Review and Herald, Vol. 19, No. 9. (1/28/1862)

Review and Herald

Jan 28, 1862

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 28, 1862

History of the Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

(Continued.)

THE SABBATH FROM NEHEMIAH TO CHRIST.

The period of almost five centuries intervenes between the time of Nehemiah and the commencement of the ministry of the Redeemer. During this time an extraordinary change came over the Jewish people. Previously they had been to an alarming extent idolaters, and outbreaking violators of the Sabbath. But after their return from Babylon, they were never guilty of idolatry to any extent, the chastisement of that captivity effecting a cure of this evil.

In like manner did they change their conduct relative to the Sabbath; and during this period they loaded the Sabbatic institution with the most burdensome and rigorous ordinances. A brief survey of this period must suffice. Under the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of Syria, B. C. 170, the Jews were greatly oppressed.

"King Antiochus wrote to his whole kingdom, that all should be one people, and every one should leave his laws: so all the heathen agreed according to the commandment of the king. Yea, many also of the Israelites consented to his religion, and sacrificed unto idols, and profaned the Sabbath." 1 Mac. i, 41-43.

The greater part of the Hebrews remained faithful to God, and as a consequence were obliged to flee for their lives. Thus the historian continues:

"Then many that sought after justice and judgment went down into the wilderness, to dwell there: both they, and their children, and their wives, and their cattle; because afflictions increased sore upon them. Now when it was told the king's servants, and the host that was at Jerusalem in the city of David, that certain men who had broken the king's commandment, were gone down into the secret places in the wilderness, they pursued after them a great number, and having overtaken them, they camped against them, and made war against them on the Sabbath-day. And they said unto them, Let that which ye have done hitherto suffice; come forth, and do according to the commandment of the king, and ye shall live. But they said, We will not come forth, neither will we do the king's commandment to profane the Sabbath-day. So then they gave them the battle with all speed. Howbeit they answered them not, neither cast they a stone at them, nor stopped the places where they lay hid. But they said, Let us die all in our innocency: heaven and earth shall testify for us that ye put us to death wrongfully. So they rose up against them in battle on the Sabbath, and they slew them, with their wives and children, and their cattle, to the number of a thousand people." 1 Mac. ii, 29-38; Josephus' Antiquities, book xii, chap. vi.

In Jerusalem itself a like massacre took place. King Antiochus sent Appollonius with an army of twenty-two thousand,

"Who, coming to Jerusalem and pretending peace, did forbear till the holy day of the Sabbath, when taking the Jews keeping holy day, he commanded his men to arm themselves. And so he slew all them that were gone to the celebrating of the Sabbath, and running through the city with weapons they slew great multitudes." 2 Mac. v, 25, 26.

In view of these dreadful acts of slaughter, Mattathias, "an honorable and great man," the father of Judas Maccabeus, with his friends decreed thus:

"Whosoever shall come to make battle with us on the Sabbath-day, we will fight against him; neither will we die all, as our brethren that were murdered in the secret places." 1 Mac. ii, 41.

Yet were some martyred after this for observing the Sabbath. Thus we read:

"And others, that had run together into caves near by to keep the Sabbath-day secretly, being discovered to Philip, were all burnt together, because they made a conscience to help themselves for the honor of the most sacred day." 2 Mac. vi, 11.

After this, Judas Maccabeus did great exploits in defense of the Hebrews, and in resisting the dreadful oppression of the Syrian government. Of one of these battles we read:

"When he had given him this watchword, The help of God, himself leading the first band, he joined battle with Nicanor. And by the help of the Almighty, they slew above nine thousand of their enemies, and wounded and maimed the most part of Nicanor's host, and so put all to flight; and took their money that came to buy them, and pursued them far; but lacking time they returned; for it was the day before the Sabbath, and therefore they would no longer pursue them. So when they had gathered their armor together, and spoiled their enemies, they occupied themselves about the Sabbath, yielding exceeding praise and thanks to the Lord, who had preserved them unto that day, which was the beginning of mercy distilling upon them. And after the Sabbath, when they had given part of the spoils to the maimed, and the widows, and orphans, the residue they divided among themselves and their servants." 2 Mac. viii, 23-28.

After this the Hebrews being attacked upon the Sabbath by their enemies, defeated them with much slaughter. 1 Mac. ix, 43-49; Josephus' Antiquities, book xiii, chap. i; 2 Mac. xv.

About B. C. 63, Jerusalem was besieged and taken by Pompey, the general of the Romans. To do this it was necessary to fill an immense ditch, and to raise against the city a bank on which to place the engines of assault. Thus Josephus relates the event:

"And had it not been our practice, from the days of our forefathers, to rest on the seventh day, this bank could never have been perfected, by reason of the opposition the Jews would have made; for though our law gives us leave then to defend ourselves against those that begin to fight with us, and assault us, yet does it not permit us to meddle with our enemies while they do anything else. Which thing when the Romans understood, on those days which we call Sabbaths, they threw nothing at the Jews, nor came to any pitched battle with them, but raised up their earthen banks, and brought their engines into such forwardness, that they might do execution the next days."—Antiquities of the Jews, book xiv, chap. iv.

From this it is seen that Pompey carefully refrained from any attack upon the Jews on each Sabbath during the siege, but spent that day in filling the ditch and raising the bank, that he might attack them on the day following each Sabbath, that is, upon Sunday. Josephus further relates that the priests were not at all hindered from

their sacred ministrations by the stones thrown among them from the engines of Pompey, even "if any melancholy accident happened;" and that when the city was taken, and the enemy fell upon them, and cut the throats of them that were in the temples, yet did not the priests run away or desist from the offering of the accustomed sacrifices.

These quotations from Jewish history are sufficient to indicate the extraordinary change that came over that people concerning the Sabbath, after the Babylonish captivity. A brief view of the teaching of the Jewish doctors respecting the Sabbath at the time when our Lord began his ministry, will conclude this division of the subject.

"They enumerated about forty primary works which they said were forbidden to be done on the Sabbath. Under each of these were numerous secondary works, which they said were also forbidden. . . . . Among the primary works which were forbidden, were ploughing, sowing, reaping, winnowing, cleaning, grinding, etc. Under the head of grinding was included the breaking or dividing of things which were before united. . . . . Another of their traditions was, that, as threshing on the Sabbath was forbidden, the bruising of things, which was a species of threshing, was also forbidden. Of course it was a violation of the Sabbath to walk on green grass, for that would bruise or thresh it. So, as a man might not hunt on the Sabbath, he might not catch a flea; for that was a species of hunting. As a man might not carry a burden on the Sabbath, he might not carry water to a thirsty animal, for that was a species of burden; but he might pour water into a trough, and lead the animal to it. . . . . Yet should a sheep fall into a pit, they would readily lift him out, and bear him to a place of safety. . . . . They said a man might minister to the sick for the purpose of relieving their distress, but not for the purpose of healing their diseases. He might put a covering on a diseased eye, or anoint it with eye-salve for the purpose of easing the pain, but not to cure the eye."—Sabbath Manual of the American Tract Society, pp. 214, 215.

Such was the remarkable change in the conduct of the Jewish people toward the Sabbath; and such was the teaching of the doctors respecting it. The most merciful institution of God for mankind had become a source of distress; that which God ordained as a delight and a source of refreshment had become a yoke of bondage; the Sabbath, made for man in Paradise, was now a most oppressive and burdensome institution. It was time that God should interfere. Next upon the scene of action appears the Lord of the Sabbath.

J. N. A.

(To be Continued.)

O, HAD I THE WINGS OF A DOVE!

By Marcia S. Avery

O, HAD I the wings of the harmless dove, I would speed me away where the angels are, To that beautiful land of light and love, Where all is immortal and fair.

I would soar beyond the starry blue, To my Father's home I would quickly fly; Bid the dark scenes of earth adieu, Where flowers fade and die.

I would spread my wings for an upward flight, The joys of heaven I long to see, To drink of the crystal waters bright, To eat of life's fair tree.

I would join in the song that the seraphs sing, And tune my harp to their sweetest lays, All glory ascribe to Heaven's King, And everlasting praise.

I would leave this earth where death's strong arm Is daily laying its victims low, This world of sorrow, sin, and harm, Of wretchedness and woe.

I would gladly exchange my home below For a home in the peaceful land of heaven, Where the waters of life so sweetly flow, And sin is all forgiven.

I would haste my flight and speed me away To the ever-green hills of that beautiful clime, Where the leaves of the forests ne'er decay— Beyond the frosts of time.

O, had I the wings of the gentle dove, I would hasten away, and be at rest, Would bask in the smiles of my Saviour's love, Reclining on his breast.

Yet far from home I linger here, And would patiently wait for the dawn of day, For Jesus, my Saviour, will soon appear, And to his people say,

Ye blessed of my Father, come, Bright mansions I've prepared for you; Accept my kingdom as your own, Receive the earth made new.

And I will be your Shepherd kind; On the mountains of Israel your fold shall be, Green, lovely pastures ye shall find, And living waters free.

MARCIA S. AVERY.

Locke, Mich., Jan. 9, 1862.

Evidences of Christianity,

By Moses Hull

BY MOSES HULL. (Continued.)

CHAPTER IV.

Credibility of the New Testament—In our investigation thus far, we have learned that the New Testament is an authentic book; also that it has preserved its integrity; but we do not claim that this alone, establishes its truth. All we ask of our readers is to let us proceed in our investigation, upon the ground that the New Testament was written in the apostolic age, and by the authors to whom it is ascribed. We now proceed to an examination of its credibility.

A book may be written by its reputed author, and descend to future generations unchanged, and yet not be worthy of credit. This is not often the case, but there is a possibility of its being so in this case. Let us see how the matter stands.

Does the New Testament contain a true history of the life, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the subsequent life and ministry of his immediate disciples, so that we may receive as historically correct whatever is related therein? Lest this question should be misapprehended by some, we will observe that it is not the inspiration of the New Testament that we now design to prove, nor do we design to prove that the apostles were holy men. All that we design to prove in this chapter is to prove that the facts related in the New Testament are true, as matters of fact, in the same sense that the facts related in the history of the revolutionary war, or the lives of general Washington or Marion, are true—that the New Testament is true as a book of facts, independent of inferences or doctrines which may be deduced therefrom.

We prove the credibility of the New Testament just as we do that of any other book. The fact that this book relates the actions of a holy Jesus and his apostles, and other ancient books relate the actions of wicked men, does not change the nature of the evidence in this case, from what it would be in others.

We have proved that the books of which the New Testament is comprised, were written in the first century of the Christian era, by the original disciples of Christ. This should be considered as strong presumptive evidence that the main events recorded in them are true. The proof of the authenticity of a book should always be taken as an evidence of its truth, unless it professes to be a romance.

Suppose that a number of the friends of Napoleonic Buonaparte—members of his staff—had written each of them a book professing to be a biography of that man, and had vouched in every way for the truth of their statements, had periled their reputation upon the accuracy of what they had written, and that, in the midst of a generation familiar with the life and actions of that man. Now suppose that all of these books agree precisely in their statements, would it not be reasonably inferred, that in point of historical facts, these books are correct?

Would not any sane man know that his works, if not true, could not escape detection? The fact of these books being published in the midst of the generation and nation where Buonaparte lived, and circulated among those who were acquainted with his history, that, notwithstanding their notoriety, they were not detected and refuted when first published, that the authors expected these books to be received as correct biographies of this great general, is a sufficient warrant for the accuracy of the general features of these books, though in some of the minute details they may be mistaken.

Such a thing cannot be produced as a series of books written in the age when their principal events are said to have occurred, and circulated among the people, who are said to be familiar with the facts they record, their authors defending the truth of their statements to the last, and finally sealing their testimony with their blood, and yet their principal narrations being untrue.

Even though men were destitute of honesty, they have too much common sense to attempt such a thing; especially when there can be no possible worldly gain in the adventure.

But this remark is especially applicable to the books of the New Testament. They were published in the age in which the principal events narrated are said to have occurred, and among the people where they are said to have occurred. Not only so, but the people where the New Testament was first circulated, were wide awake and anxious to take advantage of the smallest misstatement which their acquaintance with the facts which it records would enable them at a glance to do. With these facts the authors of the New Testament must have been acquainted. They must have known that their adversaries possessed an advantage which nothing but truth could overcome. Hence, whether they were honest or not, their statements must have been true, as nothing could have stopped the mouths of their enemies but the knowledge of the facts related.

Again, when we take up the book concerning which we make our present inquiry, we find it teaching a pure system of morals, one particular of which was, "Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds." Col. iii, 9. This book also informs us that "all liars shall have their part in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev. xxi, 8. Now the question is, Can we credit the testimony of those who said, "Lie not?" or are they themselves such notorious liars that they lied publicly and repeatedly? That it was the continual business of their lives to lie? and that they died with a lie in their mouths when they, for the word of their testimony, were put to death?

"O," says the objector, "we think that the witnesses were honest, but they, being naturally superstitious, were so deluded that they were incapable of bearing witness to the truth."

The superstition of the witnesses is not now under investigation. The whole question is therefore reduced to two propositions: 1. Were the witnesses competent? and, 2. Were they honest? In proof or disproof of these, lies the proof or disproof of the truth of the New Testament.

If the writers of the New Testament had sufficient opportunity to become acquainted with the facts which they relate, they are certainly competent witnesses. We do not think it necessary to bring a great array of facts upon this point. Some of the writers of the New Testament were eye-witnesses of the facts which they relate. Luke i, 2; 1 John i, 1-4. Others had a perfect understanding of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. Luke i, 3; Acts i, 1. It does not require a great amount of knowledge to be able to write the gospel history. It is contained in a small space. Thirty pages of a common family Bible contains the whole of what either of the evangelists have written, and there are no perplexed questions in these writings. They are simply a plain, straightforward history of events as they transpired, without any painting, gilding, notes of explanation, or criticisms. Now when we consider that Matthew and John were both companions of Jesus Christ, that they accompanied him in all his journeyings, and sat at his feet to receive instruction from him in his retired moments, we must conclude that they were competent witnesses. Consider also that the book of Mark was revised and corrected by Peter, another eye-witness of his majesty [2 Pet. i, 16]; that Luke's narrative was written under the supervision of the apostle Paul who had also seen Christ [1 Cor. ix, 1]; and that Mark and Luke harmonize with Matthew and John, the latter of which was not written until after the books of Mark and Luke were in circulation, and we must conclude that in no other series of events recorded in ancient history have we such ample security against fraud and deception.

In addition to the four systematic memoirs of Christ to which we have referred, we have a collection of letters written by four others, in which the events of these memoirs are continually referred to. These eight persons, scattered over a wide extent of territory, give us their separate and independent statement of things which they deemed worthy of record, in the life of Christ, and the sayings and doings of many of his friends and enemies.

These witnesses being scattered and persecuted as they were, could not possibly confederate together, or copy their statements from each other, without detection and immediate exposure. Yet when their books were brought together and compared, their agreement is such that every one must conclude that they are all competent witnesses. A crooked stick will not tally with a straight one—so in this case, if either of these writers are incompetent to bear witness to the truth, a discrepancy between what he and others have said will manifest itself. While if none of the writers are capable of telling the truth, we shall not expect harmony in any of them. But that there is a perfect harmony, yes, an undesigned co-incidence, we will now prove.

Does Matthew say that Jesus took Peter, James, and John up into an high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them? Matt. xvii, 2, 3. Mark and Luke in their own appropriate language record the same fact. Mark ix, 2; Luke ix, 22. And Peter testifies that we were eye-witnesses of his majesty, that we saw the bright cloud and heard the voice when we were "with him in the holy mount." 2 Pet. i, 15-18. If Matthew has made a mistake here, and recorded something that never occurred, how does it happen that Mark and Luke have fallen into the same dilemma?

and if it were possible for these three writers to make a mistake upon this point, why make the same mistake? But the co-incidence becomes stronger than ever when Peter, writing from Babylon to his brethren scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, refers to the same event, which never occurred, and gives it as an evidence that "we have not followed cunningly devised fables."

Take another case. The four evangelists are very precise in recording the last supper that the Lord ate with his disciples, and three of them very distinctly record the partaking of the bread and wine, and the language of their Master concerning it. Also their Master's betrayal the same night. In this they agree precisely. Now if they did not know this to be a fact, it was a strange co-incidence. But it becomes as strange and incredible a miracle as any recorded in the Bible, when the fifth one fabricates the same story, and publishes it to the world, as infidels must claim that Paul did when he said, "For I have received of the Lord (not from the evangelists) that which I also delivered unto you, how that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood; this do ye, as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew forth the Lord's death till he come." 1 Cor. xi, 23-26. If the writers of the above knew it to be a fact, they are competent to hear witness to its truth. But if they did not know it, we ask how they all happened to record it?

The agreement among the Evangelists, or between them and the Epistles, is no greater than that of the Acts of the apostles with the records of the Evangelists or the Epistles. Do the Evangelists say that the Holy Ghost descended upon Christ [Matt. iii, 16; Luke iii, 22; Jno. i, 32]; that he went about doing good and healing the sick [Matt. iv, 23; Mark i, 21, 39]; that he was hanged on a cross and slain [Matt. xxvii, 32, 40, 50]; that he was raised the third day [Matt. xxii, 63; xxviii, 6]; and that the apostles were witnesses of these things? Luke xxiv, 48. The same truths are delineated by Peter at the house of Cornelius, and recorded in full by Luke in Acts xi, 38-41.

Now if the reader will turn to Acts xvi, 21-40, he will find that Luke records that Paul and Silas were beaten and put into prison at Philippi, and their feet made fast in the stocks, and that notwithstanding this, Paul manfully defended his citizenship, and made the proud rulers humble themselves and apologize for their conduct. Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians, a neighboring church, refers to their knowledge of the same facts. "For yourselves, brethren, know our entrance in unto you, that it was not off vain; but even after that we had suffered before, and were shamefully entreated, as ye know, at Philippi, we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God with much contention." 1 Thess. ii, 1, 2.

Hundreds of such co-incidences might be produced, but the above are sufficient to prove that the disciples were familiar with what they recorded, and hence competent witnesses.

(To be Continued.)

"The Earnest Expectation."

By H. W. Beecher

IN the language of the New Testament, and in current religious usage, Christians are regarded as citizens of a divine kingdom of which their Lord is the head. Accordingly they seek its present advancement in this world, and have their most glorious prospect in its final triumph at his second coming. Their citizenship lies not merely in obligations to his service, and necessary subjection to his sway, which may as well be affirmed of all mankind, and of infernal powers; but in loyalty to his person and reign, participation in his principles, fidelity to his measures, and confidence in his resources. Hence it enters into their desire and plan, as into his own, to extend his dominion and to multiply its subjects in this world, to deepen and diffuse the blessings enjoyed under it, to make their friends and neighbors and all the families of mankind partakers of their own privileges and hopes. Theirs is not the ambition of Roman citizens, or of any modern aristocracy, to aggrandize their own exclusive caste, while enlarging the territories and multiplying the vassals of their government. They would make their fellowship as wide as their conquests. Yet, while such is their desire, their earnest expectation "waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God." As with the faithful subjects of any monarchy, their most glorious prospect is in the ultimate triumph of their Sovereign, not merely in gathering a vast number of willing and favored subjects, but in subduing all his incorrigible foes. This result they must look for, according to his announcement, in his second coming. The promised consummation of his kingdom among mankind is beyond the growth of his religion, or the spread of its influence; it is his personal presence and triumph. Hence it must be looked for in connection with the resurrection, and "the time of restitution of all things."

It will be the inauguration of his reign in the "new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness." Thus the apostle Paul, after saying, "Our conversation [our citizenship] is heaven," adds, "from whence also we look for the Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body."

Now many philanthropists have gone aside from this apostolic and scriptural idea in their conception of the results anticipated by Christianity. They have expected civil governments to be rectified and perfected, great moral reforms to be accomplished, and mankind to be advanced to a high, social, intellectual, and moral condition, through existing agencies, leaving nothing further to be done or gained. Many Christians too, seem to be content with expecting the world to be pervaded by the principles of Christianity, making little or no account of Christ's coming and the resurrection and the new earth. Their "golden age" for the world is made such, at best, by the prevalence of moral and religious truth. They speak as if the kingdom of Christ were a mere figure for the moral influence of his religion, and not as literal an account as can be given of a state or commonwealth having Christ at its head, whose utmost prosperity must therefore be in his person and presence.

And too often they speak of themselves individually as if the consummation of their prospects were in the rest and blessedness that immediately follow death, rather than in "the resurrection of the just," when "the meek shall inherit the earth." Adhering more closely to the Scriptures, they will remember that Christ is truly and properly a king, and they are his loyal and confiding subjects; that having come to this earth, a revolted province of his dominions, he went away for a season; that according to his parables and promises, he will one day return to vindicate his servants, and punish his enemies; that he is now "expecting till his enemies be made his footstool," but will then complete his work for the righteous living and dead, and reign with them in the new earth, even in the New Jerusalem. Along with the promise so often cited, "Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession," there runs the threatening, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." To that time, both of reward and "vengeance," when every eye shall see him, the prophets and apostles looked forward with exultation, beyond all improvements and reformation in society; beyond even the predicted proclamation of the gospel to all nations; beyond even the rest of falling asleep in Jesus. Amid all their trials and successes, they looked and longed for the final coming of that divine kingdom, of which they were citizens—not in the amelioration of existing institutions—not even in the prevalence of Christianity over idolatry and unbelief, but in the final coming of their King—"looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God"—in the mean time confessing "that they were pilgrims and strangers on the earth," and desiring "a better country, that is an heavenly." Let their chief hope be ours. We know not how better to set forth the expectation that befits Christians, amidst whatever troubles and uncertainties may surround them in the present life, than by turning to the apostle Paul when he would most cheer the Thessalonians under their "persecutions and tribulations," as in the first chapter of his second epistle, to which we solicit the attention of our readers. Sure we are, if only from the example in the New Testament, that nothing can better qualify the people of God for the sufferings and the duties of this present time, "than to wait for his Son from heaven."—H. W. Beecher.

The Mother's Ear.

I HAVE been surprised at the sensitiveness of a mother's ear. There is something which no cultivation could accomplish in the ability to detect, among many other sounds, the sound which proceeds from a suffering infant's moan, and to which the mother of that infant alone is so sensitive. I was sitting in a circle of friends in a parlor, and between a mother and the door of that parlor. Suddenly, while almost every one in the room was conversing, I noticed a change in the manner of a young mother. No one heard a sound but that which proceeded from the happy company, except that young mother who had left her only child up stairs. She thought she heard, as it were, a call from the cradle. I was sure she was needlessly restless, and would have joined others in saying so, had I been asked my opinion. But nothing could persuade the mother to remain, and she passed away through that door, and was soon by her infant's side. She was correct in her judgment. It was her infant's almost inaudible moan. A few days afterward it was dangerously ill, and in a few more it was sleeping its last sleep.

How sensitive was that mother's ear to her infant's sorrow! How it discriminated between the noises around, and the sound from that lowly cradle, although those around were louder and more confident, although courtesy, and friendship, and pleasure, and intellectual enjoyment found a form and utterance in those sounds, yet nothing could drown that one feeble, plaintive groan of the offspring, though from afar off.

Now there is a passage which possesses great force by the side of this as its illustration. It is in Isa. xlix, 15: "Can a woman forget her sucking child that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee." We are God's offspring, and amid the temptations, the sorrows, the sins, the struggles, and the desires of a rebel world, the gentlest voice of a child of God shall be heard, heard above the triumphs, and shouts, and energies of earth. God's ear is more sensitive than any ear in the universe! Ah, what encouragement to all, even to the sad and sorrowful in his feebleness, who is only able to say, "God be merciful to me a sinner!"—Am. Presbyterian.

"ARE YE UNWORTHY TO JUDGE THE SMALLEST MATTERS?"

By M. E. Cornell

1 COR. VI, 2.

SOME of the questions asked through the Review, and privately, are so plain and easy, that we are astonished at the ignorance or thoughtlessness of some of our people. Much light has no doubt been elicited in this way; but what we fear is, that some do not study, and think, and pray over their queries as much as they should before giving them up. They are too willing to dismiss the subject by writing out a string of queries for others to dig out. It is wrong to trouble others with questions that we can by a little ambition and perseverance, find out ourselves. We can afford to dig for truth as for hid treasures, and when we have made some sacrifice of labor to get it, we will appreciate it, and remember it. The questions, however, which suggested the above scripture are the following:

1. "Are the Spiritual Gifts (Vols. 1 and 2) designed for the public?" Answer. If not why are they advertised every week in the Review? Those books contain nothing that we have reason to be ashamed of. Then we should never take so much pains to hide them as to give the impression that they contain something we are ashamed to have our friends or enemies see. Some have excited suspicion by their extreme caution to keep these books out of sight. But on the other hand, the exercise of a little good sense will teach us that it is not best to take much pains to throw pearls before swine. Why should we make an effort to place such books in the hands of those we know are scoffers. "Spiritual things are spiritually discerned."

2. "Is it right to drag out a meeting three hours in a church of twenty-five members?" To this we answer, No! Two hours is generally enough; and one hour would be better unless the time is filled with pointed testimonies in quick succession. All should come to the meeting to do their duty. "Exhort one another." "They that feared the Lord spake often one to another," &c. All should be ready to do their part to make the meeting interesting, and should be "instant in season."

But when a whole hymn is sung between every testimony the meeting becomes tedious and formal. Sometimes a verse that is applicable is in place. But why should any wait from one to five minutes before speaking? It would be better for two or three to arise at once, because that would indicate life. I have thought sometimes that I could discover in certain quarters that our people were fast coming into the unity of the (dead) faith, and that they were nearly all of the same mind and judgment in all waiting for others to do their duty.

I hope those who take the lead of the meetings will, as a general thing, get waked up before they go to the meeting, and not sit perfectly easy and let a meeting drag until there is not a particle of emotion or life left. It would be better to close it, or turn it into an old-fashioned class-meeting, or get down and cry mightily to God to break the spell and arouse the people. These tedious, dry, long meetings are a curse. The weak are not strengthened and encouraged, and none feel blessed. There is no need of having such meetings; but if we must have them, let us pray that they may be "cut short in righteousness."

But in regard to questions, I propose a change. Our preachers have been very patient to answer questions, questions too, that are made plain in the Review and books, and now I propose that the preachers ask questions awhile. It must be that some of our people are guilty of neglecting the Review and books, or they would not be so ignorant of some of the "smallest matters." I was once catechising the children of parents who had professedly been in the truth three years, and one of them aged ten years, could not tell who was the first man, or who was crucified to save sinners. Not long ago I was asking some simple questions of some naturally intelligent little girls, and when they could not readily answer all of them, they appeared greatly mortified. One of them remarked that she once knew them all, but had forgotten. The mother said, "Brother Cornell, I am ashamed of my neglect of duty. I mean that when you come again you shall not find my children so ignorant." That was a good resolution, and it was made in earnest. But the work does not all rest upon the mothers. The hearts of the fathers are to be turned to the children in the last days. See last verse of the Old Testament. O that the command "Teach them to your children," could ring in the ears of the parents continually. I would now say to the parents that when I come I may catechise their children, if I have an opportunity, and they will permit it. And if I find their children, from five to ten years of age wholly ignorant of the simple and interesting things of the Bible, I shall have to come to one of three conclusions, viz.: 1. That their children lack good sense, or 2. The parents have been guilty of a gross neglect of duty, or 3. They are themselves ignorant of the simplest truths of the Bible. And, lest I should come to a wrong conclusion, in such a case, it will of course be necessary to always counsel with the parents. Everywhere I go I hear parents lament that their children learn evil so fast; but what else have they to learn? Their minds are active, and require something to feed upon. O then let their minds be filled with the interesting incidents of the Bible, so that there will be no room for evil. Parents, try this faithfully and report the result. Your children are going over the falls. O be quick and rescue them before it is forever too late. M. E. CORNELL.

Continue reading: NO SPIRIT