Your ShelfYour Projects

Signs of the Times, Vol. 7, No. 15.

The Taking of Jericho
Earlier text: The Taking of Jericho

THEN WE SHALL APPEAR.

By C. H. Spurgeon

“When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.” Col. 3:4.
Do YOU ever feel like those lions in the Zoological Gardens, restlessly walking up and down before the bars of their cage, and protesting thereby that they were never meant to be confined within those narrow limits? Sometimes they are for thrusting their heads through the bars, and then for dashing back and tearing the back of their dungeon, or for rending up the pavement beneath them, as if they yearned for liberty. Do you ever feel like that? Does your soul ever want to get free from her cage?
Here is an iron bar of sin, of doubt, and there is another iron bar of mistrust and infirmity. Oh, if you could tear them away, could get rid of them all, you would do something for Christ—you would be like Christ. Oh, if you could but by some means or other burst the bands of this captivity! But you cannot, and therefore you feel uneasy.
You may have seen an eagle with a chain upon its foot, standing on a rock. Poor, unhappy thing! It flaps its wings—looks up to the sun—wants to fly straight ahead at it and stare it out of countenance—looks to the blue sky, and seems as if it could sniff the blue beyond the dusky clouds, and wants to be away; and so it tries its wings and dreams of mounting; but that chain, that cruel chain, remorselessly holds it down.
Has not it often been so with you? You feel, “I am not meant to be what I am, I am sure I am not; I have a something in me which is adapted for something higher, and I want to mount and soar; but that chain, that dragging chain of the body of sin and death, will keep me down.” Now, it is to such as you that this text comes, and says to you, “Yes, your present state is not your soul’s true condition, you have a hidden life in you; that life of yours pants to get out of the bonds and fetters which control it, and it shall be delivered soon, for Christ is coming, and when Christ shall appear you shall appear—the same appearance that belongs to him belongs to you. He shall come, and then your day of true happiness, and joy, and peace, and everything that you are panting for and longing for shall certainly come too.”
Whatever Christ’s body is in heaven, our body is to be like it; whatever its glory and strength and power, our vile body is to be fashioned like unto his glorious body. As for our soul, whatever of immortal joy Christ possesses, we are to possess that; and as for honor, whatever of esteem and love Christ may have from intelligent beings, we are to share in the same; and as for position before God, whatever Christ has, we are to stand wherever he stands.
Are his enemies put to confusion? So are ours. Do all worlds discern his glory? They shall discern ours too. Is all dishonor wiped away from him? So shall it be from us. Do they forget forever the shame and spitting, the cross and nails? So shall they in our case. Is it forever glory, and honor, and power, and dominion, and bliss without end? So shall it be in our case.
Let us comfort one another, therefore, with these words, and look up out of our wormhood and our chrysalis state to that happier and better day when we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.
All this has nothing to do with a great many of you. You will die, but you will never rise like Christ. You will die, and you will die. Why did I say “and you will die?” Why, because you will have to feel the second death; and that second death, mark you, is as much more tremendous than the first as the trumpet of the angel is more terrible than the voice of the earth preacher can be.
Oh, I would that Christ were your life; but you are dead, and God will say of you one of these days, as Abraham said of Sarah, “Bury the dead out of my sight,” and you must be put out of his sight as an obnoxious, putrid thing. Oh, that he would quicken you this day! “There is life,” says the hymn, “in a look at the crucified One.” God help you to exercise one look at that Christ of whom I spoke, and then you shall join with the rest of his people in saying, “Christ is our life!”—C. H. Spurgeon.

THE DEEP MEANING.

“I CANNOT let him go. Why, he might be ill; and, among strangers, who would care for him? If he should die away from home, how could I endure it?”
Such were the expressions of a mother who thought she had consecrated her children to the Lord, but who could not consent to the plan for one to go to distant regions to teach the gospel to needy ones. Though himself quite decided on the plan for going, he could not leave his mother while feeling thus, and lingered till at length she gave consent. But she always spoke of him with a sigh, and with eyes brim full of tears, as of one quite lost from the family; though frequent and loving were the letters sent home from this earnest Christian son.
A little more than half the year—which was the limit of his first absence—had slowly rolled away, and there came a new sorrow to this burdened heart. The eldest of the family, a promising young man in active business in the city, came home from his shop one day saying he did not feel quite well and would lie down. In answer to his mother's inquiries, there appeared nothing alarming about his symptoms, and, after a little, she left him for duties in another part of the house, but returned to find him a corpse.
Sympathizing friends tried to comfort her, but from the first she said: “It has a deep meaning to me. He was ill, and I could do nothing for him. He died at home, but I had not so much as a farewell look! I know, I know! it is to teach me that God can keep, or God can take his own. I said with my lips that H—— might go, but my heart never said so till now. From henceforth he may labor where the Lord calls him.”
When the heart feels so strongly the meaning of God's providence shall others dispute it? Shall they not, rather, search their own hearts to see if they be in any “wicked way” of withholding what is God's own?—Congregationalist.

DOUBT NOT.

When the day of life is dreary, And when gloom thy course enshrouds— When thy steps are faint and weary, And thy spirit dark with clouds, Steadfast still in thy well doing, Let thy soul forget the past— Steadfast still the right pursuing, Doubt not! joy shall come at last.

CHRISTIAN GIVING.

By E. B. Sanford

“THIS GRACE ALSO.”
Our giving should not depend upon the coming of a subscription paper that can be looked over, and a sum affixed determined by the amount a neighbor may have contributed. Neither should the duty and privilege of giving be forgotten until the attention is secured by almost irresistible words of eloquent pleading. It may be true that Benjamin Franklin once attended a service with the deliberate purpose of withholding any gift for a benevolent object that was to be presented, but before the service closed decided to empty the entire contents of his pocket-book upon the contribution plate, but it is to be feared that if his example was to be followed there would be a very spasmodic flow into the treasury of the Lord.
Giving, first of all, should have its source in a right purpose and motive. You are only bestowing that which is placed in your hands as stewards. The only difference is that some are permitted to handle more of the Lord’s money than others, and are therefore entrusted with increased responsibilities. Obligation to God, through the love of Christ, is the spring from which our plan of giving and the measure of their fulness should flow forth.
This implies systematic beneficence, the manner and method of which is illustrated practically and fully both in the Old Testament, the words of Christ, and the letters of St. Paul. The great question of meeting the financial demands and needs of the ministry of the church at home and abroad is solved when every professing Christian gives generously and systematically. A pastor of our acquaintance quite startled his congregation recently by showing in a few figures, based upon a very low estimate of the average income of the families connected with the church, that if they were to give the amount called for under the ancient tithing system, their contributions would annually rise above $50,000, where they now gave but a few hundreds of dollars. And yet this is comparatively a very liberal congregation.
It is very plain that the rule is correct, yet how many apparently forget that they should give as the Lord has prospered them. The mite of the poor widow outweighed in the divine balance all the gifts of gold and silver that had been dropped with ostentatious pride into the treasury box of the Temple, but this does not teach that there was any merit in the mite, only as the Master knew that in her great poverty this woman had given all she possessed. There may have been days of struggle and trial when God accepted your mite, but he will not do so now that the sunshine of prosperity again falls upon your pathway. Do not let the increase of luxuries eat into your income until it takes the Lord’s portion. It is easy to blind our hearts in this matter. I recall the enthusiasm with which an aged member of a church stated the fact that when he came to the place of his residence years before, a poor young man, he gave one dollar for the cause of missions, and he had never failed to contribute that amount every year. The good man, whose wealth had grown from month to month, failed to appreciate that the streams of his beneficence should have increased in like proportion. He would have been saved this common mistake if he had prayerfully remembered the nature and conditions of his stewardship, and measured his duty by the standard of Bible principles and obligations.—Rev. E. B. Sanford, in Christian at Work.

“PROGRESS” IN VERMONT.

An Eastern paper having praised Vermont as exceptionally virtuous, a Vermonter replies as follows. If his description is correct, there is significance in his irony about the world growing better. In truth, the Puritanism of New England has largely disappeared:—
“Being a native of Vermont, and having always resided within the State, and for several years in its largest village, I think that I ought to be able to know something about the matter. Time was when the very name ‘Vermont’ suggested a lofty degree of morality, an uprightness of daily walk and conversation, and a strict conformity to the laws of the Bible that savored of ancient Puritanism; but how is it to-day? I would offer a few facts for the consideration of those who claim that the world is growing better.”
“First as to the curse of intemperance. We have a prohibitory law resembling that of Maine; but we have very few honest officials behind it to see that it is enforced properly. Secret gin-mills are continually in full blast, and drunkenness is on the increase among us. It is a common remark among travelers, that they pass over hundreds of miles in the State of New York, where a license law is in operation, without seeing one solitary intoxicated individual; but no sooner would they touch Vermont soil, than one or more appears as if by magic. This statement is, alas! too true. Our laws are in the hands of officials who condone with the rum-seller, make him disgorge a certain amount of his gains, and then allow him to pursue his nefarious traffic until another draft is deemed necessary. It will not do to destroy the goose that lays the golden egg. So much for Vermont justice.”
“Next, as to divorce. Thanks to popular indignation, Vermont has revised her laws somewhat in this direction, but much remains to be done. Until recently the State ran up a record that put Indiana and Illinois completely to shame. A few years ago sixteen divorces were granted at one term of the Rutland court, representing one county only! Nearly all of these were granted on account of “intolerable severity”—the flimsiest excuse and veriest humbug that was ever plead as a reason for the annulling of the marriage contract. So much for Vermont conjugal fidelity.”
“Vermonters have become notorious as a profane people. Our young men (and many old ones) can scarcely speak without an oath. This sin is daily on the increase, and shocking to say, we often hear such language from the lips of females. Hunting and fishing on the Sabbath, cock-fighting, etc., are getting to be common amusements with many, and the churches are neglected. Was it thus fifty years ago? I trow not.”
“From the statistics of a neighboring town, once the abode of the strictest morality, I am informed that less than one-sixth of the population are in the habit of attending church. And thus it goes through the whole catalogue of minor sins and offenses, and yet the world is ‘growing better.’”

—Life, Teachings, and Miracles of Christ, by Mrs. E. G. White, p. 196

If excessive hunger excused David for violating even the holiness of the sanctuary, and made his act guiltless, how much more excusable was the simple act of the disciples in plucking the grain and eating it upon the Sabbath day. Jesus would teach his disciples and his enemies that the service of God was first of all; and, if fatigue and hunger attended the work, it was right to satisfy the wants of humanity, even upon the Sabbath day. That holy institution was not given to interfere with the needs of our being, bringing pain and discomfort, instead of blessings. “The Sabbath was made for man,” to give him rest and peace, and remind him of the work of his Creator, not to be a grievous burden.
The work done in the temple upon the Sabbath was in harmony with the law; yet the same labor, if employed in ordinary business, would be a violation of it. The act of plucking and eating the grain to sustain the bodily strength, to be used in the service of God, was right and lawful. Jesus then crowned his argument by declaring himself the “Lord of the Sabbath,”—One above all question and above all law. This Infinite Judge acquits the disciples from blame, appealing to the very statutes they are accused of violating.

—Life, Teachings, and Miracles of Christ, by Mrs. E. G. White, p. 196

PERV​ERTERS OF HISTORY.

The Christian at Work commenting on some over-zealous utterances of those who seek a religious amendment to the Constitution, says:—
“Some folk ought to read history and teach it to their children, if they have any. To think that the Synod of the Reformed Covenanter Presbyterian Church, at its late meeting in Philadelphia, should have affirmed that—
“Nearly all the delegates chosen to frame the Constitution were deeply tinged with infidelity. The Constitution partook of the character of its framers—it was infidel and Godless and had only for its basis the theory of social compact, ‘We, the people.’ There was no security for the sanctity of the Sabbath. No religious or moral qualifications were required of candidates for office. The infidelity and irreligion of the Constitution no longer need demonstration. The fact is admitted by Christian and infidel alike.”
“Now this is conspicuous for being the very reverse of the truth. Skeptics in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, no doubt there were; but the great majority not only were not ‘deeply tinged with infidelity,’ but believed in Christianity and recognized the Christian religion as the corner-stone of the commonwealth. Let us retrospect a bit. The first Continental Congress was opened with prayer, and Congress attended church in a body. In 1777 it favored the importation of 20,000 Bibles, and in 1782 indorsed the publication of an American edition of the Scriptures. In 1778 a Thanksgiving proclamation called for ‘Supplication for pardon through the merits of our Saviour,’ and in 1779, in a like proclamation, gratitude is expressed for ‘the glorious light of the gospel’ shed ‘through the merits of our gracious Redeemer, and the blessing of the Holy Spirit.’ Furthermore, in the Constitutional Convention thanks were returned to God that ‘above all, he hath been pleased to continue to us the light of the gospel truth, and secured to us in the fullest manner the rights of conscience in faith and worship.’ The convention was opened and closed with prayer, and a sermon was preached before it. If that Convention was ‘deeply tinged with infidelity,’ it is pretty clear that it was deeply tinged with something else—even a religious and devotional spirit. Some philanthropic brother ought to send our ‘Covenanter’ friends a supply of some trustworthy History of the United States.”

CONFIDENCE

I RECENTLY met, while traveling by rail, a very simple illustration of the peace-giving power of confidence. We had arrived at a junction where some shifting of the passengers took place, and I observed a lady in the same carriage with me, in much anxiety as to whether she was in her right place or not. I called to one of the officials, “Does this carriage go right through to B——?” He instantly replied, “Yes.” This little word completely hushed the lady’s fears, and removed all her doubts and anxiety. She became perfectly satisfied, and her mind was tranquilized. Now how was this? There was no change in her position or circumstances. She had evidently done nothing which could account for this immediate transition from restless anxiety to placid repose. What, then, was the basis of her peace? Simple confidence. She believed the official’s “Yes,” and she got immediate peace; nor did she manifest any further uneasiness during the remainder of the journey. This is very plain. A word had fallen on her ear—a simple word—a word that was true whether she believed it or not—a word, the truth of which in no wise depended on her; this word removed her fears, and gave her peace of mind. She had confidence in it—she believed it, and thus she got peace. She did not reason about it; she did not begin to say, “But what shall I do if I am not in the right carriage, after all?” No, she simply believed, and thus, without a single misgiving, she sat still, assured that in due time she would reach the desired terminus. In vain might some fellow-passenger raise doubts and give false alarms; the official’s “Yes,” settled everything. Confidence in his word gave quietness of spirit—a quietness which nothing disturbed. And so will confidence, trust, in the word of God give peace to every troubled soul.—The Watchword.

A Christian’s Character at Home

Let a Christian's character be such that those cannot fail to admire it who live with him in his home.

David’s Example and Sabbath Regulations

Jesus threw a shield of defense over the act of his disciples by referring to the conduct of David, esteemed to be a model of Jewish piety. Once when he and his men were an hungered, he had not scrupled to break the rules, to violate the sanctity of the holy place. We may believe that it was on a Sabbath day he did so. Doubly appropriate, therefore, was the reference to it; but it was not essential to Christ's argument that the act was done upon the Sabbath day. What Christ mainly desired by his allusion to the case of David, was to establish the principle that the pressure of hunger vindicated the setting aside for the time of the strictest even of the temple regulations.— Hannah's Life of Christ, p. 200.

The Sabbath School.

LESSON FOR PACIFIC COAST.—APRIL 16.

Christ Teaches the True Use of the Sabbath. Matt. 12: 1–15; Mark 2: 23–28; 3: 1–7. Luke 6: 1–11.

LESSON COMMENTS.

Free from his enemies, Jesus appears to have returned at once [from the second Passover] to Galilee, in the hope, perhaps, that there, far from Jerusalem, with its fierce religious fanaticism and malevolent hypocrisy, he could breathe more freely, in the still and clear air of the hills. But religious hatred is beyond all others intense and persistent. There were Rabbis and priests there, as well as in the South, and they watched his every step.
A fresh occasion for accusation could not be long of rising. He had left Jerusalem immediately after the Passover, and on the Sabbath after the second day of the feast—or, it may be, a Sabbath later—a new charge was brought against him. In the short distance which it was lawful to walk on a Sabbath—less than three-quarters of a mile—the path lay through ripening fields of barley—for Nisan, the Passover month, was the ancient Abib, or month of earing, and the first early sheaf was offered on the second day of the Passover. It was by the law, and by Eastern custom, free to all to pluck ears enough in a corn-field, or grapes enough from a vine, to supply hunger, and the disciples, as every Oriental still does in the same circumstances, availed themselves of this liberty, plucking some ears of the barley, and rubbing them with their hands as they went on. The field must have been near some town, most likely Capernaum, for a number of people were about, and among others, some spies. It was no wonder both he and the disciples were hungry, for no Jew could break his fast till after the morning service at the synagogue, or take supper till after the evening service, but he had sanctioned two offenses against the Sabbath laws. The plucking of the ears was a kind of reaping, and the rubbing was a kind of grinding or threshing. Besides, it was required that all food should be prepared on Friday, before sunset, and the rubbing was a preparation. On other days there would have been no cause of any blame, but to break the Sabbath rather than suffer hunger for a few hours, was guilt worthy of stoning. Was it not their boast that Jews were known, over the world, by their readiness to die rather than to break the holy day? Every one had stories of grand fidelity to it. The Jewish sailor had refused, even when threatened with death, to touch the helm a moment after the sun had set on Friday, though a storm was raging; and had not thousands let themselves be butchered rather than touch a weapon in self-defense on the Sabbath? The “new doctrine” of Jesus would turn the world upside down if not stopped!—Geikie’s Life of Christ, pp. 458, 454.

Healing on the Sabbath

In some unnamed synagogue He sat and taught. A man whose right hand was withered stood before him. Had he been brought there to serve the purposes of these watchful enemies who wished, not simply to have his own acts to bring up against him (for these, as the acts of a prophet, might be regarded as privileged) but to get from him a distinct categorical reply to the question whether it was lawful for any man who had the power of healing to exert it on the Sabbath day? So soon at least as they saw his eye fastened upon the man with the withered hand, and before he did anything, they interpose their question, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath days?” The question is met by an appeal to their own practice: “What man shall there be among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on the Sabbath day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? How much then is a man better than a sheep! Wherefore it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath days.” But they shall not only have its lawfulness asserted, they shall see the good done before their eyes. Jesus bids the man with the withered hand stand forth. But ere he cures him, he turns to the scribes and Pharisees and puts in his turn a question cutting deep into their deceitful hearts: “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days,”—as I am doing—“or to do evil?”—as ye do in suspecting and maligning me;—“to save life,”—as I do—“or to kill,”—as ye are doing who are already meditating my death? There is no answer to this question. They stand speechless before him, but unconvinced and unrelenting.
Jesus knew that healing the diseased on the Sabbath day would be regarded as a breach of divine law, would shock the Pharisees, and run counter to the convictions of the great mass of the community. Did he abstain from effecting cures upon that day? He might easily have done so, as no applications were made to him. Much as they desired to have the benefit conferred, the people shrank from bringing their diseased to be cured on the holy day. Jesus had only to meet their prejudices by doing nothing. But he did not choose to be thus silent and acquiescent. No less than seven miracles are recorded as wrought by him on the Sabbath day, some of them among the most conspicuous and memorable in his ministry. 1. The cure of the paralytic on the occasion of his second visit to Jerusalem. 2. The cure of the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum, when opening his ministry in Galilee. 3. The cure of Peter's wife's mother the same afternoon in the same city. 4. The cure of the man with a withered hand, a few Sabbaths afterward in the same city. 5. The cure of the man born blind, who sat begging in the porch of the temple at Jerusalem. 6. The cure of a woman who had the spirit of infirmity for eighteen years. 7. The cure of the man with a dropsy, who happened to be present at a feast given on a Sabbath day in the house of a chief publican, an invitation to which Jesus had accepted.—Hanna.

Notes on Sabbath Observance

NOTES.— A Sabbath day's journey was 2,000 cubits, which were reckoned equal to six stadia. A stadium was 606 feet 6 inches × 6 equals 3,639 feet equals 1,213 yards. No distance was spoken of by Moses, but it was commanded that no one should go outside the camp to get manna. The Levitical towns were to have a district of 2,000 cubits in breadth on all sides (Num. 35:5), and there was to be the same distance between the ark and the people of Israel in their march behind it. From this the Rabbins concluded that that was the distance between the Tabernacle and the edge of the camp, out of which no one was to go.—Winer, Sabbathweg.
Orientals rise very early, and the morning service was not over till the third hour—nine a. m.
The Jews could not, on the Sabbath, even lift up and eat fruit which had fallen from a tree.—Lightfoot.
The punishment for Sabbath-breaking was death by stoning.—Ex. 31:14; 35:2; Num. 15:32. Mishna Sanhed. 7:8. Jesus was, thus, in imminent peril.

Correct Motives in Religion.

By W. W.; J. H. W.

This is a subject of greater practical importance than may appear to those who do not carefully examine its bearings. It is generally supposed that if the action itself be right there is little or no need of further consideration; or if there is honesty of purpose it does not so much matter what the course of action may be. But there is danger that individuals may be lulled into carnal security and ruined by self-deception.
Paul said: “And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully.” 2 Tim. 2:5. A man may worship in blindness; he may be very devoted, and “bow down to wood and stone;” very self-sacrificing, and voluntarily perish under the wheels of the car of Juggernaut. He may even worship the true God, yet not at all to divine acceptance. John 4:23, 24. He may worship Christ, and still worship him in vain. Matt. 15:9. He may, with great earnestness, call upon Jesus as his Lord, and yet be banished as a worker of iniquity. Matt. 7:22, 23. Worldliness or selfishness may be so intermixed in our religion as to make it even abominable in the sight of God. Prov. 28:9.
While almost every one acknowledges the utility and necessity of nine of the ten commandments, the remark is frequently made that they are not to be obeyed as commandments; that is, they do not keep the things contained therein because they are commanded, but because they love to do them. To obey a commandment, is, in their estimation, too low for a Christian; it is inconsistent with the freedom of the gospel. Christian service, they say, should be that of love only. Every act should be voluntary—a free will offering,—and not by any feeling of compulsion.
This position was recently avowed to us by a brother whom we very highly esteem, and whose zeal and service in the cause of Christ are assurance to all of the honesty of his intentions. Yet we consider the position so deeply erroneous that we fear the religion of many is greatly vitiated by this motive which is really a selfish one. Let us examine a few passages of Scripture bearing on this subject.
“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” 1 John 5:3.
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” John 14:15.
“If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love.” John 15:10.
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” Matt. 15:3.
“If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matt. 19:17.
“Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” Matt. 5:19.
“And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” Luke 6:46.
“Here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14.
All these speak of them, not as mere abstractions, but as commandments, and the duties contained therein are enjoined because they are commanded.
But if the decalogue is not now binding as commandments, it is because the Lord has, in some manner, released us from the obligation. If so, why do the things, or any of the things contained therein? We have a case exactly in point. There is a prophecy in Isa. 1:10–15, which, when compared with chap. 66:1–4, and Hosea 2:11, and others, teaches the abrogation of certain duties once enjoined. The question there proposed applies to all false worship, or will-worship: “Who hath required this at your hands?”
The truth is that there are no optional duties in the service of God. “All good works” are marked in the holy Scriptures. “To the law and to the testimony,” is the constant and only appeal in the Christian life. That which is done, not as a matter of commandment, but as a matter of choice, may be omitted without sin. This is a fact which no one can contradict. And then comes the question: Can a Christian omit the duties enjoined in nine of the ten commandments and not be guilty? Every one will say that he cannot, and yet it is true that “By the law is the knowledge of sin.”
But one fact, worthy of remark, may always be noticed in these cases, namely, with all their love to do these things, they never love to do what is enjoined in the fourth commandment! So uniformly is this the case that we have been driven to this conclusion that the position is not taken because of any special love to God, but because of a special aversion to the Sabbath. Now let us further ask such an one: Why do you love to do the things contained in nine of the commandments? We cannot imagine what answer can be given but this: Because we love to do that which is pleasing to God. But how do you know it is pleasing to God? Where may we learn that God will be pleased to have his servants do those things? This can only be answered in one way: We know it because we find it in his word. He has spoken it and left it on record.
And so, after all, we must come to the commandment to learn that it is duty, and that God will accept it as service to himself. And this destroys the position completely.
And now we will ask another question: Why do you not also love to keep the Sabbath? What is the ground of your being thus “partial in the law?” Mal. 2:9. God spake this as well as the other nine. It is left on the same record. The Saviour gave it the same sanction in his life and teachings. Are you sure that your motive is pure,—that it is not alloyed with worldly or selfish considerations?
We think it unnecessary to pursue these questions further. The truly conscientious may easily determine this matter for himself by careful self-examination. But we must say, and we think we shall be sustained by every considerate, God-fearing person, that the whole position is inexcusably faulty; so much so that it vitiates the religion of the person who takes it, and must endanger his acceptance with “the Judge of all,” in the great day. If it is true that they do the great moral duties of life because they choose to do them—they love to do them—and not because God requires them, then it is true that their service is not that of obedience, for that is not, and cannot be, obedience which does not recognize the obligation of a commandment. Long ago an English reformer asked this question, “Can that be obedience for which there is no commandment?” We hazard nothing in saying that the religion of such is faulty,—that it has no true foundation on which to rest—is not service done to God. For, if it is done of choice and not by virtue of God's commandment, then their service centers in self and not in God. And that which does not recognize the obligation of a divine requirement is not service to God. It is verily will-worship, and as such strongly and justly condemned in the Scriptures.
Melanchthon said that those things which are called virtues among the heathen, and among those who reject the authority of God, are of the nature of vices because they have a vicious origin; because they spring from self and not in respect to God's authority. The indictment stands good against the religion of those who do only the things which they love to do, without regard to what God has commanded. If this be not true, it is because the word of God is not a standard of “faith and practice.” That word furnishes the test for all human actions; it informs us on what ground we shall appear in the Judgment. It sums up “the whole matter” in these words:—
“Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.” Eccl. 12:13, 14.
Then if we wish to know how we shall appear in the sight of the Judge in that day, let us look to his commandments, and discover how we stand related to them. If we are not in harmony with them here in our probation, they will be against us when our probation ends and we stand where the secrets of the heart are made manifest. And let us never trust to our own hearts, or to our feelings, to guide us in our religion, for this is the height of folly. Jer. 17:9; Prov. 28:26. W. W.

Change of the Sabbath.

A certain man who has written much against the Sabbath of the Lord has lately made a grand discovery, and published it in an Eastern religious paper. He has “demonstrated” that the seventh day never was the Sabbath more than any other day of the week. He says:—
“The weekly Sabbaths of the Jews were changed to different days of the week every year of their history, after they came into the land of Canaan, except when their passover fell on a Friday.”
Just to think that this was a fact, and not a Jew from the days of Joshua to the present time ever knew it! It is most fortunate that this sapient investigator has arisen to make this known, or the world might forever have remained ignorant of such an interesting piece of knowledge. We knew, and all the Jews knew, and every Christian student knows, that the yearly sabbaths were movable as to the days of the week, but stationary as to the days of the month. And everybody knew (perhaps we shall hereafter have to say they supposed) that the weekly Sabbath was movable as to the days of the month, but immovable as to the day of the week. It yet appears inevitably true to us that it is so still; but this man of immeasurable erudition has “demonstrated” to the contrary, and who now dares to doubt? Yes, demonstrated that the seventh day of the week fell on any and every day of the week! He cannot deny that this is exactly his conclusion, for he has written largely to prove that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week by Christ or his apostles. But it appears also that before it was so changed it fell on the first day of the week quite frequently!
If the old saying is true that, “Ignorance is bliss,” this same Mr. P. must be a happy man. And this happiness he is determined that no man shall take from him. Each new theory that he projects against the Sabbath is as precious to him as a new toy to a child. We cannot doubt that he enjoys it, even though we cannot appreciate such enjoyment. J. H. W.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF SANCTIFICATION.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

Philosophy is a great thing; equal in greatness to “Diana of the Ephesians.” And it has more worshipers than the great goddess. If they are not always as noisy, they are much more persistent; for those were quieted after about two hours’ vociferous crying. But where is the town clerk who can appease the spirit of the devotees of science and philosophy?
The wisdom of this world never gives full proof of its folly until it invades the domain of Bible truth. When an attempt is made to explain the mysteries of godliness on a scientific basis or in a philosophical manner, our reverence is startled at the temerity of presumptuous man. We copy the following, it being only one paragraph of a philosophical dissertation on Christian holiness:—
“If a conjecture may be hazarded as to the modus operandi of the Holy Spirit’s revolutionary processes, it is this: Recalling the statement on pages 49, 50, that the human spirit stands in the relation of a higher nerve-center to the peripheral ends of the nerves of communication of the hemispheres of the brain, sending down its influences through all the complicated mechanism of which the hemispheres are the crown; so, we suppose that the Holy Spirit in connection with the human spirit stands in the same relation. And, just as the nerves may be made pathways for the electric current to travel over, intensifying nervous energy as it goes, so that the powerful shock of a forty-cell galvanic battery annihilates apparently incurable sciatica at a blow; so, the current of divine life sweeping down upon the hemispheres, enveloping the sensori-commune and the cerebellum, piercing through the medulla, thrilling along the spinal cord, and permeating and exalting every nervous center, may instantaneously dash neuralgias of habit and sciaticas of desire clear out by the organisms in which they have rooted apparently for life.”
If this were the vagary of some Spiritualist medium we should throw it aside without remark. But it is not. It is the serious explanation by a professed Christian writer of the method or modus of the operations of the Holy Spirit in its work of the sanctification of the believer in Christ, which we find in one of the most highly esteemed of our religious exchanges. We cannot refrain from recording our firm protest against such “conjectures” in regard to the mode of the Spirit’s operations. Conjectures are not admissible on the subject. They cannot enlighten us, because they are only conjectures. They belittle the subject, making that a matter of philosophical speculation which should not be desecrated at all by any speculations.] It is holyground. It is a matter not revealed, and certainly cannot be searched out, more than by searching we can find out God. Better be satisfied with seeking the aid of the Holy Spirit, and knowing its gracious operations on our hearts, than to uselessly and, as we think, irreverently and presumptuously speculate on the methods of its operation. J. H. W.
Continue reading: A NEW CREATURE