ABOUT all that has been done among the Seventh-day Adventists in relation to organization, is to silence the batteries of those who opposed it, and by dint of battle to succeed in forming the Publishing Association. And there the matter hangs, and we are not in as good condition to make a general strike for organization as we were two and half years since, when the subject was first introduced. 1. Because those who were then ready to take hold of the work of organizing Churches and Conferences with courage and hope, have had their courage worn out, and their hopes dimmed, by the opposition of some, and, what has been worse, the wavering, hesitating, non-committal position of others. 2. Some of our brethren who were in favor of organization, who were the supporters and best friends of the cause, have become much discouraged as they have seen that the course of several of our preachers has strengthened the hands of rebellion against order, the gifts, and systematic benevolence. Had our preachers all struck unitedly for organization at the first, this rebellion could then have been put down at once; but in Ohio it increased so rapidly as to soon wreck the cause in that State, and leave only the hope that some will make a timely escape. In Pennsylvania and Southern New York, it grew with fearful results. The brethren voted down organization, and sent us a report of their doings for publication. A leading brother from that field recently wrote to us stating his regret that he acted a part in that rebellion, and his thanks to us for not publishing the report; that their confidence in Brn. Cottrell, Ingraham, Andrews, Wheeler, and others, was very great, and that the opposition of some, and the hesitancy of others, had great influence with them.
In Iowa the spirit of rebellion and its confusing, unsettling results threatens to destroy almost everything. If it were only the loss of two years' time on the cause, the results would not be so painful. But these things have confused the young friends of the cause, encouraged rebellion among them, and brought them into a condition where it would be no use to attempt organization among them, until as much labor was expended upon them as it required to bring them to a profession of the present truth. To organize them as they are, would only be making a bad matter worse.
Those brethren who opposed organization, and those who were in favor of it, but, when the battle was going hard, drew back, and kept silent, have never realized the dreadful results of their course. And it seems not enough for them merely to acknowledge their mistake. Should they not try to redeem the time lost to the cause? Should they not feel the burden of the work, and be willing to commit themselves fully, and lead off in this work? They no doubt dread to meet the very opposition which their course has increased to stubbornness. But should they not put the armor on, and rush to the field of action, and save the sinking cause as far as possible? We cannot fill any of the numerous calls from other States to meet with the brethren in conferences until we are assured that these preachers will take hold of the organization question in earnest, and that they will stand by us when the battle goes hard.
We made a visit through New York, New England, and Canada, more than a year since, and met at every point the depressing influence of anti-organization, and shall not hastily venture another route. We held a Conference at Roosevelt, N. Y., where a year before two or three of our preachers sat still and saw organization voted down, and the very place seemed to us more like the house of death than the place where God was worshiped in Spirit and in truth. One of these preachers has had more influence with our people than any other man, because of his talent and mildness. His silence alone, under such circumstances, was an insupportable blow on the heads of those who stood with a minority in favor of organization.
We are ready to go far and near as the calls may be and duty indicate, as far as health and strength will admit, when our preachers and the brethren generally take a position where we can help them. But be it understood that we are done going the rounds in the present state of things. As for Michigan we would say that we have not suffered from these difficulties only as they have been imported from other States, and brought into our General Conferences. The brethren in Michigan have felt the depression, having an undying interest for the cause everywhere; but beyond this they are free. We have a State Conference from which our preachers receive credentials, to be renewed annually, and to which they are responsible. This saves our brethren from impostors, and from being divided by self-called, tobacco-eating, gift-hating, preachers. Every little body of Sabbath-keepers in the State will probably be organized soon, with the necessary officer or officers, and be united to the State Conference, to which they can report, and make their wants known through their delegates.
Systematic benevolence is generally carried out in this State, which brings a sufficient amount of means to sustain our preachers. But with this we must have systematic labor. Should our preachers visit the churches they would receive more than a sufficient sum for a support. Should they labor wholly in new fields, they would fail of a support. Most of our preachers can be spared to new fields, if those whose work is evidently with the churches are encouraged to their proper sphere of action. But how shall those who labor in new fields be supported? We design to lay before our Conference the following plan:
Raise a Conference fund, as we have raised our tent funds, and let this meet all the expense of labor in the State, whether by tent or otherwise. Let every preacher have a certain sum per week for his labor, and be required to report to the Conference each week's labor during the year, and present his account of all he has received during the year, and if his receipts fall short of the sum necessary to his support, let the amount be made up from the State treasury. “The laborer is worthy of his hire.” If this good rule be suffered to work both ways, then the hire is worthy of the labor. And, further, let all our preachers by mutual consent, and the counsel of the brotherhood, find their fields of labor for the Conference year as far as possible.
“Do Violence to no Man.”
By John Norton Loughborough
I WAS much interested in Bro. White's article in the Review on the Nation, and our duty as a people at the present time in case of a military draft. I see the different messengers and brethren are invited to speak out on this subject. I would say the positions taken in that article seemed right to me from the first, and the article brought relief to my mind on that subject. The more I look at it, and the objections brought against it, the more I am satisfied it is correct. Objections brought against it are so much like objections brought against truth (contradictory and foolish), that one would infer that it was a position hard to be disposed of.
One of the most weighty objections that I have heard used against submitting to a military draft, and which has been supposed by those using it, as sufficient to settle the whole matter, is John the Baptist's testimony to the soldiers who came to him and asked, “What shall we do?” John's reply was, “Do violence to no man.” Here, it is said, is positive testimony that it is wrong to fight under any circumstances. But let us look at the text. We will first read it to suit those who have the idea that it condemns fighting under any circumstances. “Do violence to no man, but resist the authorities, though you may have to die for it, or be imprisoned; and go home and keep the commandments, for the commandment says, Thou shalt not kill.” But it does not happen to read that way, but “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages.” Wages for what? Resisting the authorities? No! But wages for being a soldier. Certainly it can mean nothing else. But, say you, it says “Do violence to no man;” that must mean they must not fight. But how much pay would they receive for being soldiers if they refused to fight, if required? But, say you, that was not like this case. Yes, I shall claim that it was exactly a parallel to the circumstances of the present time. Well, says one, I admit that war under certain circumstances may be justifiable, as in the case of the Jews exterminating the Canaanites, the American Revolution, &c. But this war does not have as its object directly the extermination of slavery; if it did, I should not object to fighting. I will admit that to enlist in case of an unjust warfare, looks to me as a wrong; but allowing all that is claimed in reference to the evil tendency of this war, even then it is a parallel to those soldiers that came to John.
Their case was this: John—as all will recollect—had reproved Herod for having Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. Herod's real wife was a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia. When Herod took Herodias, the daughter of Aretas fled to her father to seek redress for her grievances. Aretas raised an army and was coming against Herod. Herod hearing of this raised an army by levy—draft—and was marching them out to meet Aretas. These were the very soldiers that John told to be content with their wages. These soldiers were marching out to maintain the cause of Herod in transgressing the seventh commandment. Don't you think there is some similarity in the two cases, even admitting your own claim in regard to the tendency of the present war. One, you say, is to maintain slavery. Well, the other was to maintain a man in adultery. To enlist would be wrong in both cases. Both of a piece I should think.
As it may be gratifying to the reader, I will present the proof of the above statement. Horne in writing on Luke iii, 14, 19, 20, says:
“It has been asked who these soldiers were, for it does not appear that the Roman soldiers, who were then stationed in Judea, were engaged in any war. Now it happens that the expression used by the evangelical historian is not stratiōtai or soldiers, but strateuomenoi, that is, men who were actually under arms, or marching to battle. It is not to be supposed that he would use this word without a sufficient reason, and what that reason is, we may readily discover on consulting Josephus' account of the reign of Herod, the tetrarch of Galilee. He tells us that Herod was at that very time engaged in a war with his father-in-law, Aretas, a petty king of Arabia Petræa, whose daughter he had married, but who had returned to her father in consequence of Herod's ill-treatment. The army of Herod, then on its march from Galilee, passed of necessity through the country where John was baptizing; and the military men who questioned him, were a part of that army.”—Horne's Introduction, Vol. I. p. 50.
But, say you, John said, “Do violence to no man.” The idea is not that they should not follow in that war the manner of all national warfare, but that he as Millman says, enjoined upon them “humanity, and abstinence from all unnecessary violence and pillage;” to abstain from lawless indulgence in rapine and lust which soldiers of ancient times were apt to be guilty of. Strange as it may appear, it was one of those very soldiers that cut off John's head at the request of Herodias.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Design of Baptism
By Moses Hull
In the World's Crisis of Aug. 13, I notice an article on the design of baptism. The writer evidently has not thoroughly investigated the subject. After quoting Acts ii, 38, he commences by saying:
“Is baptism here set forth as a pre-requisite to the remission of sins? I answer in the negative. If it were, it would conflict with the general tone of revelation which makes repentance or faith reduced to action, the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins, and141would make baptism an absurdity when administered to Christ, to Cornelius, and to other holy men who had no sins to remit.”
I cannot conceive how a larger bundle of errors can be put into one paragraph than is in the one just quoted. I might with equal propriety quote the same text, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins," and say, "Is repentance here set forth as a pre-requisite to the remission of sins? I answer in the negative. If it were, it would conflict with the general tone of revelation, which makes prayer the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins."
But there is one difficulty in the way of the doctrine of my paragraph, and that is, there is no Scripture to sustain it. Just so with the one above quoted from the Crisis. The Bible does command us to repent, to exercise faith, and to pray; but nowhere promises remission of sins upon complying with either of these alone, or all of them combined, unless other duties are done, one of which is, "be baptized." Now if I were to argue that prayer was not a necessary pre-requisite to the remission of sins because Christ, who had no sins to remit, prayed, or because he says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," or that faith was not necessary because Christ exercised it, would not the Crisis say, "Ye strain at a gnat and swallow a camel?" Yet it commits the same absurdity in denying "baptism for the remission of sins," because Christ, who was not a sinner, was baptized.
Where does "the tone of revelation" make "repentance or faith the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins?" Might I not as consistently say that prayer is the only pre-requisite? The Bible says, "Pray if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee." Acts viii, 22. But I would be answered, Prayer does not exclude repentance or faith. So I argue that the "general tone of revelation" does not exclude baptism.
When the Crisis calls upon its readers to believe that "repentance or faith is the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins," would they not be wise to consider the words of James before complying with this requirement? "Ye see then how that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." James ii, 24.
The unbelief of the Crisis upon this subject is like unbelief elsewhere. It fails to offer a definite substitute. It speaks of "repentance or faith" as "the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins."
What is the meaning of that little word, or? Is it not thrown in to avoid taking a definite position? Why not be definite enough to tell what is meant? Is it repentance alone, or is it faith alone, that the Crisis would have us believe to be "the only pre-requisite to the remission of sins?" The Bible lays down as many as eight pre-requisites to the remission of sins, and prominent among them is baptism.
The article to which I refer says that those who baptize for the remission of sins "would make baptism an absurdity when administered to Christ, to Cornelius, and to other holy men who had no sins to remit."
Had Cornelius no sins to remit? Then certainly it was unnecessary to send men to Joppa to find a man to tell him what he ought to do to be saved. Acts x, 6; xi, 14. When Peter came to the house of Cornelius he told him what to do to get the remission of sins. Acts x, 43. Hence Cornelius' sins were not yet remitted. The Holy Ghost fell on the household of Cornelius, not as an evidence that all the inmates were pardoned, but as an evidence of the Lord's willingness to save the Gentiles.
I cannot think that the Crisis would have its readers understand that John did not baptize for the remission of sins, because Christ had no sins to remit, when the Bible emphatically declares that John preached, yes, and administered, the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Mark i, 4; Luke iii, 3. Yet such is its argument.
If it were at all necessary, we could now show that Christ was not baptized for the same purpose that others were who received baptism from the hands of John. But as no one can date the origin of Christian baptism further back than the day of Pentecost, I will not make an argument upon the design of the baptism of the Saviour.
The Crisis next serves up the antiquated objection that "if sins cannot be remitted except in baptism, a man should be baptized every time he chances to sin."
I presume no one has ever said sin could not be remitted except in baptism. Baptism neither remits, pardons, nor takes away sin. God does this. But baptism, when preceded by a proper repentance, and faith in Christ, initiates the true believer into Christ, where he is entitled to all spiritual blessings, among which is the remission of sins. Then if the Christian—the one who has been baptized—not the unbelieving sinner, sins, he has an Advocate with the Father.
Christ died, was buried, and arose again. The sinner believes this, and obeys from the heart "that form of doctrine," that is, he dies to sin, is buried in baptism, and rises to walk in newness of life. He is now made free from sin. He becomes a servant of God, and has his fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rom. vi, 17. It is not until after obedience to the whole "form of doctrine" that freedom from sin takes place. Then if he sins, he has an Advocate with the Father.
MOSES HULL.
The Lord's Prayer.
THE following comments upon the Lord's Prayer, by Luther, are taken from D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, pp. 86, 87:
"When thou prayest," said he, "let thy words be few, but thy thoughts and feelings many and deep. The less thou speakest, the better thy prayers. Few words and much thoughts is a Christian frame. Many words and little thought is heathenish."
"The prayer that is external and of the body, is that mumbling of the lips, outward babble—gone through without attention, and heard and seen of men; but prayer, in spirit and in truth, is the inward desire, the motions and sighs that proceed from the depth of the heart. The former is the prayer of the hypocrites, and of those who trust in themselves; the latter is the prayer of God's children, who walk in his fear."
Passing on to the opening words of the Lord's Prayer, he thus expresses himself: "Our Father," "Of all names, there is not one which more inclines us toward God, than the name of Father. We should feel less love, and derive less consolation, from addressing him as Lord, or God, or Judge. By that word, Father, his bowels of compassion are moved; for there is no sound more sweet or prevailing with a father, than the voice of his child."
He continues; and on the words, "Who art in heaven," he says, "Whosoever professes that he has a Father in heaven, acknowledges himself to be a stranger upon earth; hence, there is in his heart an ardent longing, like that of a child that is living among strangers, in want and grief, afar from its father-land. It is as if he said, 'Alas! my Father, thou art in heaven, and I, thy suffering child, am on earth, far from thee, encompassed with danger, wants, and mourning.'"
"Hallowed be thy name." "He who is passionate, abusive, envious, and slanderous, dishonors the name of God in which he has been baptized. Profaning to impious uses a vessel that God has consecrated to himself, he is like a priest who should take the holy cup and give drink to swine, or gather dung into it."
"Thy kingdom come." "Those who amass property and build magnificent mansions, who strive after what the world can give, and utter this prayer with their lips, resemble those huge organ-pipes which incessantly sing with all their power in the churches, without speech, feeling, or reason."
Further on, Luther attacks the error of pilgrimages, which was then so prevalent: "One goes to Rome, another to St. James, a third builds a chapel, and a fourth endows religious houses, in order to attain to the kingdom of God; but all neglect the one thing needful, which is to become themselves his kingdom! Why seek the kingdom of God beyond the seas? It is in thy heart it should arise."
"It is an awful thing," he continues, "to hear us offer this petition, 'Thy will be done.' Where in the church do we see this 'will of God'? One bishop rises up against another bishop; one church against another church. Priests, monks, and nuns, quarrel, and thwart and wage war with each other, and everywhere discord prevails. And yet each party declares that there is good will and upright intention; and so, to the honor and glory of God, they altogether do the Devil's work. . . ."
"Why do we use the words, 'our bread?'" he continues, expounding these words, 'Give us this day our daily bread.' "Because we do not pray for the common bread that heathens partake, and which God gives to all men—but for 'our' bread, the bread of those who are 'children of the heavenly Father.'"
"And what then is this bread of God? It is Jesus Christ our Lord. 'I am the bread of life which came down from heaven, and giveth life to the world.' Therefore let no one be deluded: whatever sermons and instructions do not exhibit and make known Jesus Christ, cannot be the daily bread and nourishment of souls."
"Of what use is it that such bread has been provided, if it is not served up, and so we are unable to partake of it? It is as if a noble feast were prepared, and none were ready to distribute the bread, to place the meat on the table, or fill the cups, and so the guests should be reduced to feed on the mere sight and smell. Therefore, we must preach Christ alone."
"But, say you, what is it to know Christ? and what good will come of it? I answer, to learn and know Christ, is to understand what the apostle declares, namely, that 'Christ is made unto us of God, wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.' Now you understand that, if you acknowledge all your wisdom mere blameworthy foolishness, your righteousness a criminal iniquity, your holiness a guilty pollution, your redemption a miserable sentence of condemnation; if you feel that you are truly, before God, and before all creatures, a fool, a sinner, an impure and condemned man; if you manifest, not by word alone, but from the bottom of your heart and by your works—that there is neither salvation nor comfort for you, save only in Christ. To believe is nothing else than feeding on this bread from heaven."
Report of Meetings.
By Joseph Bates
Bro. White: From September 3 to 10, I labored with the church at La Porte and North Liberty, Ind. Our general meeting was at the latter place, on the Sabbath and first-day, where both branches united and were much strengthened and comforted in the Lord. They had had no preaching for the last thirteen months, and were hungry for the word of life. First-day morning there was a funeral in the place. In the afternoon and evening many came to hear the messages. We baptized a sister that had been waiting for several months to hear our position explained for the first time, and embrace it. Our meetings continued until the evening of the 9th, when nineteen members were organized as a church in North Liberty, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ. After this we all united in the ordinances of the Lord's house, and were strengthened and refreshed. The Lord bless them also for their liberality in helping me on my way.
September 12, came to Pine Creek, Mich. According to appointment the monthly meeting of the churches in Allegan Co., Mich., met here Sabbath, the 13th. There was a good representation from Monterey, Allegan, and Watson. Bro. Frisbie was laboring in a new place not far distant, and came to unite with us, and gave us a good discourse on faith and Christian duty, which was a source of encouragement to many. In the afternoon we had a very interesting social meeting for about two hours, in which all had the privilege of expressing their views and feelings relative to our present and future salvation. For a while some were giving vent to their feelings by weeping, and we trust resolving amendment for the future. We believe the Lord was working in the meeting by his Holy Spirit, to strengthen and unite his people to stand in the tempting and trying scenes that lie in their pathway.
After uniting in the solemn work of celebrating the Lord's supper, the meeting closed. We are to meet again in Allegan on the third Sabbath in October.
Jos. Bates.
Monterey, Sept. 17, 1862.
On the Early Training of Children.
CHILDREN of many prayers and much apparent religious culture, become in some instances wretched apostates; occasions of bitter grief to their parents, a scandal to Christianity, and a scourge to mankind.
How does this happen? Who shall trace out and unfold its philosophy? Who shall locate the fault in these cases so justly that it shall not lie against God's faithfulness to his promises, nor against the faith and hope of those who would above all things else "train up their children in the way they should go?"
We have seen cases of the sort above referred to; but probably never without raising the inquiry, How came it to be what it is? The observations and reflections of more than two-score of years, in hundreds of families, some well-ordered and some otherwise, have resulted in giving us some very decided opinions on the subject.
And first in importance and weight of influence is this:
That the prime point of these failures in Christian training has been, that parents did not secure implicit submission to their own authority. Obedience to parents was not established as a principle and wrought into a habit. Submission was not secured by such means and influences that it was rendered cheerfully, under a sense of its rightfulness, and with the resulting peace and joy that true and generous submission ensures. This we believe has been a real fact in the early history of all those unfortunate cases in which parental hopes have been slaughtered, and the saddest scandals have accrued to Christianity.
We have studied this class of wayward children when, along in the days of their youth, they were under special religious influence. We have seen them powerfully convicted of sin. They have told us of their dreadful conflicts under the pressure of conscious obligation to repent. In many cases they have asked us what could be the reason that repentance came so easy to others, yet seemed so utterly impossible to them. In more cases than one we have put the inquiry, Did you accustom your heart to cheerful obedience to parents when you were young? Have you ever known what it is to give up your will, and be happy about it, too—happier even than when you held out and carried your point and had your own way?
In all these cases we have had but one answer—in the negative. "No, I never did submit cheerfully to the will of my father or my mother. I always either stood my ground doggedly and boldly, or I made some sort of compromise which saved me the trial of giving up my will."
The first time we heard this it seemed to be sound philosophy. Alas! it was but too good a reason for the intense difficulty they now found in meeting the plain, but, in their view, hard demands of God's government. But when we heard it again and again, and when it became obvious that this was the uniform, perpetual answer of those who could not submit their will to God's will, and therefore could find nothing feasible or tolerable in the stern demand for repentance, then we came to look upon this matter of the parental training of children in a new light. It assumed a degree of importance second to nothing else in the whole circle of human influence. Neglect here began to seem like the unwitting murder of souls. We were driven to inquire, How comes it to pass that there are so many such cases, even in families where the Bible is respected, and parents seem to have an honest purpose to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord?
We will allude to the results of our inquiries and observations.
Mr. A. and his excellent wife are very full of public business. There will be a great many hours every day, therefore, in which neither of them know very definitely where their children are, or what they are doing. If they hear incidentally of wrong things done by their children, they either find it hard to believe they were in fault, or they know too little about the case to judge and act wisely; and being moreover very short of time, and very much pressed with other duties, the case is sure not to get proper attention, and will not be discreetly disposed of. Ill tempers, and even crimes, get in the way of slipping by. Parental charity becomes only the more fondly cherished as the parents find others complaining of their children; and suspending their otherwise good judgment, they come to account it their special vocation to stand in defense of children of whom so few find any good thing to say.
Hence to their parents, those children are never thoroughly known. Of course they are not governed. Of course their wills are not brought into subjection to parental authority.
Mr. B. and his wife, we are sorry to say, are never decided and strong in family government, except when in a passion. When the child becomes impudent and violent, they are stirred up fearfully, and then take the case in hand with irregular and usually excessive severity. Passionate correction only maddens. It takes an age, almost, to wipe out the sense of conscious wrong which one such scene will leave on the mind of a child.
It were better far to suspend all correction than to touch it while unduly excited.
In the family of Mr. C. the father uses the rod and the mother kisses. She grieves over his severity; he depreciates and condemns bitterly her ruinous indulgence. Hence, even if the father were judicious without a fault, the mother practically forbids his reaching the conscience and the heart of his child. If they are known to differ radically in their government (and unless their children are idiots they will know it), it will be one of the miracles of the family state if the ends of good government are gained under their joint administration.
Mr. D. has a good theory of family government, in so far as the submission of the child's will to the father's is concerned. He determines to carry this point at all events. No case of palpable wrong appearing on which to take issue, he gets up a case on very little, if any, valid grounds, and commences the operation of breaking in.
Now the misfortune here is that he cannot have the conscience of his child on his side, and the submission is, in a moral point of view, valueless. Indeed, it were well if it be not far more an evil than a good. Poor Mr. D. may have a good theory in some points, but he needs more common sense in applying it.
Mr. E. and his wife mean pretty well, but are slack—just a little slack. Sometimes they say it shall be so, but they lose sight of the case, and obedience is not secured. The little fellow remembered the first omission, and made a little record of it so as not to forget that by watching his opportunity or by prudent delay or resistance, the authority could be evaded, and he could have his own way. If there comes up an extreme case, and father is very much in earnest, he finds it prudent to give in once in awhile for the sake of peace and safety; but the principle of universal obedience is out of the question. You can hardly say his mind has been brought up to that question at all. It is only obedience in hard, rare, and extreme cases, and then on the score of expediency. So that the moral effect of real obedience as a principle is never gained.
Now, probably more than half the parents who under this description might be called Mr. and Mrs. E., would think you slandered them if you were to suggest the exact condition of the idea of government and submission in the minds of their children. Do not they carry their point when they really set out for it? Perhaps they do; but if all was right there would be no occasion for that earnest setting out for it, every time an inclination was to be crossed and a point carried. If obedience was settled as a principle it would come easy, and a look with the eye would suffice.—Oberlin Evangelist.
"Where are we?"
By M. W. H.
THIS question, though asked with reference to very different circumstances, has brought so vividly to my recollection, an incident of my early life, that I will not resist the inclination, to transfer it to paper. It was during a season of deep religious interest, when my pastor meeting me in the aisle of the church, greeted me with the abrupt salutation, "Mary where are you." My simple but emphatic answer was, "I do not know." With equal brevity he said, "well—build surely," and passed on. He had known me intimately from childhood, and this scene illustrates perhaps the characteristics of each, as well as could pages. I trust I did build securely then, but so deliberately, that as I now look back upon those days, I can plainly see how numerous were the anxious lookers-on.
Twice at least, since that time I have passed crises in my religious experience, and out of each I trust I have emerged on the right side. The first was in this wise; I had been educated in the most approved orthodoxy, even sectarianism, but I had never felt or witnessed denominational antagonism, until the Methodists commenced a series of meetings, in a locality where some saw fit to regard it an intrusion. In attending those meetings I soon found my self-love wounded, and my sectarianism exposed; for I had not then learned the lesson embodied in these words of Paul, "If any man trust that he is Christ's let him of himself think this, again, that as he is Christ's, so are others Christ's." Therefore when one of their preachers addressed me conciliatorily I answered him as haughtily as any pharisee need, and for the time repulsed him. But a rebellious conflict was begun in my own heart, and ere it was ended I was humbled, and vanquished. The walls of exclusiveness were thrown down, and myself prepared to unite in fellowship, with the followers of Jesus wherever found, and be the better for that union.
Years rolled on. My surroundings and associations were changed by my removing among strangers. And here it was reserved for one, who had been a minister in the same denomination as myself, for fifty years, and another equally veteran in the Christian life, but whose theories were but "the echo of the priests' lips," so to jar my religious sentiments as to arouse me from stupidity, and from that time, my Pastor and Bible-class teacher, have been gently pushing me onward; for contrast is a strong illuminator, and if to day, I stand on a somewhat different religious platform, who has wrought that change?
Thus are we often by the varying scenes of this ever-changing world called to decide the question, Where are we? Happy then may we account ourselves, if we ever have the sure word of Inspiration to guide us in that decision. And is there, any state of mind, or outward circumstance, or even a condition into which our own indiscretion may have brought us, but has been anticipated and met, by the Holy Scriptures? And oftentimes, in a casual reading may not some portion so appropriate to the full want of the mind, come over us with a power, as soothing and comforting, as if an audible, supernatural voice pronounced the words? Then, who need doubt, but by a prayerful "giving heed thereto according to his word," God shall reveal even this unto his chosen, not only as individuals, but as a people which is now acting its part in prophecy?
M. W. H.
Malone, N. Y.
The Christian's Walk.
CHRISTIAN! walk carefully—danger is near!
On in thy journey, with trembling and fear,
Snares from without and temptation within,
Seek to entice thee again into sin.
Christian! walk cheerfully—though the fierce storm
Darken the sky with the clouds of alarm,
Soon will those clouds and the tempest be past,
And thou dwell safely with Jesus at last.
Christian! walk humbly—exult not in pride!
All that thou hast is by Jesus supplied;
Holding thee up, he directeth thy ways,
To him be forever the glory and praise.
Christian! walk steadfastly—while it is light;
Swift are approaching the shadows of night!
All that thy Master hath bidden thee do,
Haste to perform, for thy moments are few.
Christian! walk prayerfully—oft wilt thou fall,
If thou forget on thy Saviour to call:
But safe shalt thou walk through each trial and care,
If thou art clad in the armor of prayer.
Christian! walk hopefully—trouble and pain,
Cease when the haven of rest thou dost gain.
And from the lips of the Judge shall be heard,
"Enter for ever the joy of thy Lord!"
What will you say?
“WHAT wilt thou say when he shall punish thee?”—Jer. iii. 21.
God has assured us in his own word that sin shall not go unpunished. Were it otherwise, law could not be vindicated, and heaven could not stand. And they who think differently have either too low a conception of the character of God, or no true conception of their own sinfulness. And now, this being the case, “what wilt thou say when he shall punish thee?”
1. Will you say you thought God too good to punish you? That would be simply to say that God is too good to be just. If he is not too good to punish in this world, what assurance have you that he will not hereafter? We have more reason to conclude that he is too good to look upon sin with any degree of allowance.
2. Will you say you were without conviction? That is to say you never felt it wrong to sin; that it was right to disregard the claims of God. If the best men have been convinced of sin, where are you to be found? And will you say you were never convinced that you were a sinner sufficient to feel the need of a Saviour?
3. Will you say you could not repent? That would be to tell God how well you loved sin, or that you were so wicked as to have no desire to become better. It would be to tell him how set is the heart against God.
4. Will you say you could not come to Jesus? How will this sound in the ear of him who all your lifetime has been saying, “Come unto me!” and, “He that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out?”
5. Will you say you did not know the way?—and that, when the Bible and Christian experiences, and churches, and Sabbaths, have brought the kingdom of God nigh unto you, and all of your complaints will be resolved into this, “ye would not come to me that you might have life?”
What will you say? If unrepentant and unforgiven you will say, “Rocks and mountains, fall on us, to hide us from the presence of the Lord.” Let me inquire rather, What will you say to mercy's call? Say, “God be merciful to me a sinner;” and be reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, our adorable Mediator.—Sel.