namely, a spaceless point—something that does not occupy space. Now, as all entities occupy space, if this center does not, then it is not an entity; ergo, it is a non-entity, that is—nothing! So much for the lecturer's first proposition, that nothing ought to be believed that is not susceptible of mathematical demonstration.
This conducts us to the second proposition, that the existence of a God is incapable of mathematical proof. Let us test this assertion. And here I hope the lecturer will signify his admission or rejection of the premises laid down as I proceed.
“First, then, attraction either resides in matter, or it does not reside in matter.”
It was admitted to reside in matter.
“Secondly, it is equally diffused through matter, or it is not equally diffused through matter.”
Admitted that it was equally diffused.
“Thirdly, repulsion resides in matter, or does not reside in matter.”
Admitted to reside in matter.
“Fourthly, it is equally diffused through matter, or it is not equally diffused.”
Admitted that it was equally diffused.
“Now mark the result,” continued Mr. W. “Here are two permanently antagonistic forces, equally resident in matter, equally diffused through matter, equal in extent, and equal in power. These forces are said to be the motive power which moves all bodies; but it is one of the most self-evident propositions of Euclid, that where equal is to equal, the result will be equal; in other words, that where two forces of equal strength are in antagonism, the result will be the establishment of an equilibrium; not motion, but quiescence or rest. Thus, if you take a pair of scales and place a pound weight in each, you establish an equilibrium which will remain forever undisturbed, unless interfered with by some external agent. If on the other hand it is contended that attraction is stronger than repulsion; then, once stronger it will forever remain so, and drawing all bodies into one agglomerated mass, again the result would be not motion, but rest. If on the contrary, it be said that repulsion is the strongest, then every particle of matter dilating and expanding to its utmost tension, would fly off into space, which being filled with a concourse of disconnected atoms, again the result would be not motion but rest.
“But nothing is at rest; suns, systems, planets, stars, are all in rapid motion. What, then, is the power which has destroyed the equilibrium of these two antagonistic forces, and which has given to the universe that motion which they are ever striving to prevent?
We find no evidence of its existence in matter; yet it is evidently superior to matter, since it controls the motion of matter—neutralizes the tendency of those laws and forces which reside in matter. Now this power, which, without residing in matter, is evidently superior to it, constantly acting upon it, overcoming its inertia, and compelling it into motion, we call God. God! the inevitable word which terminates all our studies, the grand climax to all our knowledge, shining like a mysterious star upon the borders of both worlds, revealing to us the moral liberty of this, the moral justice of that.”
Mr. Wales's argument, certainly one of the most lucid, forcible and original, for the existence of God which it ever fell to our lot to hear, seemed to make a great impression upon the audience, more especially as his opponent declined to reply in “consequence of the lateness of the hour,” though it was not quite ten o'clock!
On leaving, Mr. Wales was warmly congratulated by the Christian portion of the audience (and especially by Dr. Middleton, who chanced to be present; and with whom he subsequently rode home to supper), upon the skill and success of his argument, and for the good feeling with which it was conducted; for Mr. Wales is sometimes apt to silence an opponent by a withering sarcasm instead of a fact or argument. We rejoice that this was not the case on the present occasion.—
The Satisfying Object Is Jesus
There is but one satisfying object in earth or in heaven, and to that object you are told constantly to look—it is Jesus.
If you cannot do without Christ, he will never put you off with anything short of himself.
DESIRING AND CHOOSING.
WE often hear people say, I desire to be a christian; I desire to go forward, and to go through with the people of God; I desire a part with the saints in their inheritance in light, and in the joys of eternal life. This is all well enough so far as it goes. The only trouble with such expressions is, they do not go far enough.
Desire applies to those objects, the obtaining of which depends upon circumstances beyond our control, or upon the will of another. We desire a prosperous journey; but it is beyond our power to order it as we please. We desire a favor from a friend; but it depends upon his will whether or not we receive it. On the other hand, of all objects under our control, or subject to our will, we signify our preference for one over another, not by desire but by choice. If there were two roads leading to a certain place, and we preferred the right to the left, we should not express that preference by saying, I desire to take the road to the right; but I choose to take it. If two gifts were presented to us, one of which we might take, we should not say of the one which was accepted, I desired this; but, I chose it. Choice here includes desire; for if no desire existed, the choice would not follow; but the desire alone without the choice would effect nothing.
It is for this reason, no doubt, that the Scriptures almost uniformly represent the christian life, its warfare, its sufferings, its joys and its reward, as matters of choice, not merely of desire. It is not said of Moses that he desired to suffer affliction with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; but it is said that he chose to do this. Heb. xi, 25. Joshua did not say unto the people, Desire ye this day whom ye will serve, but choose ye this day whom ye will serve. Josh. xxiv, 15. David does not say, I have desired the way of truth; but he does say, I have chosen it. Ps. cxix, 30. Moses does not say to the children of Israel, I have set before you life and death, therefore desire life; but, I have set before you life and death, therefore choose life. Deut. xxx, 19. All these things were matters of choice with them. They might have them if they would. They had it in their power to act one way or the other; and it was for them not merely to desire, but to choose which they would do.
Just so it is now. Do you desire to take the humble path of those who are pilgrims and strangers on the earth? You can do so if you choose. Do you desire to suffer with Christ here that you may reign with him hereafter? You can if you choose. Do you desire the reward which is promised to the faithful at last? You may have it, if you choose it. These matters are all left with us. They are placed in our power, subject to our own action, and we can accept or reject them as we choose.
Choice necessarily implies action: desire does not. We may desire and desire again, and yet never move; but if we choose a certain course in anything, we shall, of course, immediately act in accordance with our choice. If there is no action, there is no evidence of any choice. The conclusion is therefore evident that simply desiring life we may never gain it—choosing it, we shall have it.
RECOMMEND THE REVIEW.
By Editor
We are anxious that the Review should have the widest circulation possible. We want to see it going everywhere, and penetrating into every family where there are any who love truth and are willing to obey it. To this end the paper must be recommended. The world is too full of everything, and men are too much absorbed in the rush and roar of business and pleasure, to take notice of every new thing they meet. Before they will be induced to take any notice of the REVIEW some vivid idea must be impressed upon them of its character, and the tendency of its teaching. We want all our friends therefore to recommend the REVIEW throughout the extent of their acquaintance and influence.
But how recommend it? Not by loud words and pompous speeches; not by overdrawn and flashy puffs, which are sought and obtained at moderate prices for the literature of the day. How then? Answer. By your life and deportment. This is the only true basis for all operations of this nature. Let a person recommend a religious paper with mere words though they be long and loud, and at the same time exhibit a godless life, and how much influence will it have? But let a person recommend a paper and at the same time show to all around a holy life and godly conversation; let him show that sobriety, meekness, humility, patience, brotherly love, kindness, justice, and equity, which the Bible enjoins upon its followers and which can but be admired by men everywhere; and let him give them to understand that the paper which he recommends inculcates and enforces these very traits and their associate graces, and that it is by the influence of its teaching that he is aided in carrying them out; and men, admiring the character, will think well of all the means which conduce to form it.
That the tendency of the REVIEW shall be to develop these principles, all connected with it will zealously labor; and that all our friends will recommend it in the manner above described, we earnestly hope. Again we say, Recommend the REVIEW; but remember that its best recommendation is a holy life on the part of its friends. Be living recommendations, both of the paper you sustain, and of the cause you love.
SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCE.
By A. S. Hutchins
BRO. WHITE: On the subject of Systematic Benevolence I am sure the Lord is bringing his church into a unity of action. I design to use my influence to move this thing forward. I wish to work understandingly and with the body.
But we do not all understand the following sentence in the Good Samaritan, No. 5: "We propose that the friends give a tithe, or tenth of their income, estimating their income at ten per cent on what they possess."
Now do you mean that every one estimate his or her income at "ten per cent," and give a tithe of that percentage, whether the real income be more or less than ten per cent? For the income of one man's property would of course be more than that of another. If then this be so, and every one estimate the income of his or her property at ten per cent on what he possess, would there not be inequality?
Or do you mean that each one give a tithe of their real income on his or her property? If this be your understanding of the matter, it follows of course (or I suppose so) that the conditions of the property and the circumstances of the person's family, all be considered. A word of explanation on this point would help many minds, I think.
Relative to the personal donations weekly, all is easy of comprehension.
Your brother in love of the truth, and in hope of eternal life.
A. S. HUTCHINS.
Bristol, Vt., March 18, 1861.