Review and Herald, Vol. 20, No. 4. (6/24/1862)

Review and Herald

Jun 24, 1862

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 24, 1862

REVIEW OF A. N. SEYMOUR.

By J. M. Aldrich

(Continued.)

"38. If the church is under obligation to her first husband, Moses and the law, that being still alive, which is the faith of some; and if the Christian church is married to Christ, which no man can doubt, then I ask in all candor if the church has not been living in adultery for the last eighteen hundred years? Christ is the lawful husband of the church; the former one, Moses and the law, being dead. See Rom. vii, 1-6. Hear him, says Father. Will you listen to him?"

If your "father," Eld. S. teaches what you here assert, my former opinion as to his identity seems to be fully confirmed. John viii, 44. I therefore choose not to "listen to him," for in the question before me I too plainly see the sad effects of so doing. It is evident from the false assertions and the false reasoning contained in the foregoing, that the child is faithful to the teaching of the sire. The plea of "all candor" is only a disguise; it is a family trait, and only makes the deception all the more apparent. Another family characteristic is also noticeable in the fact of the proneness of Eld. S. to get up a contention in regard to the condition or whereabouts of Moses. Jude 9. And doubtless, the reply given by the archangel to the head of the family, is equally applicable to the junior member: "The Lord rebuke thee."

Moses is indeed dead, friend S., as you affirm! The Scriptures inform us that he died in the land of Moab! Therefore I shall take no issue with you on this point. But that the law is dead of which Paul spake in the 7th of Romans, is quite another thing. Paul does not say so, the Scriptures nowhere affirm it, nor will a common sense interpretation of the chapter in question admit of such a verdict. Neither does Paul say, or even intimate, that "Moses and the law" is the first husband of the church. This, like the former assertion, is without proof. In fact, Paul makes no allusion whatever, in the 7th of Romans, to Moses, or the Mosaic law that was nailed to the cross. This is evident, from the fact that he speaks of a law that is operative, and gives the effect of the same upon himself, which therefore cannot be the law that "ceased its obligation upon the world" several years previous to the time of his conversion, and religious experience. But we are not without positive proof on this point. In the 7th verse, the Apostle clearly identifies the law of which he is speaking. It is the law of ten commandments.

But Eld. S., if your theory be true, I would also ask, in all candor, what has been the condition of the church for the last eighteen hundred years? I affirm that adultery is chargeable to your theory, rather than ours. Let us see. If the law of which Paul speaks is the first husband, and the law is dead, as you affirm, then indeed is the church living in adultery; not being married at all; there being no law to bind her to the second husband. But let us look at the matter in the light of truth and common sense. Let Paul's illustration have a natural application, and all is clear. To illustrate the great and important truths involved in the work of Scriptural conversion, inspiration has chosen the simple yet very appropriate figure of marriage. In the illustration, four characters are prominently brought to view; the woman, the law of marriage, the first husband and the second husband. In making an application of the figure, we must be careful not to lose sight of the characters brought to view. We should also bear in mind that death is spoken of, only with reference to the first husband, and that the death of the husband can in no way affect or change the law of marriage; but simply operates as a release to the woman from its binding power, so that she is at liberty to marry another husband. And though she marries the second husband, it is not by virtue of a new law, but by authority of the same law that solemnized her former marriage. Now for the application. 1st. What is represented by the woman? Since the woman must be married to the second husband, to make the figure complete, and since the second husband represents Christ, as all concede, it follows that the woman represents such as shall finally be saved by virtue of a union with him. Then of course she must represent those who "shall be heirs of salvation," or candidates for eternal life, for only such become legally joined to Christ, the second husband. 2d. The law of marriage represents the law of God. 3d. What does the first husband represent? Here is where Eld. S. does not see clearly. Let him apply the "eye-salve." Let it be remembered that in the figure, it is the first husband that dies, and so makes the second marriage lawful. Then in the application we must have something to correspond with the figure. But what is the modus operandi of Scriptural conversion? What must die before a legal union with Christ can be effected? All will say the carnal mind; or as Paul has elsewhere expressed it, "the old man which is corrupt." Then it is very clear that the first husband represents the carnal mind, or the old man; and the second husband, the new man, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. The following texts are in harmony with this view, and speak to the point: "That ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and that ye put on the new man, which, after God, is created in righteousness and true holiness." Eph. iv, 22-24. "Lie not one to another, seeing ye have put off the old man with his deeds, and have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him." Col. iii, 9, 10.

Whatever may be said of the impracticability of making certain parables or figures stand on "all fours," here is one that stands thus literally, and needs no propping. The apostle's conclusion is also in harmony with the foregoing view. "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law (quite different from saying that the law is dead,) by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead," verse 4. "But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held," verse 6. This expression is claimed by some—Eld. S. particularly—as proving the death and abolishment of the law. This is a great mistake. In the figure, deliverance from the law of marriage was effected in consequence of the death of the first husband. So in the application, deliverance from the law of God, i. e., from its condemnation; or what is the same thing, released from the power of sin and made free to be united with Christ; is brought about in consequence of the death of the old man, or subjugation of the carnal mind to the will of God. Hence, being "delivered from the law," in the sense in which the apostle uses the expression, can not possibly be construed to mean the abolition of the law. Nor does the expression "that being dead wherein we were held," mean the death of the law; for the word "dead" does not relate to the law, but to that state or condition in which the person is held by the law previous to the death of the first husband, which was a state of sin or carnal mindedness; or as Paul has it, "Sold under sin," verse 14. Then instead of the death of the law, the foregoing expression means the death of sin or carnal mindedness; for therein "we were held;" and the language of the text is, "that being dead wherein we were held." The marginal reading perhaps is better, "being dead to that wherein we were held," i. e. being dead to sin or carnal mindedness. This is in harmony with other scriptures. "How shall we that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Rom. vi, 2. Also verse 11, "Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God, through Jesus Christ our Lord." Also, 1 Peter ii, 24, "That we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness."

Such, in my judgment, is the natural, consistent and truthful view of the 7th of Romans.

"39. Where is there one jot or tittle of testimony in the second will, or testament, or law of the Spirit, or of faith, or of liberty, denouncing any one as a sinner, who violates the fourth commandment, during the Gospel dispensation? Is there no penalty for the violation of so important a command, if binding? What, and where is it?"

The above question, in substance, is but a repetition of several former ones, therefore demands but a passing notice. The law of liberty, to which reference is made

in the foregoing question, is composed of the ten commandments. James ii, 11, 12; therefore the fourth commandment is embraced therein. And James in commenting on this law, in the 10th verse, informs us that whosoever offends in one point, is guilty of all; or as expressed in the 11th verse, "becomes a transgressor of the law." And another apostle informs us that the transgression of the law is sin, 1 John iii, 4. The "penalty" that is enquired for, may be found in plain language in Rom. vi, 23. "The wages of sin is death." Here then is a "jot or tittle of testimony," which is all that friend S. calls for.

"40. Does not the union formed between Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, constitute the new man? If so, did the Gentiles constitute any part of the 'man' that existed previously, for whom the Sabbath was made? See Rom. ii, 1, 3, 17. James i, 1; ii, 20. Eph. ii, 15. 1 Pet. ii, 10. Rom. ix, 25, 26. Hosea i, 9, 10."

Possibly Eld. S. may have had a definite idea in his mind, when he penned the foregoing; but if he had, I greatly doubt whether any of his readers have been able to perceive what it was, either from the question asked, or from the proof texts given. I infer that the foregoing questions and texts are designed as an argument against the Sabbath, only from the fact that they are numbered among the "fifty." Were it not for this fact, I should not have the least suspicion that such was their design. But the foregoing reasoning, if such it may be called, is evidently defective. Eld. S. makes a great mistake at the outset, in confounding the term "the new man," with another term, "one new man." The former occurs only in Eph. iv, 24 and Col. iii, 10, and is there used in connection or contrast with its proper antithesis, "the old man." The latter occurs only in Eph. ii, 15, and is there used in no such sense or connection as the former expression. There is indeed, a wide difference in the Scriptural signification of the two expressions. But, if it be insisted that "the union formed between Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, constitutes the new man" of Eph. iv, 24, and Col. iii, 10, then the antithesis therein brought to view, "the old man," must be the disunion that existed between Jews and Gentiles before the cross of Christ! Therefore, the Sabbath being made for man before the cross of Christ, it must have been made for the old man, that "existed previously," i. e., for Jews and Gentiles, in their state of disunion! I submit that such is the logical conclusion of our friend's theory. Is he satisfied with it? Perhaps not. I will therefore produce an "unanswerable argument" that he cannot fail to appreciate. Christ said, "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27. Paul said, "Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man." 1 Cor. xi, 9.

Now then I ask, if "the union formed between Jews and Gentiles by the cross of Christ, constitutes the new man," "did the Gentiles constitute any part of the 'man' that existed previously for whom the 'woman' was made? Friend S. have you a wife? How dare you—being a Gentile—appropriate such a boon to yourself?

"41. How much of the law was Israel required to keep in order to salvation? Let James answer, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, is guilty of all." What is embraced in the whole law? Ans., the five books of Moses. The expressions, "as the Lord commanded Moses," or similar ones occur 80 times in Exodus, 40 times in Lev., 101 times in Num., and 63 times in Deut. Will any one have the audacity to say that they keep the whole law, when they only pretend to keep ten specifications, which are only a prominent fraction of the entire law? Who then are guilty and under condemnation continually? Let those who have the mind of Christ, answer. James ii, 10. Gal. v, 1-9. Ps. xix, 7. The whole law will convert a soul, but a part never will."

I am surprised, Eld. S., at the doctrine you advocate under the foregoing number. Heretofore, you have said much about Moses and the law being dead—nailed to the cross—expired by limitation—ceased its obligations upon the world, &c. But now, strange as it may seem, we find you advocating the perpetuity of the "whole law," which, according to your view, embraces not only the ten commandments, but all "the five books of Moses." And though you have often appealed to the teachings of the Apostles for the proof that the "whole law" is dead, we now find you bringing to your aid the apostle James, and attempting to make him teach the obligation of "the five books of Moses!"

I cannot think it is your intention to take a position so contrary to that which you have held heretofore; but such is the fact, for if the five books of Moses are embraced in the "whole law" of which James speaks in the 2d chap. of his epistle, then in the most emphatic manner, the apostle teaches their obligation; for he there teaches the obligation of the "whole law," informing us that whosoever offends in one point is guilty of all; and illustrates his teaching thus: "If thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou dost become a transgressor of the law." And John says that the transgression of the law is sin. It should be remembered that James wrote for the benefit of the gospel dispensation, and that he does not undertake to say "how much of the law" the Jews were required to keep in the former dispensation; but rather how much Christians are required to keep in the present or gospel dispensation, which, as before shown, is not a part but the whole, and which if you are correct, is the five books of Moses. Again, you give the most powerful reason that can be given in proof of the perpetuity of the "whole law," or, as you term it, the five books of Moses, viz., "The whole law will convert a soul, but a part never will." If it be a fact, that it requires the five books of Moses to convert a soul, then indeed is the controversy ended! Let us all go to keeping the Mosaic law in earnest! In thus inadvertently sustaining the five books of Moses, you of course sustain the Sabbath, and have, therefore, raised no issue with me on that point. But really, friend S., what sad work you make in wielding the "sword of truth!" Reader, can you not plainly discover his blunder? It is all from the fact that he makes no distinction between the moral and the ceremonial law.

"42. How much of the law does God acknowledge to be his? Considerable capital has been made out of the expressions, "my holy day," "my Sabbaths," as though there was some thing peculiarly remarkable in them, that the author was nearer related to that sentiment than others contained in the same category. But God not only says my Sabbaths, but my Statutes, my Judgments, my Commandments, Lord's Passover, my Offerings, my Feasts, my Sacrifices, my Covenant and my Law. So, you discover, the relation is just as near to one as the other; they are all lawful, holy and spiritual children, bearing the same identity as regards relative importance. So let Sabbath advocates twist and turn which way they will, and "run to each avenue and shriek for help, yet they shriek in vain." God's holy word meets them at every turn and twist, unsheathed, and cuts their theory on every side."

With due modesty, Eld. S., I venture to repel your charge, by saying that, twisting and turning is not the work of "Sabbath advocates." The word of the Lord in regard to the Sabbath, is too plain to require that kind of practice. But the man that undertakes to prove that the law of God is abolished, or that the Lord's Sabbath is blotted out therefrom, will doubtless find the art of twisting and turning peculiarly adapted to his business. "Judge ye!" "Thou art the man!" As to running to various avenues and shrieking in vain for help, I have only to say, that the latest specimens of that kind of shrieking are brought to notice, remarkably, in the tract before me, by A. N. Seymour.

In regard to the "considerable capital," that you say has been made by the expressions, "My holy day," and "My Sabbaths," I can assure you, that it is "capital" that the Lord has furnished. And it is consoling to know that he has left an abundant capital to the disposal of all such as desire to take stock in his truth. When you seek to identify the weekly Sabbath of the Lord, with the annual sabbaths of the Jews, or to place them upon the same footing, as to duration and importance, it is enough to show that the Lord has regarded them in a different light, and that he has made a wide distinction between them. The above forms of expression are important items of the "capital" that is furnished for this purpose. The Lord instituted the one as a weekly memorial of his rest from creation; the others were given as annual memorials of certain events connected with the deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. Therefore the one is very appropriately designated by such expressions as "My holy day," "My Sabbaths," "the Sabbath of the Lord," &c., whilst the others are termed, "Your Sabbaths," "Her Sabbaths," &c. Compare Ex. xx, 10; xxxi, 13; Isa. lviii, 13, with Lev. xxiii, 24, 32, 39; Lam. i, 7; Hosea ii, 11.

Surely the above "shriek" cannot be regarded as an "unanswerable argument against seventh-day Sabbath keeping."

"43. Did the apostle Paul preach on the seventh-day Sabbath? Yes. Did he preach 78 or 84 Sabbaths? Yes. Was this his custom? Yes, yes! Why did he do all this? Paul, stand up here and answer for yourself, and give these Judaisers a plain strait-forward, thorough-going, penetrating, Holy Ghost answer. "For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all that I might gain the more, and unto the Jews I became as a Jew; (What for, Paul?) That I might gain the Jews;—to them that are under the law, as under the law; (What for Paul?) That I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are without law, [being not without law to God but under the law to Christ;] (What for?) That I might gain them that are without law, [these are Gentiles;] to the weak, became I as weak; (What for?) That I might gain the weak; I am made all things to all men." (What for?) That I might by all means save some." Now Paul, thou sent of God, what did you do all this for? have you a valid reason? Hear him! "This I do for the Gospel's sake, that I might be a partaker there with you." There thou ever faithful and venerable apostle, you have driven the nail in a sure place, and more than clinched it if possible.—1 Cor. ix, 19-23.

"O shame, where is thy blush!" "Paul, stand up here and answer for yourself!" To say nothing of irreverence, modesty should have suggested the use of language more respectful, at least. Were the great apostle only conscious of the smart-little-school-boy catechising that Eld. S. has given him, he would, no doubt, consider himself exceedingly flattered! and especially so, in view of the school-boy praise that is so lavishly bestowed upon him, for having so well recited his task!

As a reply to the foregoing, it would be enough to say that the language of Paul, quoted above, (1 Cor. ix, 19-23,) is not given by him as the reason for his custom of preaching on the seventh-day Sabbath. Seymour gives it as such, but Paul does not. But if Eld. S. is willing to receive the foregoing language of Paul as the reason for such custom, I will also receive it as such. Let us then examine the argument. This, I think we shall discover, is extremely leaky! It is admitted that Paul preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. It is also admitted with an emphatic "yes, yes," that this was his custom. The question then asked by Eld. S. is, "Why did he do all this?" Paul, after being commanded to "stand up," proceeds to answer, and gives four specific reasons, as follows:

1st. Unto the Jews, he became as a Jew; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. Very clear indeed, says Eld. S. But Paul is here answered for himself, and we must hear him through. He has three reasons yet to offer. 2d. Unto them that are under the law, he became as under the law; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. But hold, says Eld. S., this needs explanation! This is not so clear! Here, indeed, is where his argument begins to leak. But, don't judge, Eld. S., for if the first reason is good, the second, third and fourth are also good. They are all locked together, and the same key fits every lock. 3d. Unto them that are without law, (the Gentiles) he became as without law; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. Another bad leak, surely. But if the argument is good, that preaching on the Sabbath made Paul a Jew when among Jews; then it is equally good, that preaching on the Sabbath made him a Gentile when among Gentiles; and in fact, the language must be so construed, otherwise, Paul's "thorough-going, penetrating, Holy Ghost answer," does not answer the purpose for which it was introduced; viz., to show the reason for his custom of preaching on the Sabbath. 4th. Unto the weak, he became as the weak; i. e., preached on the seventh-day Sabbath. But now, to make the matter doubly sure, Paul is asked if he has a "valid reason" for doing all this; i. e., for adhering to his custom of preaching on the Sabbath. Paul replies, "This I do for the Gospel's sake;" i. e., I preach on the Sabbath to Jews, to those that are under the law, to those that are without law, (the Gentiles) and to those that are weak, all for the "Gospel's sake,"

Amen! What stronger reason need we ask for the obligation of the Sabbath in the Gospel dispensation! If Paul has "driven the nail in a sure place," Eld. S. has certainly "clinched it."

J. M. ALDRICH.

(To be Continued.)

THE THOUGHTS OF GOD.

By Bonar

God's thoughts, not man's— Be these thy heritage; They, like himself, are ever young— Untouched by time and age.

God's words, not man's— Be these thy gems and gold; Be these thy never-setting stars— Still radiant, as of old.

Great truths are great Not once, but evermore! Theirs is an everlasting youth— A spring-bloom never o'er.

The stars that shine To-night in these calm skies, Are the same stars that shone of old, In primal Paradise.

The sun that once At a man's voice stood still, Is the same sun that nightly sets Beyond yon western hill.

Man and his earth Are changing day by day;— Truth cannot change—less ever grow Feeble, and old, and gray. [Bonar.

GROWTH IN GRACE.

By Cuyler

ONLY living things grow. A dead tree has no growth; and if you observe a maple before your door, or an elm on your lawn, that does not answer to the roll-call of May by putting forth its leaves, you may conclude that it is as dead as the pro-slavery rebellion.

1. In the church of Christ, spiritual life is indispensable to spiritual growth. We mean the life of God in the converted soul—a life united to Christ’s infinite being by the vital union that exists between himself and the believer. Is it surprising that many a church-member has made no advance in Bible knowledge or in personal godliness, when he has no real hunger after either of them? Can a moral mummy grow? Can the man who never prays aright receive the Spirit? Can a spiritual corpse breathe out heavenly aspirations, or reach out an arm to save the sinner, or open with its skeleton finger a purse to give to God’s treasury? Can it do anything but decay, with pestilential odors filling the moral atmosphere around? No; and without a genuine work of regeneration in the soul, let no man flatter himself that he is a living Christian, much less a growing one.

"If he be a true Christian, he will grow—and "grow in grace." This phrase (as Peter employed it) is comprehensive of all graces. It includes love, and joy, and peace, and patience, and long-suffering, and temperance, and faith, and charity. In a word, it means Christian character—that possession and exhibition of moral excellence that is learned in the school of Christ—that impression received from Christ, which, in turn, makes prodigious impression upon others. Into the construction of this character enter all the qualities that make a man courteous, brave, magnanimous, delicate, pure-minded, honest, humble, devout, and holy. Into it enter all the Gospel ingredients. Into the formation of this character comes the divine Spirit with his transforming, beautifying, sanctifying power. Every day’s experience leaves its touch on this character. Every failure teaches deficiency, and awakens humility and contrition. Every moral victory inspires courage and grateful exultation. It is not perfection that the most successful Christian reaches—the Luther, the Edwards, the Brainerd, the Frelinghuysen, do not reach perfection; but if not equal to his Master, he becomes like him, and unlike his own former self. This character which the growing Christian gains is the source of his power in the community. It is his influence—his moral momentum to carry his point with others—his might to convince gainsayers—his persuasiveness more eloquent than the most captivating words that ever fell from the lips of eloquence itself. It is just what he is by the making of God’s grace. And this side of heaven there is nothing that unfolds such beauty, carries with it such influence, and commands such genuine homage, as athletic, consistent Christian character.

2. The more symmetrical this character is, the better. “The finest specimen of a Christian,” says Guthrie, “is he in whom all the graces, like the strings of an angel’s harp, are in the most perfect harmony.” No one grace outgrows and belittles the rest. The man is not brave at the expense of humility—or zealous at the expense of justice or magnanimity. He does not let study interfere with devotion, or devotion interfere with philanthropy. We may sacrifice the duties of the closet to outdoor labors of Christian charity. On the other hand, “like a lark that goes singing up to heaven while the hawk is rifling her nest below,” we may spend our hours in devotional flight and in heavenly communions, when we should be down here, fighting Satan; redressing human wrongs; breaking human fetters; drying tears on sorrow’s scalded cheek; reforming the vicious, and rescuing lost souls from the verge of hell. The head should have its share of time and thought; the hand its share; but the lion’s share should be given to the heart, for out of it are the issues of life. Thus by developing the whole man we shall broadly, and efficiently, and symmetrically grow in grace. We shall reach up every day nearer to “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

3. As a third hint, let us remind you, Christian brother, that the true measure of your growth in influence and usefulness will be your interior growth in holiness—in living, loving likeness to the Saviour. All external improvement in character is proportioned by this inward state of heart-holiness. In short, the growth is from within. Just as soon attempt to increase the dimensions of a tree by padding round its trunk with clay or cotton, and splicing out its boughs by stray bits of stolen timber, as to increase the volume of a godly character by mere heaping-on of observances, or of intellectual acquirements, or external forms of devotion. These only swell the bulk of a man’s religion; they do not add to its vitality or power. If a tree is dead, it is past all increase; if it is alive, it will pump its own sap in April-time, put out its own foliage, and battle its own way up toward the firmament. The reason why that sturdy oak on the village green grew from the tiny acorn that a school-boy could carry in his pocket until it has become the “pride of the village” in the summer, and able to wrestle with the wildest hurricanes of winter, is simply that underneath that shaggy bark is a stout inward life. Its growth is from within.

You may heap on whatever of sacred knowledge you will—whatever of rituality—whatever of external forms—whatever of subscriptions to creeds and confessions—whatever of slavish obedience to law, and if there be no life of God in the soul, you have but a stupendous effigy of religion without one spark of vitality. But if there be in that soul only a germ of true godliness, there is hope of growth. By the quickening aids of God’s Spirit, the seed will become the blade—the blade the ear—and at last when prayer has brought down the sunshine and the rain from the celestial throne, then cometh the full corn in the yellow ear. Then there will be increase of character by the expansion of the inward life. The soul will take in and digest truth—good books, good sermons, and good examples. The soul will assimilate these truths, and build them into its spiritual texture. It will take up the nourishing qualities out of them, as a robust man takes up the nourishment of a wheaten loaf or a loin of venison. The spiritual character enlarges—beautifies—solidifies. The young convert grows in strength. He becomes athletic. He is at length equal to bearing huge loads of responsibility—equal to grappling with strong temptations. He becomes an overmatch for the devil. The recruit of yesterday is at length the veteran with the dust of a thousand conflicts on his armor, and the light of a thousand victories on his helmet’s plume. He has grown in grace.—Cuyler.

PRAYER.

By prayer we obtain true peace of mind, that peace to which those who never pray are utter strangers. This peace is a calm and entire resting upon God for the supply of every necessity, of body and soul for time and eternity. It is casting all our burden, whatever it be, upon a kind, compassionate, almighty friend, who willingly sustains it, and relieves and comforts us. “Casting all your care on him for he careth for you.” Let the Christian follow the apostle’s direction, “Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto God,” and he may fully expect the effect which the apostle describes—“and the peace of God which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” How calm and composed may he be, amid all the storms and distractions of this world, who has daily and hourly communion with the Creator, Ruler, and Preserver of all things. The Christian falls below his true happiness in this life, if he does not enjoy constant peace of mind. “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusted in thee.” With peculiarly filial confidence may those approach him when they are in trouble, whose habit of mind, whose continual practice, whose whole life is a continual drawing near to God. The command and the promise belong to them, “Call upon me in the day of trouble and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.” Indeed what Christian has not found in his own experience, the truth of the declaration, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in

trouble.” When no other ear could hear but His, no other arm save, no other power relieve or help; when we were destitute and almost in despair, then his ear heard, and through his mercy we were delivered. Prayer, like the precious metal, comes most pure from the heated furnace. Are you depressed under your guilt, your weakness, your ignorance or ingratitude? You may spread your distress as Hezekiah did his letter before God, and you need not fear but that God will help you. And what a comfort it is that we can never come unreasonably to him. A great man or a friend may be so circumstanced that we cannot interrupt him, or he may soon be wearied with our repeated application, or he may be so distant that we cannot gain access to him. But our God is very nigh unto us—he is always with us; “a very present help in trouble.” Other friends, if willing, may not be able to help us—but He has both the will and the power to give the greatest blessings. Even our guilt when confessed becomes a plea for relief, and the worst condition becomes the strongest reason to pray—all that is given being given not for our merits, but for Christ’s sake. The following affecting anecdote is related us of a poor colored woman. She was a pious slave in the West Indies, and was forbidden by her master to attend public worship and threatened with severe punishment if she did. The only reply she made was, “I must tell the Lord that,” a reply that so affected her owner, that he no longer refused her liberty to go. What a view does this give us of the blessedness of prayer, that a poor friendless outcast may thereby obtain the aid and grace of the great Governor of the universe.—Sel.

JOY IN HEAVEN.

By Spurgeon

You remember the occasion when the Lord met with thee. Oh, little didst thou think what a commotion was in heaven. If the Queen had ordered out all her soldiers, the angels of heaven would not have stopped to notice them. If all the princes of earth had marched through the streets, with all their jewelry and robes and crowns, and all their regalia, their chariots and their horsemen—if the pomp of ancient monarchs had risen from the tomb; if all the might of Babylon and Tyre and Greece had been concentrated in one great parade, yet not an angel would have stopped in his course to smile at these poor tawdry things; but over you, the vilest of the vile, the poorest of the poor, over you angelic wings were hovering, and concerning you it was said on earth and sung in heaven, Hallelujah, for a child is born to God to-day.—Spurgeon.

Gordon, the Slave Trader

Gordon, the Slave Trader.—The life and melancholy end of this man who was cut off by the hand of the executioner, in the flower of his manhood, contains some very important and suggestive lessons to both children and parents.

He was taken in the commission of a crime which the laws of nations hold as piracy; he was tried, found guilty, condemned, and after every device had been exhausted which legal skill and learning, on the part of his counsel, could invent, was executed on the 21st of February last. He was thirty-five years of age, at the time of his execution; was a husband and a father; and has left a heritage of sorrow to his wife and of shame to his child.

At the age of fifteen—that age full of peril to the young; when they stand, as it were, at the forks of two great highways of life, one of which leads up and the other down; when the boy and girl are beginning to chafe under the wholesome restraint of home, and think that they know as much, and can judge as well for themselves as their parents can—at this age young Gordon was seized with a desire to go to sea, against the wishes of his parents. “But the boy”—such is the narrative, “already the ruler of the domestic circle, was determined, and to sea he went.”

What a page does this one sentence open, of this young man’s early history; and what an ill-omened prophecy was it of his subsequent career of crime, and of his fearful and untimely end!

This is the first lesson which his life teaches—the fruits of early disobedience. This was the beginning of a life which ended on the gallows. Parent and child were both no doubt guilty in this, and how terrible the penalty which both have brought upon themselves!

Continue reading: THOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION