DEAR SIR: In my last I promised to show the fallacy of the idea of the change of constitution with the change of dispensation. But “fallacy” is too mild a term to use of this stronghold of Antinomians. It is worse than an absurdity to speak of the “Christian constitution,” and of its having superseded the constitution of former dispensations. It is virtually charging the Saviour with sin and rebellion, as I shall make appear. You say:—
“No jurist enforces a precept in the Constitution of the United States, by virtue of the fore-ordained authority of British law.”
This illustration has been used by so many, and so many times has its tendency been exposed, that I cannot hold you innocent in its reiteration. If it does, as I remarked, place the Saviour in the position of a rebel and traitor against the authority of his Father, then it is blasphemous. After its being exposed so many times, you should either omit it, or show yourself able to produce some reason to justify it. As you are well aware, I had occasion to point out its tendency some twenty years ago, in answering a writer in an Antinomian journal, who assails my position in the little tract call “Truth Found” (first edition). Therefore it does seem to me that you were aware of your great error when you penned those lines. I do not say that the sentence quoted is blasphemous in its terms, but it is decidedly so in the conclusion that you draw from it. The only way in which you can escape from the censure placed upon you, because of your using such an illustration, is to show that there is a parallel between the position and work of Christ when he came to the earth, and that of the founders of the Government of the United States. I think that, when the facts are presented, every reverent reader of the Bible—every true follower of the Saviour—will admit that the language I have used is not by any means too severe. I will show the dissimilarity, and the irrelevancy of your illustration, by a few well-defined points.
1. When Christ came to the earth there was a rebellion existing against the Government of his Father, and he came to oppose and to overthrow the rebellion.
Contrast.—But the founders of this Government inaugurated a rebellion against Great Britain, and carried it on to success, even at the hazard of their lives.
2. Christ said he came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father.
Contrast.—Our fathers determined to do their own will, and resisted by every possible means the will of the king of England—“the fore-ordained authority.”
3. Christ was sent of the Father to save his Government from dishonor and reproach—to glorify him,—and to save men from further acts of rebellion.
Contrast.—The founders of this Government were not sent by the king of Great Britain; they did not try to save him and his Government from reproach, but heaped reproach upon them.
4. Christ said he did always the things that pleased his Father.
Contrast.—Our fathers denounced King George as a tyrant, and refused to obey him.
5. The Father acknowledged Christ as his beloved Son, and commanded all to hear him.
Contrast.—King George denounced the founders of this Government as traitors, threatening them with death, and did his utmost to put his threat into execution.
Now if you could show that Christ denied allegiance to his Father; that he arraigned his Father as a tyrant, and declared himself and his followers “free and independent” from his Father’s Government and rule; that he set up a Government of his own on this repudiation of his Father’s authority; and that he trampled upon the Constitution of his Father’s fore-ordained authority, and enacted a new Constitution of his own, quite the contrary of that of his Father, then there would be consistency in your illustration. But what a price to pay for consistency, to present the Son of God in the same attitude toward his Father that the founders of our Government201maintained toward “the fore-ordained authority of British law”! I appeal to every unprejudiced reader, if I am not correct in saying that Antinomians ought to be ashamed of their theory of a “Christian constitution” in distinction from the will and law of our Heavenly Father. And, sir, what do you say? Will you stand upon your argument and illustration, and thus place the Son of God in conflict with the fore-ordained authority of his Father’s law? If you dare to do this, may God pity you, and open your eyes to the error and danger of your course. But if you dare not do it, then do you not think you owe it to your friends who have accepted your tract as the words of truth, to confess your error, and exhort them to choose “a more excellent way?” I leave it to your conscience, which, I hope, is now so enlightened that you will deal faithfully with yourself and others as holding in view the Judgment of God. The inspired word says: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself.” And every word, every action of the Saviour is a denial of your assumptions, and a negative to your reasonings and conclusions.
In further illustrating your ideas of the “new constitution,” you say, “the law gave place to the gospel as the great rule of faith and obedience.” When we speak of faith as it is everywhere used in the Scriptures when Christ is its object, we do not mean such faith as angels have in the integrity of God, or such faith as Adam had in the word of the Creator, before he fell, but such faith as a sinner needs in order to his justification. But the law never was such a rule of faith. The law is a rule of obedience, but was not and cannot be a rule of faith. See Gal. 3:12. “And the law is not of faith; but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.” Compare Lev. 18:5, and others. The law is a rule of obedience, solely. Therefore, when you say that the law gives place to the gospel as a rule of faith, you show that your own mind is confused in regard to the application of the terms you use. To prove your statement you refer to Rom. 3:20-28. But the passage gives no warrant to your language. Indeed, there can be no warrant for it, as your expression is loosely made, as I have shown.
Inasmuch as I shall have to notice Rom. 3 with some care, I will here call attention to your effort to show that “all the world” in verse 19 does not include the Gentiles, but refers to the Jews alone. The words of Paul are directly against you. In chapter 2 he instituted a comparison between the Gentile who keeps the law, and the Jew who transgressed the law. He opens chapter 3 by showing that the Jew had the advantage of receiving the oracles of God (comp. Acts 7:38). In verse 9 he begins his remarks on the equality of the two classes, which idea runs through the whole chapter. “What then? are we [Jews] better than they [Gentiles]? No, in no wise; for we have before proved [charged, margin] both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.” Bearing in mind that “sin is not imputed when there is no law,” and that “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” we see that Jews and Gentiles alike were transgressors of the law. And we shall find this idea confirmed as we proceed. How does Paul prove his charge? Listen to him: “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” He continues to quote from the Old Testament, which is also proof that the Gentiles were transgressors of the law contained in the Old Testament. At the end of his quotations he says: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under [within the sphere of] the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Verse 19. It does seem strange that you should read this argument of the apostle, the intent of which is to prove what he has directly said, that both Jews and Gentiles are sinners, and then assert that “all the world” in verse 19 does not include the Gentiles!
I will now return to your remarks on verses 20-28. The first of these verses says: “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.” This is a conclusion drawn from the preceding argument that all the world, Jews and Gentiles, are sinners—transgressors of the law. The law is just, and always condemns its transgressors; and, as all are sinners, no one can be justified by the law. But you would have us understand that this proves that the law is done away. If so, how can the knowledge of sin be by the law? Can a knowledge of sin be imparted, or can men be convinced of sin, by an abolished law? Remember, before the law all—“all the world”—are guilty. It is indeed a truth that the knowledge of sin is by “the rule of obedience.” Or, would you convict a man of sin by a law which he ought not to keep?
If, as you assert, the gospel is now the rule of obedience, then it is undeniable that the knowledge of sin is by the gospel. That which commands obedience will convict of sin if it is disobeyed. Then, to suit your faith, we must read “the gospel” in verse 20 instead of “the law.” Formerly the law was the rule of obedience, and convicted the transgressor; now the gospel is the rule of obedience, and it convinces and convicts of sin. That is your doctrine. Now we will read this scripture to conform to your Antinomian theory: “Therefore by the deeds of the gospel there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the gospel is the knowledge of sin.” Of course you will accept this! It is a clear statement of your position. I could only accept it on one condition, namely, that it be referred to such a gospel as is taught by Antinomians. A gospel—or what is called such—based on the abolition of the immutable law of God, is too far removed from the elements of justice to be able to justify anybody. In my next I will continue to examine your position on this third chapter of Romans. J. H. W.
“A COMPLAINT” INDEED.
By Editor
Under the heading of “A Complaint,” a Presbyterian elder writes to the Interior of March 17, 1887, as follows:—
“I listened to the argument of a Baptist clergyman a short time ago, who, as usual, claimed that there was but one mode of baptism—that by immersion. Returning home, I took down Dr. William Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, an abridged edition prepared by him alone, for universal use among Sabbath-school teachers, and Bible students. I expected to find a statement of the different views held by Christian denominations of the world on baptism, briefly and concisely stated, such as can be usually found in Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias for general use. I was much surprised in not finding any reference to the mode by sprinkling, as practiced by the great majority of Christians; but on the contrary, Dr. Smith says, ‘Baptism properly and literally means immersion.’ As to the mode, he says, ‘The language of the New Testament, and of the primitive fathers, sufficiently points to immersion, as the common mode of baptism.’ He says further, that ‘the ancient church mostly adopted immersion.’ His larger edition prepared by him and seventy others, may treat the subject exhaustively, but this one prepared by him alone for universal use, does not, to my mind, deal fairly with the subject. I picked up ‘Watson’s Dictionary of the Bible,’ and there I found the strongest arguments of those who favor, and those who oppose immersion, candidly set forth and the subject fairly treated. The ‘Smith’s Dictionary’ that I have is an American reprint published by Jansen McClurg & Co., 1875. I cannot understand (unless Dr. Smith is a Baptist), why all reference to sprinkling, as a mode of baptism—practiced by such a large body of Christians—is omitted by him. Can you enlighten me?”
That is “a complaint” with which a great many people are afflicted nowadays. They find themselves believing and practicing something that is practiced “by a large body of Christians,” but which is totally at variance with the teachings of Christ, and then when their error is shown them they look for something that will confirm them in their error, and if they do not find it they enter their complaint. If their error be, as in this instance, in practicing sprinkling for baptism; and the Scriptures are set before them, and their error pointed out and the truth shown them, then instead of accepting the truth and obeying the word of God, they will go to some commentary or dictionary to find arguments to confirm them in their disobedience. And then if the dictionary is against them and in harmony with the Bible, they “cannot understand” it unless the writer, as in this case, Dr. Smith, “is a Baptist”! Unless the writer of the book is a Baptist they cannot understand why all reference to sprinkling as a mode of baptism is omitted by him, when it is “practiced by such a large body of Christians.” They cannot understand how the Scriptures can be right and the people wrong. They cannot understand how a writer can “deal fairly with the subject” when he gives the plain meaning of the Scriptures, instead of the corrupt practice of a large body of Christians, and so they enter “a complaint.” That is to say they cannot understand how it is that the practice of the people should be regulated and tested by the Bible, instead of the Bible being interpreted by the practice of the people.
It is the same way in regard to Sunday-keeping. The Lord says, “The seventh day is the Sabbath,” and commands all men to “remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.” “A large body of Christians,” make the Sabbath a working day, and keep Sunday instead. When the word of God is set before them and their sin in working on the Sabbath is shown them, then too many are just like this Presbyterian elder with baptism; instead of going to the word of God to see indeed their duty, they will go to commentaries or dictionaries to find something to confirm them in their wrong doing. We actually knew a minister to warn his congregation against “Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible” (Barnum’s edition, Appleton, etc.) as being published in the interests of Seventh-day Adventists; and now here comes this Presbyterian elder and suspects Dr. Smith of being a Baptist! And in both instances they will refuse to obey the word of God, because it is contrary to their practice.
This is a very sad “complaint,” and afflicts a very “large body of Christians.” J.
The Prohibition Amendment
By Editor
Some good “temperance” people are counseling the defeat of the prohibition amendment to the Michigan constitution, on the ground that if it is carried it will prevent the churches from using fermented wine at the sacrament. A good many who do not profess to be temperance people are opposing the amendment, on the ground that if it is carried it will prevent them from using fermented liquor at the saloons.
The Missionary.
By Stephen N. Haskell
OUR INFLUENCE.
WE should indeed be startled if we could realize the extent of our influence, and could be aware of the various ways in which we exert it for evil. The talents which God has committed to his servants are the means by which we exert an influence upon our fellow-men. A few words dropped carelessly in the time of a crisis will oftentimes throw discouragement upon a conscientious soul, leaving it in a condition from which it would seem almost unable to rise. Selfishness ever mars the work of God, and when we come to give an account of ourselves at the last day, we shall be surprised to see how much we have done for good or for evil, simply by our influence over others.
God sees the motives and it is his special providence that is over the influence of the lives of his people, and makes it tell for good. When their hearts are true, and their lives devoted to God, and his fear before them day by day, then it is that angels of God co-operate with them and make their influence tell in the conversion of souls. Could we see things now as we shall see them in the Judgment; could we keep before us the solemn fact that the Investigative Judgment has already begun, our lives would be so affected that our influence would tell for God and the right; we would be always vigilant, always watchful, always circumspect, always heavenly minded, and if we could not fill up our lives with deeds of active obedience, we would be in a state of unrest, and would seek God earnestly that we might have the grace which would enable us to glorify his name.
The example of patient suffering is a mighty power for God. The influence of a murmuring and unreconciled spirit is pernicious. We should show how patiently and cheerfully we can suffer for God. We should look around us among our own neighbors and friends and feel that God holds us responsible for their salvation, or at least for calling their attention to the truth in such a manner as will leave a favorable impression. The very spirit and temper of our minds manifested through action, though we speak not a word, may turn the scale and decide the destiny of souls around us.
Sometimes a wife by her silent influence so helps or hinders her husband as to render him mighty in the work of God, or weak and utterly inefficient. None are so lowly as to have no influence upon the destiny of others. But sin has marred the judgment of many so they cannot discern between right and wrong. They can see only one side of the question. We need the enlightenment that God alone can give. We need a sanctified judgment. We need an understanding that has been sanctified by the truth of God. May the Lord help us to prepare for the coming storm, and be ever found on the Lord's side.
S. N. H.
NEW ZEALAND.
By A. G. Daniells
THIS is the sixtieth day since we held our first meeting in the tent in the city of Auckland. When we began we were entire strangers, and were looked upon with suspicion, which attends every new enterprise. Some wondered if we were not Mormons or Spiritualists, but the majority were of the opinion that we were here to get the people's money. They had never seen a tent used for religious worship. Only a few came out at first; but it was not a week until the tent was well filled, and the attendance has been fair ever since. On some occasions 500 have been present. Many have become deeply interested in the subjects, and of course friendly to us. So far we find the colonial people very friendly and hospitable. They invite us to their homes, and take great pains to entertain us; and are truly anxious to do something for our comfort and happiness.
The views we have presented on many of the subjects are entirely new to the majority. Some have dismissed them as erroneous, and unworthy of any thought, but the greater number of those who have heard, have endeavored to investigate them with care. Some have been at almost every meeting. Many bring their Bibles, and some write down every text that is given. The number of our books which the people purchase at the stand is another evidence of their desire to know the truth. In our report last month our book sales were $60. This month we have sold about $45 worth, making in all over $100 worth. And the people are still buying. Hardly a night passes that we do not sell two or three dollars worth. On several occasions gentlemen have come to the tent in the midst of the day, and taken bound books and tracts. This is the more significant when it is known that times are close here. The great wave of business depression has rolled over New Zealand, and the people have not seen such close times for fifteen years.
I wish to mention another point with reference to our publications. Those who have bought them are highly pleased with the policy of the writers. They say the language is so simple and expressive that they can understand it, and above all there is so much Scripture given on every subject that they have learned more about the Bible in reading those books and the Bible together, than they have ever known before. They never complain of the prices, although we have to sell them a little above the American price, on account of the extra cost in getting them here. I am persuaded that thousands of dollars worth of our books can be sold in this colony; and we should have been at it years ago. Every month now is precious, yet really noth202ing is being done. The colonists are a reading people. Oh, where are the young men who will devote their lives to this work? My heart is moved, when I look over these islands and see the thousands of kind, intelligent people who know nothing of the last message. I wonder why the burden of this truth has not driven us to these scattered sheep long ago.
This month has been a good month to us. The interest has been better than at any previous time. The Lord has been near us. Ten at least have taken a stand for the truth, and others are almost persuaded to do the same. About thirty attended our Sabbath meetings. Yesterday we had a good social meeting, in which some arose, and with weeping thanked the Lord for his glorious truth that had lately come to them. We truly feel that it pays to labor and sacrifice for the salvation of others. At least half of those who have begun to observe the Sabbath are men. One is a photographer who has just served a long apprenticeship in the best gallery in the city. We think he has accepted the truth with all his heart so far as he understands it.
My wife meets with great encouragement in the Bible-reading work. She has all she can attend each week. The people invite their neighbors in, and that opens the way for new readings, but she cannot respond to all the calls. There is work for many workers. Some ladies are so interested they attend nearly every reading in the neighborhood. We truly feel that God has gone out before us, and that the people are hungering for the truth. Brother Edward Hare is busy obtaining subscriptions for the Bible Echo and "Great Controversy," Volume 4. He meets with success.
The weather has been delightful ever since we came here. The heat of the summer is past, and the thermometer has not registered more than eighty degrees. We have had refreshing rains occasionally, but no storms. During the sixty days our tent has been pitched, we have not lowered it once, nor missed an appointment. The evenings are from five to ten degrees cooler than the days, and are generally clear and calm. We could not desire a more lovely summer. As the summer fruits are going out of market, the autumn fruits, such as oranges, lemons, figs, quinces, apples, grapes, etc., are coming in. A great variety of fruits are grown with much success in this part of the colony.
We are expecting Elder Curtis and family, also Brethren Baker and Belden and their wives on the Mariposa, which is due in about a week. We shall rejoice to meet these servants of the Lord on their way to Australia, and shall do all we can to make their stay of one day here as pleasant and profitable as we can. It is good to be scattered over the earth to spread the last message to men. We crave the power of God in this work.
A. G. DANIELLS,
Auckland, New Zealand, Feb. 28.
The Commentary.
By Ellen G. White
NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
JOSEPH MAKES HIMSELF KNOWN.
(April 17.—Gen. 45:1-15.)
As his sons were about to leave him to go on their doubtful journey, their aged father arose, and, while standing in their midst, raised his hands to heaven, and entreated the Lord to go with them, and pronounced upon them a gracious benediction. "And God Almighty give you mercy before the man, that he may send away your other brother, and Benjamin. If I be bereaved of my children, I am bereaved."
"AND the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin, and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph." And when Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he could scarcely restrain his brotherly feelings of love. He gave direction to make preparation for his brethren to dine with him. When they were taken into Joseph's house, they were afraid that it was for the purpose of calling them to account because of the money found in their sacks. And they thought that it might have been intentionally placed there for the purpose of finding occasion against them to make them slaves, and that they were brought into the ruler's house to better accomplish this object. They sought to make friends with the steward of the house, and made known to him that they had found their money in the mouths of their sacks, fearing that the ruler who had treated them so roughly would accuse them of wrong in regard to the matter. They informed the steward that they had brought back the money found in their sacks, in full weight; also other money to buy food; and added, "We cannot tell who put our money in our sacks."
"AND he said, Peace be to you, fear not; your God, and the God of your father, hath given you treasure in your sacks. I had your money. And he brought Simeon out unto them." The words of the steward relieved their anxiety, and they thought God was indeed gracious unto them, as their father had entreated he would be.
WHEN Joseph came home, his brethren gave him the present in the name of their father, and they bowed themselves to him to the earth. "And he asked them of their welfare, and said, Is your father well, the old man of whom ye spake? Is he yet alive?" And they answered, "Thy servant our father is in good health, he is yet alive." And they bowed down their heads and made obeisance. And he lifted up his eyes, and saw his brother Benjamin, his mother's son, and said, "Is this your younger brother, of whom ye spake unto me?" And he said, "God be gracious unto thee, my son." And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother; and he sought where to weep; and he entered into his chamber, and wept there. And he washed his face, and went out, and refrained himself, and said, "Set on bread."
JOSEPH did not eat at the same table with his brethren, for the Egyptians considered it an abomination for them to eat bread with the Hebrews. Joseph placed his brethren at the table, as was customary when their ages were known, commencing with the eldest, according to his birthright, arranging them in order down to the youngest, as though he perfectly knew their ages. His brethren were astonished at this act of Joseph, who they thought could have no knowledge of their ages.
As he sent a portion of food to each of his brethren, he sent Benjamin five times as much as the others. He did this not only to show his particular regard for his brother Benjamin, but to prove them, and see if they regarded Benjamin with the same envious feelings they had him. They thought that Joseph did not understand their language, and were free to converse with one another in his presence; therefore Joseph had a good opportunity to learn the true state of their feelings without their knowledge. Joseph again commanded to provide his brethren with food, as much as they could carry, and to put every man's money in his sack's mouth, and to place his silver cup in the sack of the youngest. When his brethren were gone out of the city, Joseph sent his steward to overtake them, and inquire why they had rewarded evil for good, by taking the silver cup belonging to the king, whereby, indeed, he divineth.
KINGS and rulers had a cup from which they drank, which was considered a sure detective if any poisonous substance was placed in their drink. "And they said unto him, Wherefore saith my Lord these words? God forbid that thy servants should do according to this thing. Behold, the money which we found in our sacks' mouths, we brought again unto thee out of the land of Canaan; how then should we steal out of thy lord's house silver or gold? With whomsoever of thy servants it be found, both let him die, and we also will be my lord's bondmen." And he said, "Now also let it be according unto your words; he with whom it is found shall be my servant; and ye shall be blameless." Then they speedily took down every man his sack to the ground, and opened every man his sack. And he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest; and the cup was found in Benjamin's sack."
At this discovery all were greatly surprised; and, to express their great distress, they rent their garments, which was the custom when in great affliction. Benjamin was more amazed and confounded than his brethren. They returned into the city sorrowful and afraid. They thought that the hand of God was against them for their past wickedness. By their own promise, Benjamin was appointed to a life of slavery. And the fears of their father they thought would be fully realized. Mischief had befallen his much-loved Benjamin.
JUDAH had pledged himself to be surety for Benjamin. "And Judah and his brethren came to Joseph's house; for he was yet there; and they fell before him on the ground. And Joseph said unto them, What deed is this that ye have done? wot ye not that such a man as I can certainly divine?" Joseph asked this question to draw forth from his brethren an acknowledgment of their past wrong course, that their true feelings might be more fully revealed. He did not claim any power of divination, but was willing his brethren should believe that he could read the secret acts of their lives. "And Judah said, What shall we say unto my lord? what shall we speak? or how shall we clear ourselves? God hath found out the iniquity of thy servants. Behold, we are my lord's servants, both we, and he also with whom the cup is found." Judah told his brethren that God had found out their iniquity for selling their brother in Egypt, and was now returning upon203them their transgressions, by permitting them to become slaves also.
JOSEPH refused to accept them all, according to the word of Judah, as bondmen. "And he said, God forbid that I should do so; but the man in whose hand the cup is found, he shall be my servant; and as for you, get you up in peace unto your father." Judah spoke with Joseph aside from the rest, and related to him the reluctance of his father to let Benjamin come with them to Egypt, and that he pledged himself to become surety for Benjamin, that if he brought him not to his father, he would bear the blame forever. He eloquently plead in behalf of his father, relating his great grief at the loss of Joseph, and that Benjamin was all that was left of the mother which his father loved, and that if Benjamin should be separated from his father, he would die; for his life was bound up in the lad's life. Judah then nobly offered to become a slave instead of his brother; for he could not meet his father without Benjamin was with him. Said Judah, "Now therefore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord, and let the lad go up with his brethren."
JOSEPH was satisfied. He had proved his brethren, and had seen in them the fruits of true repentance for their sins; and he was so deeply affected that he could no longer conceal his feelings, and requested to be left alone with his brethren. He then gave vent to his long-suppressed feelings, and wept aloud. "And Joseph said unto his brethren, I am Joseph; doth my father yet live? And his brethren could not answer him; for they were troubled at his presence." His brethren could not answer him for astonishment. They could not really believe that the ruler of Egypt was their brother Joseph whom they had envied, and would have murdered, but finally were satisfied to sell as a slave. All their ill treatment of their brother painfully passed before them, and especially his dreams, which they had despised, and had labored to prevent their fulfillment. They had acted their part in fulfilling these dreams. Repeatedly had they made obeisance to Joseph, according to his dream. And now they stood before him condemned and amazed.
As Joseph saw the confusion of his brethren, he said to them, "Come near to me, I pray you. And they came near. And he said, I am Joseph your brother, whom ye sold into Egypt." He nobly sought to make this occasion as easy for his brethren as possible. He had no desire to increase their embarrassment by censuring them. He felt that they had suffered enough for their cruelty to him, and he endeavored to comfort them. He said to them, "Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve life. For these two years hath the famine been in the land; and yet there are five years, in the which there shall be neither earing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve you a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great deliverance. So now it was not you that sent me hither, but God; and he hath made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house, and a ruler throughout all the land of Egypt. Haste ye, and go up to my father, and say unto him, Thus saith thy son Joseph, God hath made me lord of all Egypt. Come down unto me, tarry not. And thou shalt dwell in the land of Goshen, and thou shalt be near unto me, thou, and thy children, and thy children's children, and thy flocks, and thy herds, and all that thou hast. And there will I nourish
thee; for yet there are five years of famine; lest thou, and thy household, and all that thou hast, come to poverty. And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin, that it is my mouth that speaketh unto you. And ye shall tell my father of all my glory in Egypt, and of all that ye have seen; and ye shall haste and bring down my father hither. And he fell upon his brother Benjamin's neck, and wept; and Benjamin wept upon his neck. Moreover, he kissed all his brethren, and wept upon them, and after that his brethren talked with him."
THEY humbly confessed their wrongs which they had committed against Joseph, and entreated his forgiveness, and were greatly rejoiced to find that he was alive; for they had suffered remorse and great distress of mind since their cruelty toward him. And now as they knew that they were not guilty of his blood, their troubled minds were relieved.
Noah, Justice, and Mercy
By Christian at Work
Because Noah was consecrated in heart and conduct of religious life, therefore God determined to save him and his family from the impending flood. Here was a wholly exceptional and distinguished mercy. And yet God exhibited mercy to the sinners around Noah in allowing 120 years of probation, filled with warnings and opportunities to repent. God's ways are always just, and the justice is tempered with mercy. If, after exhortation and warning, the world could not be induced to forsake its wickedness, then, for the sake of generations to come, it were better for it to be destroyed, and a new experiment to be begun under the righteous Noah and his family.—Christian at Work.