Signs of the Times, Vol. 6, No. 10. (3/11/1880)

Signs of the Times

Mar 11, 1880

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, California · Mar 11, 1880

GENERAL ARTICLES.

By Ellen G. White

THE PLAGUES ON EGYPT.

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

The Lord directed Moses to go again to the children of Israel, and repeat the promise of deliverance, with a fresh assurance of divine favor. Moses went as he was commanded; but the people were in no mood to receive him; their hearts were full of bitterness, the lash was still sounding in their ears, the cry of anguish and distress drowned all other sounds, and they would not listen. Moses bowed his head in humiliation and disappointment, and again God's voice was heard by him,—"Go in, speak unto Pharaoh, king of Egypt, that he let the children of Israel go out of his land." The discouraged man replied, If the children of Israel, thine own circumcised people, will not hearken unto me, how then shall Pharaoh, who is uncircumcised and an idolator, hear me? Moses' heart seemed utterly crushed. Yet still he was kept to duty. He was told now to take Aaron with him, and directed, "Thou shalt speak all that I command thee;" told to go before Pharaoh and again request "that he send the children of Israel out of his land." He was informed that the monarch would not give his consent until God should lay his hand in judgment upon Egypt and bring Israel out by his almighty power. Every punishment which the king rejected would render the next chastisement more close and severe, until his proud heart should be humbled, and he should acknowledge the Maker of the heavens and the earth as the living and all-powerful God. The Lord would bring up his people from their long servitude in a signal manner, giving the Egyptians an opportunity to exhibit the feeble wisdom of their mighty men, and array the power of their gods in opposition to the God of Heaven. He would show them by his servant Moses that the Maker of the heavens and the earth is the living and all-powerful God, above all gods; that his strength is mightier than the strongest,—that Omnipotence could bring forth his people with a high hand and with an outstretched arm. He would punish the Egyptians for their idolatry, and for their proud boasting of the mercies bestowed upon them by their senseless gods. God would glorify his own name, that other nations might hear of his power and tremble at his mighty acts, and that his people might be led to fully turn from their idolatry to render to him pure worship.

Obedient to the command of God, Moses and Aaron again entered the lordly halls of the king of Egypt. There, surrounded by the massive and richly sculptured columns, and the gorgeousness of rich hangings and adornments of silver and gold, and gems, before the monarch of the most powerful kingdom then in existence, stood these two men of the despised race, one with a rod in his hand, come once more to deliver their request that he would let their people go.

The king demanded a miracle. Moses and Aaron had been previously directed of God how to act in case such a demand should be made, and Aaron now took the rod and cast it down before the king. It became a serpent. The monarch sent for his "wise men, and the sorcerers," who, at his command, "cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents; but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods." The only effect on the king was to make him more settled and firm in his purpose than before.

The magicians did not really cause their rods to become serpents, but by magic, aided by the great deceiver, made them appear like serpents, to counterfeit the work of God. Satan assisted his servants, in order to deceive the people, and encourage them in their rebellion. Pharaoh would grasp at the least evidence he could obtain to justify himself in resisting the work of God performed by Moses and Aaron. He told these servants of God that his magicians could do all these wonders. The difference between the work of God and that of the magicians was, one was of God, the other of Satan. One was true, the other false.

Moses and his brother were next directed to meet the king as he visited the river in the morning, and standing upon its bank they were again to repeat their message to him, and as proof that God had indeed sent them, they were to stretch out the rod over the waters in all directions, thus changing them into blood. It was done, and the river ran blood, and all the water in their houses was changed to blood, the fish died, and the water became offensive to the smell. But "the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments," changing in the same way the water drawn from wells. Still the king hardened his heart, and refused to yield. For seven days the plague continued, the inhabitants being obliged to dig wells to supply themselves with water.

Another effort at moving the king was now made. The rod was again stretched out over the waters, and frogs came up from the river and spread over the country,—into the houses, and bed-chambers, and ovens, and kneading-troughs. The magicians with their enchantments appeared to bring up similar animals. The general nuisance soon became so intolerable that the king was earnest to have it removed. But although the magicians had succeeded in producing frogs, they could not remove them. When Pharaoh saw this he was somewhat humbled, and desired Moses and Aaron to entreat the Lord for him, that the plague might be stayed. They reminded the haughty king of his former boasting, and asked where was now the vaunted power of his magicians; then they requested him to appoint a time for their prayers, and at the hour specified the living cause was removed, though the effect remained; for the frogs, perishing, polluted the atmosphere.

The work of the magicians had led Pharaoh to believe that these miracles were performed by magic; but he had abundant evidence that this was not the case when the plague of frogs was removed. The Lord could have caused them to disappear and return to dust in a moment; but he did not do this, lest, after they should be removed, the king and the Egyptians should say that it was the result of magic, like the work of the magicians. The frogs died, and were then gathered together in heaps. Here the king and all Egypt had evidence which their vain philosophy could not dispose of, that this work was not accomplished by magic, but was a judgment from the God of Heaven.

When the king was relieved of his immediate distress, he again stubbornly refused to let Israel go. Aaron, at the command of God stretched out his hand and caused the dust of the earth to become lice throughout all the land of Egypt. Pharaoh called upon the magicians to do the same with their enchantments, but they could not. The work of God was thus shown to be superior to the power of Satan. The magicians themselves acknowledged that their imitative power was at an end, saying, "This is the finger of God." But the king was still unmoved.

Still another trial was made, after another appeal to "let the people go." Flies filled the houses and swarmed upon the ground, so that "the land was corrupted by reason of the swarm of flies." These were not such flies as harmlessly annoy us at some seasons of the year; but were large and venomous. Their sting was very painful to man and beast. It had been previously stated that the land of Goshen would be exempt from this visitation, which was accordingly found to be true.

Pharaoh now sent for the two brothers, and told them that he would allow the Israelites to offer sacrifices in Egypt itself; but this offer was refused. Certain animals were regarded as objects of worship by the Egyptians, and such was the reverence in which these creatures were held that to slay one, even accidentally, was a crime punishable with death. Moses assured the king that it was impossible for them to sacrifice to God in the land of Egypt; for they might select for their offering some one of the animals which the Egyptians considered sacred.

Moses again proposed to go three days' journey into the wilderness. The king consented and begged the servants of God to entreat that the plague might be removed. They promised to do this, but cautioned him against dealing deceitfully with them. The plague ceased at their prayer. But the king's heart had become hardened by his persistent rebellion, and he still refused to let the people go.

ANTIQUITY OF THE SABBATH.

By Baptist Weekly

The Sabbath was instituted at creation. In Genesis 2 : 1-3, we read: "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

The commandment in Exodus 20 : 8-11, begins with the word "remember," which shows that the Hebrews had previous knowledge of the Sabbath; and this is also apparent from Exodus 16 : 4, 5, 22, 23-30.

Now, the antiquity of the institution depends on the space of time covered by this word "remember." It would lead us to infer at the least that the Israelites were acquainted with the Sabbath in Egypt; if acquainted with it there, it is but a fair inference that the knowledge of it was brought into Egypt by Jacob's family, and so backward to the time stated in the Mosaic record, where we find that "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." He set it apart as a memorial of his cessation from the creative work. Here, then, we reach a principle: memorials were always instituted or set up synchronically with the events they are intended to commemorate. The precious possessions of the ark (memorials) were not laid up there a thousand years after the miraculous events they were intended to commemorate. The stones set up in Jordan to memorialize the passage of the Israelites, were not erected a

thousand years after the passage. The memorial is always coeval with the event which it symbolizes, and on this principle, therefore, the Sabbath must be as old as creation.—Baptist Weekly.

GOD'S ANVIL.

PAIN'S furnace heat within me quivers, God's breath upon the flame doth blow, And all my heart in anguish shivers, And trembles at the fiery glow; And yet I whisper, As God will! And in his hottest fire hold still.

He comes and lays my heart, all heated, On the hard anvil, minded so Into his own fair shape to beat it With his great hammer, blow on blow; And yet I whisper, As God will! And at his heaviest blows hold still.

He takes my softened heart and beats it, The sparks fly off at every blow; He turns it o'er and o'er and heats it, And lets it cool and makes it glow; And yet I whisper, As God will! And in his mighty hand hold still.

Why should I murmur? for the sorrow, Thus only longer lived would be; Its end may come, and will, to-morrow, When God has done his work for me; So I say, trusting, As God will! And, trusting to the end, hold still.

He kindles for my profit purely Affliction's glowing fiery brand, And all his heaviest blows are surely Inflicted by a master hand; So I say, praying, As God will! And hope in him and suffer still. —From the German.

THE LAW AND TESTIMONY.

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

According to Rev. 12: 17 war will be made with the remnant who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus. This shows both the perfect agreement between keeping the law and having the power of the Spirit, and the opposition which will exist, and already exists, to a great extent, against the law and the testimony. It is a truth well known that the indignation of the world and a worldly church are quickly aroused against those who keep all the commandments of God in all things, just as they were written and spoken by the Lord. But nothing seems so readily to arouse the prejudice, yes, the hatred and malice of the carnal mind, as the manifestation of the Spirit of prophecy. The world bestows its incredulous smile as if it pitied the folly of those who could embrace the promise of God as a reality; that incredulous smile often proving more cutting than the severest language; while a proud and worldly church cannot restrain its feelings of scorn or abhorrence of those who humbly and reverently claim "the promise of the Spirit" according to the words of both Christ and his apostles. Surely the fulfillment of the prophecy, Rev. 12 : 17, is no mystery to those who are intently watching the signs of the times, and have noted the feelings of popular religionists toward those who dare to reprove the lukewarmness of the present age in which so many have "the form of godliness, but deny the power thereof."

This connection between the law and the means and benefits of the gospel is logically deduced from the preaching of the apostle on the day of Pentecost. That the law was not abolished at the crucifixion is proved in this, that not a sermon was preached—not a duty made known between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost; and the first duties enjoined on that day were that of repentance for sin, and of baptism for the remission of sin. Now it is plain to see that if the law was previously abolished, and if men were to look to the apostles for the proclamation of a new code, then the whole transaction was a failure, inasmuch as "where no law is there is no transgression," and of course no call for repentance. Again, "sin is not imputed when there is no law," and therefore to preach baptism for remission of sin when no law existed would be a sheer absurdity. If the law which had existed were abolished at the cross, no one could be convicted under it, and as no law for the new dispensation had yet been given by the apostles, it would follow necessarily that no one was at that time bound by any law; sin could not be imputed to them at all. Therefore, according to this antinomian notion the preaching of repentance and baptism at that time was a nullity—mere sound without sense. Thus it is easily shown that the doctrine of the antinomians—the no-law theorists—more than perverts the gospel; it subverts it; it saps its very foundations, leaving it destitute of life and power. It is virtually a rejection of the gospel both in its facts and its promises.

It has been remarked that baptism has not only its form, but also its order and relations. It is often urged that if its forms be changed—if it be no longer immersion or a burial, as the word signifies and the illustrations of Scripture indicate—it ceases to be the baptism of the gospel; and when administered under such change it is not valid. But let us consider its necessary relations. We learn that baptism is for the remission of sin; also that sin is the transgression of the law, and that sin is not imputed when there is no law. Therefore if no law existed from the cross to the day of Pentecost, as must have been the case if the law was abolished at the cross, then there could be no sin imputed at that time, of which to repent or for which to be baptized. Now as baptism stands related to sin, and sin is related to an existing law, it follows that the law did exist, for sin was imputed to them.

Thus it is shown that Peter's preaching would have been groundless and of no force if the law had been abolished. Even so now, all who preach the abolition of the law, preach a gospel (so-called) without any basis; it is a nullity. As it is a nullity, and not the gospel in fact, not being a system of salvation from the transgression of the law, baptism enjoined in such preaching is not truly gospel baptism; it is deprived of its relations and of its significance, and therefore, of its efficacy. And who administer baptism under such teachings are offenders against the gospel.

This conclusion is logical; it is unavoidable, and is not drawn from this text alone. In Rom. 6 : 1-6 baptism is called a burial, and, of course, all must admit that it is wrong to bury before death. But the death which precedes baptism is death to sin, the transgression of the law. It is expressly said in verse two that we cannot be dead to sin and live in it; but we do live in it as long as we continue to transgress the law. We do not die to sin until we cease to transgress the law. Therefore baptism or burial cannot properly take place while we continue to transgress the law. We are to be buried in the order or likeness of Christ's death which is thus stated:— "For I declare unto you first of all, that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures." 1 Cor. 15 : 3, 4.

Now if ceasing to transgress the law is dying to sin, all must admit, then no one can be planted in the likeness of Christ's death who has not ceased to transgress the law, from the evident truth that Christ died before he was buried. There is no mistaking this point. He that transgresses the law lives in sin; if he lives in sin he has not died to it; if he has not died to it he is not prepared to be buried; and if he has so buried he is buried alive, that is, without a death to sin, and hence not buried in the likeness of the Saviour's death. Such baptism is not in the order of the gospel—it is only a perversion of gospel baptism.

And this is still further shown in Rom. 7 : 1-6. This scripture says the law holds a man as long as he lives, and the woman who marries the second husband before the death of the first is guilty of adultery. In the application of this fact Paul says to his brethren: "Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to him who was raised from the dead." Rom. 7 : 4. The wages of sin is death. There would be no death if there were no sin. Thus we see that Paul is arguing concerning man in his sinful condition. The law would not thus hold man unto death if he had not sinned—if his life was not forfeited. The death here referred to is on account of sin; the same that is spoken of in chap. 6—there called a death to sin. But without this death they cannot "be married to another," even to Christ. Marriage to another without such death would be spiritual adultery. This is the force and intent of this scripture. The old man must be crucified, the body of sin destroyed—chap. 6 : 6; and every effort to unite this body of sin to Christ must meet with decided disapproval. On this text it is said in another text:— "For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. 3 : 27. As union with Christ is represented by the figure of being married to him, so baptism is the ordinance by which that marriage is said to be consummated. The marriage ceremony does not unite the hearts of the parties; if there is no previously existing union of hearts the marriage ceremony is but mockery. So baptism does in spirit unite us to Christ, but it is the legal right by which that union is acknowledged and ratified. It is an established rule in all governments that he makes himself guilty who solemnizes the rite of marriage without legal authority, or where there are impediments and disabilities which forbid the marriage, while the parties suffer the shame of an illegal union. This is exactly the position of the parties where baptism is administered before the candidate has died to sin, while he is yet living in transgression of the law. The rite is illegally administered; the marriage is a nullity, and the administrator is liable to indictment.

The arguing of this point is not a digression from our subject. Its bearing on "the promise" of Acts 2 : 38, 39, is easily seen. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" is promised to those who repent of sin. But it is proved that antinomianism ignores the genuine repentance and the burial of him who is dead to the transgression of the law, by ignoring the law itself, by which the knowledge of sin. Therefore it has no just claim to "the promise,"

not being the legal fulfillment of the condition. Thus it is shown that antinomianism, or a denial of the perpetuity of the law of God shuts out the Spirit of God and neutralizes the promise of the gospel; "Where there is no vision the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."

Here we will state an interesting fact and notice an objection. In a work on the relation of different church doctrines to moral obligations, we recently read the following words:— "The Methodist conference under Wesley in 1770, declared that the universal immorality then prevailing was because of the wide-spread opinion that Christ had annulled the moral law, and that evangelical freedom dispensed with the ten commandments." "Wesley's Notes" on this conference drew forth upon him and upon the work of the Methodists severe criticisms from certain dignitaries of the established church. And these in turn brought out "Fletcher's Checks to Antinomianism;" a work worthy of the careful reading of every searcher for Bible truth. This is an interesting item of ecclesiastical history, and it serves to prove the statement we have made that antinomianism has been deprecated by the thoughtfully pious of all ages. But an objection has been raised upon it which well deserves notice. It has been said that while the Methodists condemn the no-law theory, and advocated the ten commandments as God's great rule of morality, they did not themselves keep the law for the law says: "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work," but they called the first day the Sabbath and kept it instead of the day indicated in the law; and that they therefore really occupied a ground similar to that of those whom they reproved.

Admitting the correctness of the statement concerning the teaching of the law, to argue which is not our present purpose, the reply is thus made: There is a very wide difference of position between those who acknowledge the authority of the law, who make it the avowed and actual intention of their lives to keep the law, even though they are mistaken in some points of duty enjoined therein, and those who deny the authority of the law, who declare it to be the object of their lives to repudiate and to disregard its claims. The position of the former is that of loyal citizens laboring under certain mistakes in regard to duty; while the latter are disloyal, virtually denying the constitutional authority of the government. If the ideas of the latter could be carried out to their legitimate results, the government would be entirely overthrown.

On this consideration we readily vindicate the early Methodists and all others who recognize the existence and the claims of the law of God, from the reproach which must fall upon those who repudiate the law and deny its authority. And the providence of God has justified our position in regard to this, for he has often blessed with his Spirit the former, while he has as generally withheld it from the latter.

But this vindication must not be abused, and made to favor selfishness in religion. When God in his providence calls our attention to any truth of his word, and gives us light thereon, there can be no excuse for rejecting or neglecting it, however sincere our former lives have been, or however unpopular that truth may be, or to whatever extent it may cross our feelings or clash with our worldly interests.

Among those who have a form of godliness, but deny the power thereof in the last days, are said to be "false accusers." One false accusation raised against those who plead for the power of godliness and for the divinely appointed means of Christian unity is, that to claim to be led by the Spirit, or to possess gifts of the Spirit, is to claim infallibility. If any should make such a claim, or try to avail themselves of the benefits of such a claim, they would abuse the promises, and forfeit the favor of God. The accusation might lie against such persons, but not against those who hold and rightly use the truth on the subject. God never inspired any one so as to make him infallible. To do this would be to take away his individuality or his freedom of will, and consequently to remove him from probation. Peter, Paul, and Barnabas, were all highly gifted of the Spirit, and yet they all erred. Of the gifts of the first two there will be no question. Of Barnabas the record says: "He was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith." Yet he and Paul so differed in judgment that they had a sharp contention, and as a consequence separated in their labors. This was wrong, it was contrary to what Paul wrote by inspiration. Peter seriously erred and was rebuked by Paul. And thus is shown that they who were most highly gifted were not always under the immediate influence of the Spirit so as to be preserved from erring. They were fallible and dependent upon Heaven for help and strength which they received only through faith and prayer.

When the apostles were first sent forth with power over unclean spirits, they could not cast a demon out of a certain child; and the Saviour said it was because of their unbelief. Paul said they prophesied "according to the proportion of faith." Rom. 12 : 6. God never endowed any one so that he could live at ease, or in carelessness, without constant zeal, and yet be in possession of supernatural power, which he could exercise according to his own will. It is God that doeth the work, and he will work to his own glory, and through such only as are humble enough to seek his glory. When "holy men of old spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," their speaking was the speaking of the Holy Spirit, and it must be infallible, even as God is true. But the men themselves were not infallible.

It is so far from being true that the manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit lead to a claim of infallibility that they who take the opposite ground are really the egotists. For that is egotism and self-esteem which leads any to profess the ability within themselves to do all that God requires, to perfect holiness and to glorify him without his aid, and independent of the means which he has ordained and set forth in the gospel. Without Christ we can do nothing; and we are only strong when strong in the might of God. "Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord." The accusation is as unreasonable as it is unjust.

May the Lord Jesus fulfill to us his promise, and be with us and lead us to his own glory.

THE REWARD OF OBEDIENCE.

By C. A. Osgood

"In keeping them there is great reward." Ps. 19:11. The word "them" here means "the judgments of the Lord," or, in other words, his commandments. These are very precious to God's people. Not so with the sinner. He looks for a reward in breaking God's law. Says the thief, "I will take and use my neighbor's property, the fruit of his toil, without paying for it; all this will be clear gain to me." So he who violates the command, "Thou shalt not kill," hopes to possess a large amount of property belonging to the murdered man, and thus gain a large reward by the commission of his crime.

Many a man would refrain from labor on the seventh day, the day in which God said, "Thou shalt not do any work," but he thinks he can get along with his business better, and make more money, to violate this holy commandment than to observe it. Even the minister of the gospel is afraid to keep and teach the fourth commandment, or even to examine its claims lest he should lose his salary! Oh, how little do men realize that, after this brief life, there must be a final settlement between God and themselves! What, then, will be the pay they will receive for breaking God's commands? "The wages of sin is death." Miserable reward! What will become of their ill-gotten gain then? What will the minister's salary be worth then?

"In keeping them there is great reward." Yes, there is now, and will be in the future. God shows mercy to commandment-keepers—"Showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Ex. 20:6. Again, they have great peace. "Great peace have they which love thy law; and nothing shall offend them." Ps. 119:165. Those that love God's law are the very ones who keep it. All true obedience springs from love. Law-keepers have peace with God, and peace with their own consciences. The ancient prophet was directed to say to the people of Israel: "O that thou hadst harkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." Isa. 48:18. This is a peace ever moving on as a river, deep and perpetual as the waves of the sea.

God answers the prayers of those who keep his commandments. Said the apostle John, "We ask and receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." What a glorious reward is this! What a privilege in every time of distress and need to be permitted to ask and receive of him the very things we need. Said our Saviour to the young man who came to him to inquire "what good thing he should do to inherit eternal life," "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." Our Lord did not teach men that the way to gain eternal life was by breaking the commandments. No; no. He taught the necessity of repentance. "Except ye repent, ye shall all perish." To repent is to turn heartily from disobeying God's law to obeying it. "Blessed are they that do his [God's] commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev. 22:14. This is the final glorious reward of obeying God. Well might Moses "choose to suffer affliction with the people of God, rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season." "He had respect to the recompense of the reward." C. A. Osgood.

A QUESTION AS TO MODERN RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

No one can read the Scriptures without seeing that sin is peculiarly abhorrent to God, and in proportion as we attain to like-mindedness with him, we shall regard it as he does. But is there not, just here, something radically defective in much of the religious experience and religious literature of our day? Lift the biography of one of those earnest men whose preaching and work told so mightily on the minds of the people of a former generation—that, for instance, of Jonathan Edwards; or, to take even a more modern illustration, that of Charles Finney; and, while you will be deeply impressed with the ardor of their devotion to the Lord Jesus, you will be equally so with the depth of their detestation of sin. They loathed it as an utter abomination. They hated it with a perfect hatred. They turned away from it, as one turns from a hideous and revolting spectacle. The very thought of it produced in them what we may call spiritual nausea and revulsion.

But we do not find so much of that in the religious experience of these days. Conversing a few evenings ago with some ministerial brethren on this subject, we all agreed that it is now a very rare thing for those wishing to make a confession of Christ to speak strongly and earnestly of the evil of their sins. The element of conviction seems largely now to have dropped out of the religious history of a soul, and the avowal of love to Christ is made without that passionate fervor which necessarily springs from the perception of the abominable character of that sin, from whose curse and pollution he has redeemed it.

And the evil resulting from this defective experience has affected the current theology, for those one-sided ideas of the atonement of Christ, and those unscriptural views about future punishment, which are finding such large acceptance among us, have their root in low views of the evil of sin. If sin be not so great an evil after all; if it be a mere superficial thing; if it be a misfortune rather than a crime; if it be a petty peccadillo, rather than a deliberate and defiant antagonism to God, which, if it were allowed to have its way, would hurl him from his throne, and plunge the moral universe into confusion; then redemption from it need not have required the incarnation of Christ, and we may discard from the idea of the atonement all honoring of righteousness, or satisfaction of law.

Now, if this be so, the true way to counteract these errors is to deal with that defective experience out of which they have sprung, and make bare to men "the exceeding sinfulness of sin." The answer which is given to the question, "What is sin?" will determine our whole theology, as well as give color to our whole life; and that holiness is to be suspected which makes little of past sins. When we have heard some modern converts speaking of their former lives, we have been shocked with the manner of their reference. They have spoken in a tone of flippancy altogether out of keeping with the subject, and they have evinced little or nothing of the abhorrence of sin which ought to characterize every believer. It has really seemed to us that they had the idea that somehow the very magnitude of their sins gave them more importance. But imagine the apostle Paul speaking in that fashion! The true penitent cannot uncover the past without shame, or speak of it without bitter humiliation before God. His song is that of David, "He brought me up out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, establishing my goings."

We raise the questions, therefore, whether many of our modern methods of presenting the gospel, and urging young, unfledged converts to tell their experience, be not tending to so familiarize men's minds with sin that they lose their horror of it? whether we are not losing in our churches the sense of the abominable character of sin? and whether it would not be well for our ministers to set more thoroughly before their hearers the "exceeding sinfulness" of sin, and the fearful retribution of its "wages?"—Christian at Work.

"OUGHT TO."

OUGHT to! what a word that is! How often does it rise in the present as in the future judgment to condemn the misused hours, the wasted opportunities! For "ought to" signifies that the duty, whatever it is, might have been, or can be done. There is no "ought to" among the impossibilities. We wish, we regret, we propose, we would gladly have done, or would like to do this or that; but "ought to," applied to this or that, carries a tone of moral authority from which there is no innocent escape.

"I ought to have learned my lesson!" mutters the disgraced school-boy as the offered prize slips into a comrade's hand. "I ought to have been careful of my health!" moans the confirmed invalid, when the pains of regret grow sharper than the pains of disease. "I ought to have said No! to the first temptation," groans the drunkard when in a sober hour he reviews the once happy and honorable past. "I ought to have set that child a truer example!" weeps a broken-hearted parent over a lost son or daughter. "I ought to have watched, and prayed, and striven, and conquered!" gasps a dying one, as the hour comes when it is too late for aught. "I ought to have believed!" shriek a multitude of the lost when the day of grace has closed forever

It is with the "ought to," of to-day that we have most to do,—the little oughts that come on hour by hour, moment by moment; it is in them we live or die; they make or ruin all we are, and all it is possible to become. A very small thing it may be to write a letter in its time; but the doing or the leaving undone may have consequences to ourselves of vastly more importance than anything the letter may signify. It is by very little things we are lost; some little habit of wrong that strengthens and fastens itself upon the character, until the good that is or might be is undermined and destroyed, or some quiet persistent way of doing right that elevates and ennobles the whole being like a leaven of saving grace.

There is little fear if we make and cling to the habits of prompt and true behaviour in the small matters, but that the larger ones will be regulated by the same rule, and will reach the right result. It is in truth, the "ought to" of the little things of life whereby we stand or fall.—Sel.

RESTRAINTS OF GOD'S LAW.

No doubt the law restrains us, but all chains are not fetters, nor all walls the gloomy precincts of a jail. It is a blessed chain by which the ship, now buried in the trough and now rising on the top of the sea, rides the anchor and outlives the storm. The condemned would give worlds to break his chain, but the sailor trembles lest his should snap, and when the gray morning breaks on the wild lee shore, all strewn with wrecks and corpses, he blesses God for the good iron that stood the strain. The pale captive eyes his high prison walls, to curse the man that built it, and envy the little bird that, perched upon its summit, sings merrily, and flies away on wings of wisdom. But were you traveling some Alpine pass, where the narrow road hung over a frightful gorge, it is with other eyes you look on the wall that restrains your restive steed from backing into the gulf below. Such are the restraints God's law imposes—no other. It is a fence from evil—nothing else. It challenges the world to put its finger on any one of these ten commandments which is not meant and calculated to keep us from harming ourselves or hurting others.—Dr. Guthrie.

If the riches of the Indies or the crowns of all the kingdoms of Europe were laid at my feet in exchange for my love of reading, I would spurr them all.—Fenelon.

Continue reading: SYNOPSIS OF THE PRESENT TRUTH