Review and Herald, Vol. 37, No. 18.
Discussion at Rochester Colony, MichPage 1
Earlier text: Mrs. Deacon Gray’s Bonnet; and What It CostGrace to Sustain in Trial
God did not take up the three Hebrews out of the furnace of fire; but he came down and walked with them in it. He did not remove Daniel from the den of lions; he sent his angels to close the mouths of the beasts. He did not, in answer to the prayer of Paul, remove the thorn in the flesh; but he gave him a sufficiency of grace to sustain him. SOME men need a tempest to save them from a wreck. The Difference.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
It is a warm, lovely spring day, and I have just been out on the prairie for recreation. Passing a delightful brook of clear, sparkling water, I stopped to admire it and to cool my face with its waters. The channel was narrow and the water ran rapidly. I put my hand in and passed it down stream with the current. How smooth! how gentle! it felt like oil to my touch. Then I passed my hand up the stream against the current. What a change! The gentle waters seemed to become angry in a moment. They dashed and foamed and roared, and gave all the evidences of opposition and anger of which such a brook was capable. Then I fell to meditating. This stream is just like the great current of humanity. When you fall right in with it, go the same way it goes, do as it does, then all goes on as smooth as oil. But just face about, and go in the opposite direction from the current, go up stream, and what a tumult is immediately raised! Shall we therefore give up, fall in with the current, and go down stream to perdition? God forbid. Again, how much easier to go down stream than up stream. Drift wood, sticks, straws, any worthless thing can go down stream, with the current. But do you see anything going up stream, you may be sure there is life and will and power there. When a person undertakes to go contrary to the mass of the world, it immediately cries out, Fool, weak-mind, shallow-brain, drift-wood, &c. But if there is any truth or force in our illustration141these qualities belong on the other side of the house. Who ever saw drift-wood going against the current? Let no one be frightened by the use of these terms. Justified Without the Law.
It is considered a very foolish fish that will bite a bare hook; and there are some kinds of game so easily taken as to excite only the contempt of the trapper and hunter. With some such feelings, it seems to us, must the enemy of all truth regard those whom he can lead to oppose the law of God, on the ground that Paul says that we are justified by faith. A person who has been taking the REVIEW in a distant State, writes to have his paper stopped, and quotes this text: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Rom. 3: 28.” Then he adds, “As we see the day approaching, why cause a division among those who are looking for his second personal coming?” The utter misapprehension, both of our position, and the meaning of the apostle’s language, revealed in these lines, is marvelous to behold. Who claims that we are to be justified by the deeds of the law? We certainly do not. Justification by faith is our sole dependence, and ever has been. But, on the other hand, who can take so superficial a view of Paul’s language as to suppose that when he says “without the deeds of the law,” he means that we are at liberty to do those things which the law prohibits. Friend, do you believe you have liberty now to commit any of the sins forbidden by the ten commandments? You do not; neither do we. Would you expect to be justified by faith while living in the commission of these sins? You would not; neither would we. This is the real question in this matter; and in this we are agreed. The difference arises from your misapprehension of our position. Why make division? What a question is this to come from an Adventist! It might be used to gag down any truth that was ever introduced into the world. The Jews opposed our Lord himself with it; and he met them by saying that he came not to send peace on earth but a sword, not union but division. Romanists tried to block the wheels of the Reformation in the same manner. Away with such a question when raised in opposition to the truth. Truth has claims paramount to all others in this world; and the divisions which the truth makes are not to be laid to its charge. The trouble is not with the truth, but with error which has led men away from God and the right path. Don’t make God the author of the work of the enemy. Ahab charged Elijah with being the troubler of Israel, but Elijah, under the impulse of a divine indignation against the insult thus offered to the truth of God, retorted, “I have not troubled Israel; but thou and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the Lord, and thou hast followed Baalim.” So now the trouble is not with the truth, but with error which has drawn men away, and rendered it necessary that there should be division if any would be saved; for the masses are going down to ruin; and they who would gain eternal life must tread another path from that which they are following. Why, then, make division among those who are looking for the Lord? Because but few who profess to be looking for him, are ready for his coming. They are in error on a vital point of that law of liberty by which we are all to be judged. Their practice must be reformed. The idea that God’s people in the last days are coming up to the second coming of Christ to be translated, while not conforming to the whole law of God both in theory and practice, is preposterous. No; the distinguishing characteristics of these, as compared with other religionists, will be their keeping of all the commandments of God, as brought to view in that message in Rev 14, which last precedes the appearing of the Son of Man on the great white cloud. Very indifferent views must he have of the importance of truth, the danger of error, and the value of eternal life, who can complacently fold his hands and say, The coming of the Lord is near; so let us not have division, but if we are wrong, let us all go to hell together. AFTER the reader has perused the following article, he will be ready to agree with the writer that the reign of peace is not very near at hand. People are to raise the cry of peace and safety in the last days; and the surprising part of it is that they do it at the very time when the earth trembles with the tramp of armies and bristles with bayonets, which are ready for the fray. There is not, to be sure, as the writer says, the least cause for war; and this makes it all the greater anomaly that there is no hope of peace. Let us pray for the long-promised reign of righteousness soon to begin. When one reads of the elaborate preparations which even the most civilized of European nations still continue to make for attacking their neighbors, or, as they all pretend, for defending themselves against their neighbors, one can hardly help feeling a good deal disheartened about the probability of our being able to find a substitute for war, as a mode of deciding international disputes. All the Continental Powers have greatly increased their armaments within the last thirty years. France increased hers greatly in 1867; Russia has greatly increased hers; and now England, the most peaceful, and best protected by nature of them all, is engaged in greatly increasing hers. What renders all this the more remarkable and the more depressing is, that it is the great triumphs of peace, such as the railroad and the telegraph, which make this increase necessary. The railroad and telegraph having rendered the transportation and concentration of troops easier, it has followed that every Government must have more troops to transport and concentrate. The result is that every Government has either put its whole male population under arms, or is in a fair way to do so, and we are having war after war in rapid succession, and wars as bloody and cruel as any the world has seen in any age. The prospect looks all the gloomier when we come to consider what these wars and rumors of wars are all about. There is no more conflict of interest between the different European States than between the various States of the American Union. France has just as much reason, so far as money and comfort are concerned, for living in peace with Germany and Italy, as New York has for living in peace with New Jersey and Pennsylvania. No Frenchman or German would deny this; and there is no Frenchman or German who knows anything about the matter who does not think the American Confederation a blessing to all who live under it, if for no other reason, because it enables the political communities which compose it to do without standing armies, and reduces their disputes to the modest dimensions of lawsuits, capable of settlement by bill and answer. Why, then, in the name of common sense, one naturally asks, do not the European States let each other alone? If they have nothing to gain, as regards wealth or comfort, by fighting each other, why do they fight, and keep constantly ready to fight each other? To this there is only one answer, and it is an answer which makes the prospects of Courts of arbitration look very gloomy; it is that they dislike each other, sometimes even hate and envy each other. Each wants to see the other humiliated. They do not speak each other's language; they do not like each other's manners, or cookery, and have a very low opinion of each other's character. Each thinks the others are constantly up to some kind of mischief. In short, the state of feeling between them is that which one often sees prevailing between neighbors in private life, and it is one which admits of no formal settlement. If Smith and his wife hate and envy Brown and his wife, and cannot bear to see them driving a carriage or putting up a green-house, what can any third party do to reconcile them? If they differ in opinion on some subject, on which exact knowledge is attainable, they may be set right; if they quarrel over a piece of property, or the construction of a contract, or the tracing of a boundary-line, nothing is easier than to call in an arbitrator, and apply either the rules of positive law or the principles of abstract justice to the decision of the controversy. But what can be done when Brown simply says he can't bear Smith, that he is an odious creature; or when Smith says that Brown's airs are a little too much, and that what he wants is to be taken down a peg or two? On such troubles we cannot arbitrate. When we meet a case like this in private life, we turn it over to a minister, as something to be prayed over, and are thankful if the parties keep their hands off each other. When such a state of things arises between nations it would seem as if there was nothing for it but to fight. For sixty-four years Prussia has hated France on account of Jena; now France will probably hate Prussia for sixty-four years more on account of Sedan and Paris—and so it goes on. If you tell them they ought not to hate each other, that the Bible says it is wrong, each will reply that that is very true, but that nevertheless the first chance it gets it will give the other a drubbing, to take the pride and impudence out of it and teach it how to behave. In short, in the matter of charity and forgiveness they feel very much as the poet Heine said he felt about forgiving his enemies. What he asked of Providence was, a modest cottage, with half a dozen of his enemies hanging to a tree in front of his door. He was ready to forgive them, but not till they were hung. The Prussians are ready to love Frenchmen, but only after having given them a severe beating, and after the Frenchmen have acknowledged themselves to be a vain, fickle, vicious people, in every way inferior to the Germans. The French, on the other hand, are willing to love the Germans after having captured Berlin, and after the Germans have acknowledged themselves to be coarse, stupid and gluttonous barbarians, in every way inferior to the French. Both will agree, too, to love and forgive the English, but only after having seized London, and levied a handsome contribution on it, and obtained from both Houses of Parliament a formal acknowledgement that a more perfidious, heartless, canting, and hypocritical nation than England never existed. This being the state of things, the reign of peace is evidently not very near at hand.—New York Paper. D. McCALLUM: Nebuchadnezzar was raised to the throne of Babylon, and reigned two years in connection with his father, before receiving the sole government of the empire, on the death of his father; hence there are two computations of his reign, one dating from the former event, the other from the latter. It was in the second year of his sole reign that he had his dream of the great image. It was four years before this that he took Jerusalem, and carried Daniel into captivity. Hence Daniel had passed his three years' schooling in the Chaldean language before interpreting Nebuchadnezzar's dream. H. G. BUXTON: We forward your letter to the Illinois Conference Committee. WM. COTTRELL: Should a person apply for membership in one of our churches, who was engaged in the business of selling tobacco, set before him the inconsistency of such business with our profession as religionists, and our views and practices as health reformers. If this is clearly presented, he will see it, and either drop that branch of his business, or withdraw his application. If not, we think it would be well to give him time to consider it further before taking any action on the case. S. D. Adventists, who have been in the grocery business in this place, have never sold tobacco, and have never, so far as we are aware, found it any detriment to their business. MRS. E. MILNE: It seems to us the more consistent view to suppose that God in the beginning made no provision for the existence of evil in this world; and that the plan of salvation through the gift of Jesus Christ, was devised to meet the circumstances of the case, after the introduction of sin. If it be asked how this can be reconciled with the idea of God's foreknowledge, it may be said in reply that to make it absolutely necessary for God to foreknow everything would be putting him under the power of a fatality altogether inconsistent with our ideas of the freedom of his position. Must there not be freedom in omniscience, as in all other things? And while God has power to foresee all things, and to extend his vision even to the limits of his own eternity, has he not also power to restrain, at pleasure, the operation of that attribute? God is omnipotent. He has power to do all things; but there are many things he does not do. Or, to limit it still further, there are events happening continually, those even which are not in accordance with his will, which he has power to prevent altogether, or turn in another course, if he should choose so to do; but in reference to which he does not see fit to exert his power at all. Therefore as his omnipotence is thus subject to his will, may not his omniscience be also? J. WILMOT: The P. O. address you inquire for, is Troy, Oakland Co., Mich. MRS. J. A. NOBLE: None of the “Thoughts on Daniel” are yet published in book form. Whether they ever will be or not will depend upon the decision of the Publishing Committee, after the examination of the book of Daniel is completed; and their decision will probably be governed by the call for the work. If there is sufficient call for it, we should be happy to revise it for book form. S. E. EDWARDS: We think a Christian parent could do no less than to require all his children under age to keep the Sabbath. If they conscientiously think it their duty to keep the first day also, we would say, by all means give them the privilege. When they arrive at more intelligent years, it is to be presumed they will be able to see that in keeping that institution, they are obeying only the commandment of men. SUSAN ELMER: See exposition of John 3:13, in REVIEW of May 25, 1869, Vol. xxiii, No. 22. We saw a remark from some one in an eastern paper a few years since, “We shall never have done with this Sabbath question.” We felt at that time to respond, and now feel to reiterate, a hearty Amen; that is, so let it be. Let the agitation never cease, so long as men trample the sacred institution under their feet, and draw excuses for their conduct from the dictionary of folly. “First pure, then peaceable,” says the apostle. If there was no error in the world, truth would not need to battle for its rights; the opinions of men would not need to be disturbed; the sword which the Lord came to send on earth, would not need to be unsheathed. But so long as error, hydra-headed, is striving to thrust its hideous form into every nook and corner of the land, truth must repel its advances, though men of pewter and putty everywhere lift up their hands in holy horror at the agitation, or give up the field. No peace, unless the soldiers of the cross are recreant to duty, while there is impurity in life, and corruption in doctrine. “We shall never have done with this Sabbath question.” Amen, again. In no better cause can a man engage than in vindicating an institution of our Father in Heaven, which has fallen into the spoiler’s hands. Cease to agitate? Never. Cease to urge the claims of God’s holy law? Not while men disobey it. Let this great reform stop or go backward? We have not so learned duty. Be less zealous in the work? We shall be more so. Contract the limits of our operations? We shall enlarge them. Let the agitation die away? We shall increase it. A truth of unparalleled clearness is given us. God has a controversy with the nations in this respect. He has set his hand to vindicate the claims of his law, against the corruption and presumption of the Man of Sin. A counterfeit Sabbath soon to be made a civil test in the law of the land, as the true one is now a moral test in the law of God, the people must be enlightened on the subject. And they will be—so enlightened, that when they decide against the right, it will be in obedience to the claims of self-interest, in opposition to clear convictions of duty. How Shall I Vote?
By R. F. COTTRELL
The question of a religious amendment of the Constitution will soon be before the people, and we shall have the privilege of giving our votes for or against. The call for this amendment is virtually a call for the formation of the image, as prophesied of in Rev. 13:14. How shall I vote? 1. I cannot vote for an image of the papacy—an establishment to enforce the worship and mark of that power, and to persecute those who refuse, because they feel bound in duty to keep the commandments of God. 2. But if I vote against the measure, it will be claimed, with much plausibility, that I array myself against Christianity, and take sides with infidelity, irreligion, intemperance, and every evil work. One party will be considered the Christian party, the other, of course, the Anti-Christian. Shall I encourage unnecessary prejudice against myself, in a fruitless effort to stay the fulfillment of prophecy? I am not aware that there is any moral wrong in voting, where I have the undisputed privilege. Neither do I see it to be wrong to vote against a measure that will lead to the persecution of the people of God; because that God has foreseen and foretold that it will carry. It was doubtless right for Joseph of Arimathea, in the Jewish council that condemned Christ, to withhold his vote or even vote against the measure, though Christ was to die for the sins of the world. Luke 23:51. Yet doubtless he prudently forbore unnecessarily to provoke their rage. All can see the dilemma. Who can help me out of it? R. F. COTTRELL. An Improper Use of Terms.
By W. H. Littlejohn
Men in all ages have attached more or less importance to names. Some have even seemed to think that the appellation given to a place, an individual, or a class, has much to do in determining its history. Without falling in with this view altogether, we believe that there is a propriety in these things, the regarding of which can produce no evil, and, naturally result in good. So far as our own denomination is concerned, the designation which it shall bear through its coming history is one of those things which has been decided in the past. Nor have we any fault to find with the selection which has been made. Some may object that the title is not a scriptural one. This fact, however, to our mind, does not present a serious difficulty. To cling to the term Christian, disciple, saint, &c., &c., with the tenacity which leads some who bear them to be continually resting an argument for their orthodoxy upon the fact that they are thus designated, at times presents an appearance of exclusiveness which lays them liable to the charge of claiming as their own not only the name, but also a monopoly, of the saintly virtues. It would be an undertaking of no small magnitude to find for the more than the six hundred and sixty-six different sects in Christendom Bible appellations; and yet it is not unfrequently necessary to be able to discriminate between them. In order that this can be done in the clearest and shortest manner possible, they have generally fixed upon some designation peculiar to themselves. The more perfectly descriptive, therefore, of the various points of faith held by these different denominations, the more proper and significant are the titles by which they are known. Judging from this standpoint, we, as a people, should be well pleased with the name, Seventh-day Adventists, since it presents the prominent parts of our faith in a manner too clear to allow of our being confounded by an individual of intelligence with any other body of Christians. 1. It sets forth the fact that we are Adventists; or believe in the near coming of the Lord. 2. As a consequence, we are Christians. 3. That we are commandment-keeping Christians; since we observe the seventh day. 4. That in this last particular we differ from the mass of first-day Adventists, who in common with the Christian world, observe Sunday. Having said thus much respecting the name which we find ourselves providentially wearing, and about which there are clustering in the past too many pleasant reminiscences to admit for a moment of the thought of change, I wish to call attention here to an improper use of terms which seems to have become nearly universal with those in the world who speak of us, and which is encouraged, to a very large extent, by the practice of our own people. It is this: Very many of our brethren and sisters are in the habit of styling themselves Seventh-day “Advents,” from which fact this custom has become general with those who do not belong to us. A moment’s reflection will satisfy any one acquainted with the laws of language, that this form of expression is not correct. We are not Seventh-day “Advents,” but Seventh-day “Adventists.” If you would feel the force of this criticism, turn to Webster’s dictionary, and under the word “Advent,” you will find the following definitions, viz., 1. “A coming; approach; visitation. Specifically, the first or second coming of Christ.” Now we can in no sense represent the coming of Christ; but we are firm believers in its near approach, and are therefore properly styled “Adventists,” which signifies not the event itself, as does the word “Advent,” but those who believe the personal coming of Christ to be near at hand. Let us, therefore, who have been guilty of encouraging the error in question, manifest that teachable spirit which is always ready to improve in everything that relates to the cause of God, and thereby afford good evidence of that humility of heart which must ever attend the name, in order to constitute us genuine Adventists. Is Protestantism True to Itself?
By S. B. Whitney
THIS query was suggested while comparing the proposed religious amendment of the Constitution of the United States with the following from D’Aubigné’s History of the Reformation, in which he speaks of the two branches of the work: that in Switzerland, which leaned upon the civil arm, and that in Germany, which relied solely upon the arm of the Lord. “If there is any doctrine that distinguishes Christianity from every other religion, it is its spirituality. A heavenly life brought down to man—such is its work; thus the opposition of the spirit of the gospel to the spirit of the world was the great fact which signalized the entrance of Christianity among the nations. But what its Founder had separated had soon come together again; the church had fallen into the arms of the world; and this criminal union had reduced it to the deplorable condition in which it was found at the era of the Reformation. “Thus one of the greatest tasks of the sixteenth century was to restore the spiritual element to its rights. The gospel of the reformers had nothing to do with the world and with politics. While the Roman hierarchy had become a matter of diplomacy and a court intrigue, the Reformation was destined to exercise no other influence over princes and people than that which proceeds from the gospel of peace. “If the Reformation, having attained a certain point, became untrue to its nature, began to parley and temporize with the world, and ceased thus to follow up the spiritual principle that it had so loudly proclaimed, it was unfaithful to God and to itself. “Henceforward its decline was at hand. “It is impossible for a society to prosper if it be unfaithful to principles it lays down. Having abandoned what constituted its life, it can find naught but death.” “It was God’s will that this great truth should be inscribed on every threshold of the temple he was then raising in the world; and a striking contrast was to make this truth stand gloriously forth. One portion of the Reform was to seek the alliance of the world, and in this alliance find a destruction full of desolation. “Another portion, looking up to God, was haughtily to reject the arm of the flesh, and by this very act of faith, secure a noble victory. “If three centuries have gone astray, it is because they were unable to comprehend so holy and solemn a lesson.” The above speaks for itself; and who, but those drunk with the “wine of Babylon,” cannot see that the proposed religious movement is contrary to the spirit of the gospel, either as taught by its Founder or illustrated by its effect upon the hearts of men, whenever and wherever received. And do we not in this, have additional evidence of the fall of Babylon, and that the time is near for the formation of the image to the beast and the issuing of “unrighteous decrees” in the interest of those who substituted the traditions of men for the commandments of God? May God help us to “discern the signs of the times,” and prepare for the solemn test. The Sin of Sabbath-Breaking Condemned Under the Gospel.
By D. T. Bourdeau
It is thought by some that because the sin of Sabbath-breaking is not directly mentioned or reproved in the New Testament, the obligation to keep the Sabbath does not exist in this dispensation. But this mode of reasoning is certainly defective. It overlooks those scriptures in the New Testament which show that the Sabbath law is binding in the gospel age. Matt. 5:17-19; 12:10, etc.; that Christ took special pains to show what is lawful on the Sabbath day, Matt. 12; Mark 2; Luke 13, etc.; that Christ and the primitive Christians kept the Sabbath, Luke, 4:16; 23:54-56; Acts 13:42, 44; 16:13; 17:2; 18:4, 11; and that there is a day in this dispensation which belongs to the Lord. Rev. 1:10; Ex. 20:10; Isa. 58:13. These scriptures are sufficient to show us our duty in regard to the Sabbath, and to prove that the Bible is a sufficient rule of faith and practice on the Sabbath question. The fallacy of the above reasoning may be illustrated by a son, who, knowing the rules of the family of which he is a member, would wait until his parents should reprove some member of the family for breaking them, before deciding to obey their requirements. It would be wiser to obey before reproof is administered. But if the law of the Sabbath remains in force, it as strongly reproves sin as it did when Jehovah proclaimed it from Sinai; the example of the Saviour and primitive Christians in keeping the Sabbath is a standing rebuke to those who knowingly break the Sabbath; and we should learn from the threatenings of the Lord against Sabbath-breaking under the old dispensation, as though they were uttered against the violations of the Sabbath under the new. The fact that no special mention is made in the New Testament of the sin of Sabbath-breaking in the times in which it was written, is good evidence that those preaching and writing in those times were not under the painful necessity of saying as much upon this subject as we are called upon to say. In other words, the Sabbath was observed by the Christians of those times. And how could it be otherwise? The Hebrew Christians in Palestine and elsewhere kept the Sabbath; and the Hebrew Christians who were dispersed among the Gentiles generally formed the foundation of the churches which were established in the countries of the Gentiles. These pious Jews had already exerted a salutary influence in favor of the Sabbath. And as the practice of Christians was uniform on the subject of the Sabbath; as they kept one and the same Sabbath, the Gentiles who received the gospel would also receive the Sabbath without contestation. Hence we see them at Antioch inviting Paul to preach to them on the next Sabbath day. This request was made on the seventh day Sabbath with reference to the next seventh-day Sabbath, showing that there was no first-day Sabbath between. We also see the Gentiles in the populous city of Corinth, joining themselves to Paul and other Jews in the worship of God “every Sabbath.” Acts 18:4, etc. We are sometimes asked why the apostles said nothing about the Sabbath on the day of Pentecost and on other occasions. We answer, that the Jews were commanded to repent of having killed Jesus. This was their great sin at that time. But all this vast multitude assembled from sixteen different countries, and composed of Jews and proselytes, or Gentiles converted to Judaism, kept the seventh-day Sabbath. Acts 2. What a mighty influence they must have exerted in favor of the Sabbath! and how providential it was that the Jews should thus be scattered in about every nation under heaven! Take also as an illustration the eunuch of Ethiopia, of which it had been written by an inspired penman: “Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” Ps. 68:31. He came to Jerusalem to worship, Acts 8, and returned converted to Christianity, and keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. Doubtless some of the apostles were soon sent to help him. Is it therefore strange that we should find the churches of Ethiopia keeping the ancient Sabbath? So of the numerous churches of Central Asia; and, in short, so of all the churches in early times, who received the pure gospel and did not come under pagan and papal influence. It is unreasonable to select an isolated scripture that does not mention the Sabbath, and conclude therefrom that the Sabbath is not binding. By this mode of reasoning men can disprove all the doctrines of the Bible. The book of Esther does not mention the name of God. Must we hence conclude that there is no God? We may if the reasoning of some on the Sabbath question is correct. But it is a remarkable fact that when we come to prophecies relating to our times, we not only see the Sabbath enforced as the seal, sign, or mark, of the living God, and a Sabbath reform pointed out, Rev. 7:2; Ex. 31:17, etc.; Eze. 20:12, 20; Isa. 56:12; 58:12, 13; but we also have a solemn warning against deliberately receiving the mark of the beast, papacy, as opposed to the commandments of God and the true Sabbath. Rev. 14:9-12; 7:1, 2. Here we see the sin of knowingly profaning the Sabbath, reproved. In conclusion we would call your attention to Acts 13:38, 39: “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins; and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” All the things from which they could not be justified by the law of Moses, or typical law, which prefigured the true means of justification in Christ, embraced not less than the transgression of all the commandments, not less than all the sins against the moral law of which the Jews had been guilty. Therefore the necessity of obtaining remission of, or justification from, the profanation of the Sabbath exists under this dispensation. D. T. BOURDEAU. Plan and Dare to Do Right.
By D. T. Bourdeau
An old proverb says, “If you would rest well at night, you must previously prepare your resting-place.” This proverb contains a principle that applies in religion, as well as to natural rest. There is a rest that the soul enjoys in faithfully serving God, which is sweet, recuperative, and passeth all understanding. This is the rest that those enjoy who are at peace with God. We prepare to enjoy this rest by meekly bowing to God’s requirements, and accepting Christ as our sacrifice and great burden-bearer. But this rest may be broken by a careless neglect of duty and a guilty conscience. One common way in which this is done is to heedlessly break the Sabbath. Some may do this in laboring for themselves or for others half an hour or longer, after the sun sets Friday night. We do not see why it is not as bad to work the first half hour of the Sabbath, as it is to work thirty minutes Saturday in broad day light; for God sanctified the entire seventh day. If we are laboring for ourselves, we can arrange our affairs so as to commence the Sabbath on time; and so if we labor for others. We should let them understand, as we hire out to them, that we cannot infringe on the Sabbath; and then there will be no after-clap, no disturbance, no guilty conscience, and no bad example set before those who may be watching us to see if we carry out our profession. In serving God we must have moral stamina, and courage to say, No, to temptation; be men and women of God, and never yield a hair of our faith to keep friendly with others, and for fear that we may lose financially. It is dear friendship that is obtained by displeasing God. And if we yield on one point to please others, they will labor the harder to have us yield on other points; and there is no stopping place. We lose our manhood and our influence for right. But if we are inflexible, and dare to do right, our consistency and moral courage will be respected by those whose friendship is worth having; and we shall let our light shine, and get along better in our worldly matters than we would if we were creatures of dough, yielding to every impression. Why Don’t They?
By Dudley Marvin Canright
MEN are strange beings. They reason so strangely. Sometimes they are sound on some points, but on others are perfectly insane. I will give an illustration: Here is a brother who heard, carefully weighed the evidences for, and finally embraced, present truth. Certainly that was consistent. He now tries to get his neighbor to come and hear, or at least to read a tract. But no, his neighbor will do neither. He does not care to investigate. He says he is satisfied to live and die as his father and everybody else does. Our brother pronounces him a very unreasonable man, and has little hopes of him. Very well. Now go carefully up to this same good brother and introduce to him the health reform, and ask him to take the Reformer a year, and investigate the subject. What a change comes over him! He has no interest in it, he does not care to read, he does not want to hear anything about it, he is satisfied with his way of living, he wants nothing better, he and his family have good health, he don’t want the Reformer, &c. Where did he learn such profound argument? Of that neighbor probably. Now a man in this condition is no better judge of the merit of the health reform than that neighbor is of the present truth. To such we say, Be consistent, and do not condemn this thing till you have investigated it and tried it. We have no fears if you will do this. The Reformer this spring comes to us with new life and interest. It is greatly improved in many respects. We are sure that every family would be benefited by it. Try it friends. Don’t delay. Take it now. It costs only one dollar. It may save you fifty in the coming year. Are the leaders in our churches doing their duty in this matter? Do they take an interest in extending the circulation of this valuable journal? Why don’t they? D. M. CANRIGHT. “There Remaineth a Rest.” Heb. 4:9.
By N. Orcutt
How precious to the weary and wayworn pilgrim, is the assurance that “There is resting by-and-by.” How it cheers and encourages the heart, amid the toils and dangers of the way. That there is danger to be encountered, and toil to be endured, we learn from Heb. 3:4. Hear the apostle: “Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Chap. 4:11. “So we see that they (the Israelites) could not enter in because of unbelief.” Chap. 3:19. The same apostle, in alluding to the same subject, has informed us that “all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition upon whom the ends of the world are come.” 1 Cor. 10:11. How important that we heed the admonition: “Let us therefore fear lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached as well as unto them; but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” Heb. 4:1, 2. How truly has the poet said:— “This life to toil is given,
And he improves it best
Who seeks by patient labor
To enter into rest.” Are toil and wearisome labor our portion? They but afford us the discipline we need. Rightly borne, with cheerfulness, they prove a means of grace. Do perils and dangers thicken? Rejoice. They are but omens that the goal is nigh. Do temptations, doubts, and fears assail? Look away to Him who has been tempted as we are, our great High Priest, who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities. Take courage. “Come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” See Heb. 4:15, 16. “Can we find a friend so faithful,
Who will all our sorrows share?
Jesus knows our every weakness;
Take it to the Lord in prayer.” If by patient continuance in well-doing, we seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, we may have eternal life—share in the rest that remaineth to the people of God. See Rom. 2:7. If we are steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, our labor shall not be in vain in the Lord. 1 Cor. 15:58. Soon, if faithful, the last battle fought, the final victory won, we shall rest. Blessed assurance. I shall rest, I shall rest,
When time’s tempests all are o’er
I shall rest, I shall rest,
When I reach the heavenly shore.
I shall rest from woe and sorrow,
In that bright, eternal morrow.
I shall rest from tears and sighing;
I shall rest from pain and dying.
I shall rest, I shall rest,
When all mortal toils are past;
I shall rest, I shall rest
With the ransomed host at last.