Review and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 5. (7/21/1868)

Review and Herald

Jul 21, 1868

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 21, 1868

The Sermon.

By S. B. Whitney

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; PREACH THE WORD. 2 Tim. iv, 2.

THE BODY FOR THE LORD.

BY ELD. S. B. WHITNEY.

TEXT.—“Now the body is . . . for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.” 1 Cor. vi, 13.

We do not approach this subject again, dear hearers, because it lacks for advocates, or with the egotistical presumption that we can do more than others have already done; but with an honest purpose to answer our responsibility in the measure given us; desirous that our influence, though small, may be cast in favor of a subject of such importance.

By many, the fact expressed in our text is entirely overlooked, supposing that no moral obligation rests upon them as to the treatment of their bodies, seemingly ignorant of the relation existing between the body and mind, and consequently the development of the moral faculties. It is not our design, however, at this time, to discuss this relation, but to inquire concerning the obligation that does rest upon us to glorify God in our bodies.

That the body is for the Lord, our text positively states; and this would lead us to inquire, By virtue of what does the Lord lay claim to our bodies? And the apostle answers us in the first clause of verse 20: “For ye are bought with a price.” None that “know the Scriptures and the power of God,” will deny but that he has purchased his people, body and spirit, so far as concerns their future redemption; but this testimony evidently has reference to our present condition; and “therefore,” continues the apostle, “glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” Agreeing with this, is his testimony in 1 Tim. iv, 8: “Godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.”

But we may inquire again right here, For what purpose has God bought the bodies of his saints in this world? Verse 20 gives us the answer: “What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?” From this we learn that God has purchased our bodies for the express purpose of making them the recipients of the influence of his divine Spirit, the reprover, instructor, comforter, helper, and sealer of his people. And this is perfectly consistent when we consider that it is through the medium of our physical organization that the effect of this influence is experienced by ourselves or manifested to others.

Being taught by the foregoing that we are not our own, having been bought with a price, and especially our bodies, for the purpose of being made the temple of the Holy Ghost, how can we fail to perceive that our bodies are really at the disposal of another instead of ourselves? or how can we expect to enjoy the influence of the Spirit of God unless we acknowledge and strive to fulfill our obligation to yield up our bodies to Him to whom they rightly belong, for the purpose for which he designs to use them.

But this consideration brings us to another thought, and that is, that God proceeds in this matter in harmony with our acknowledged agency and responsibility; and instead of making violent seizure upon the goods and asserting his absolute right to them, leaves us free to choose whether we will accept the benefits of the purchase by fulfilling our part of the contract and making delivery of the goods, or be dealt with as criminals, after trial and conviction, for retaining in our possession and appropriating to our use the property of another. Our duty in the matter is thus clearly pointed out to us: “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God which is your reasonable service.” Rom. xii, 1. Here, with earnest entreaty, appealing to our nobler faculties, with the mightiest consideration ever brought to bear upon them, namely, the mercies of God, are we asked to do that which the commonest justice would dictate to men not wholly devoid of a sense of justice. But furthermore, brethren, this matter is not to be viewed in the light merely of a civil contract, in which the pur-

chaser seeks only his own advantage; but in this case the highest good of the party making the delivery is sought and gained. How, when rightly considered, does this enhance our obligation, and leave us without excuse if we fail to fulfill it.

There is still another consideration in connection with the last text quoted, which may be regarded as another portion of our subject. “Holy, acceptable unto God,” says the apostle. This certainly implies a different condition from that in which they are now found, and makes it necessary that they be purified, or that the process of cleansing be performed upon them. And this is clearly taught in the word of God. Paul, in 2 Cor. vi, in speaking of the illicit intercourse in which the church were in danger of participating, after asking several questions which we should all agree in answering correctly, presents one very pertinent to the subject before us. “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?” Verse 16. Why cannot we answer this as readily? But what is the temple of God? He continues in the same verse, “For ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people;” or, “Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God?” 1 Cor. vi, 19. It is by his Spirit that God dwells and walks in his people, and by the union thus established that he becomes their God, and they his people. Having learned what the temple is, we are prepared to judge of the idols, for they must correspond; and we must certainly conclude that they are not persons nor principles, but those things that carnal appetites and passions lead us to lust after. And in harmony with this conclusion is the following exhortation: “Wherefore, come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.” Verses 17, 18. And in view of these exhortations and promises, the apostle continues, “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” Chap. vii, 1.

The filthiness of the flesh is removed by a course of strict Christian temperance, by which the contaminating and injurious effects of hurtful things upon our systems are remedied, or avoided, as the case may be; and the filthiness of the spirit, by the victory thus gained over our appetites and passions, and our hearts being taught the lesson of submission and self-denial prescribed by such a course; and thus holiness is perfected; and the “end of our faith” will be “the salvation of our souls.”

But we cannot accomplish all this alone; and therefore we read, “And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly [how much does wholly include in this case?]; and I pray God your whole spirit, and soul, and body, be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Thess. v, 23. We must be made blameless in order to be preserved so, and we are made thus by being sanctified wholly, spirit, soul, and body.

But you inquire, Can the body be accounted blameless or guilty? I answer, Yes, in this way: We are

accounted blameless or guilty with respect to our bodies, as we do or do not purify them, and present them to God a living and acceptable sacrifice. So we read again, “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” 1 Cor. iii, 16, 17.

Solemn and momentous is this question, then, and woe to the one who shall lightly esteem, or disregard it.

Eve, tempted with the fruit of a tree, sinned; and whatever other lusts may have conspired to keep man under the thralldom of sin, combined with them, in the beginning, middle, and end of his career, and foremost in the group, has been the lust of appetite; and in these days of “eating and drinking,” how can we expect to be prepared for the Judgment while we remain the willing slaves of its pleasing, but destructive tyranny. “But respecting you, beloved, we confidently hope for BETTER things, even those connected with Salvation, though even we thus speak.”—Emphatic Diaglott. “But take heed to yourselves, lest your HEARTS be oppressed by Gluttony and drunkenness, and Anxieties of life, and that DAY should come unexpectedly upon you. For it will come like a snare on ALL THOSE DWELLING on the WHOLE LAND. Be ye watchful, therefore, at all times, praying that ye may be regarded worthy to escape ALL THESE THINGS BEING ABOUT to occur, and to stand before the Son of MAN.”—Emphatic Diaglott. Luke xxi, 34–36.

May the Lord help us to get the entire victory over ourselves, by submission to him, that we may be able to endure in the time of trouble, and permitted to enter that land where lust will never again conceive, and sin never entering, death will be forever banished. Amen.

WAITING FOR CHRIST.

We wait for Thee, all-glorious One! We look for thine appearing; We bear thy name, and on the throne We see thy presence cheering. Faith even now Uplifts its brow, And sees the Lord descending; And with him bliss unending.

We wait for thee through days forlorn, In patient self-denial; We know that thou our guilt hast borne Upon thy cross of trial. And well may we Submit with thee To bear the cross and love it, Until thy hand remove it.

We wait for thee; already thou Hast all our hearts’ submission; And though the spirit sees thee now, We long for open vision; When ours shall be Sweet rest with thee, And pure unfading pleasure, And life in endless measure.

We wait for thee with certain hope,— The time will soon be over; With childlike longing we look up, Thy glory to discover. O bliss! to share Thy triumph there, When home with joy and singing, The Lord his saints is bringing.

—From the German of Hiller.

FREEMASONRY.—III.

By Charles G. Finney

BY REV. CHARLES G. FINNEY.

We are prepared in this number to take up the question, How are the public to know what Freemasonry really is? This we may answer,

1. Negatively. (1.) Masonry cannot be known from a perusal of the eulogistic books which adhering Masons have written. Of course, they are under oath in no way whatever to reveal the secrets of Masonry. But it is their secrets that the public are concerned to know. Now their eulogistic books, as any one may know who will examine them, are silly, and for the most part little better than twaddle. If we read their orations and sermons that have been published in support of Masonry, and the books that they have written, we shall find much that is silly, much that is false, and a great deal more that is mere bombast and rodomontade. I do not say this rashly. Any person who will examine the subject for himself must admit that this language is strictly true. But I shall have occasion hereafter, when we come to examine the character of the institution, to show more clearly the utter ignorance or dishonesty of the men who have eulogized it.

Let it be understood, then, that adhering Masons do not profess to publish their secrets. And that which the country and the church are particularly interested to understand they never publish—their oaths, for example; and, therefore, we cannot tell from what they write what they are under oath to do.

(2.) We cannot learn what Masonry is from the oral testimony of adhering Masons.

Let it be pondered well that every one of them is under oath in no way whatever to reveal the secrets of the order. Hence, if they are asked if the books in which Masonry has been published are true, they will either evade the question or else they will lie; and they are under oath to do so.

Observe, adhering Masons are the men who still acknowledge the binding obligation of their oaths. Now, if they are asked if those books truly reveal Masonry, they consider themselves under an obligation to deny it, if they say any thing about it. And, as they are well aware that to refuse to say anything about it is a virtual acknowledgment that the books are true, and would therefore be an indirect revelation of Masonry, they will almost universally deny that the books are true. Some of them are ashamed to say anything more than that there is some truth and a great deal of falsehood in them.

(3.) As they are under oath to conceal the secrets of Masonry, and in no wise whatever to reveal any part of them, their testimony in regard to the truthfulness or untruthfulness of those books is of no value whatever. It is mere madness to receive the testimony of men who are under oath, and under the most horrid oaths that can be taken—oaths sustained by the most terrific penalties that can be named to conceal their secrets and to deny that they have been published, and that those books contain them—I say it is downright madness to receive the testimony of such men, it matters not who they are.

2. Positively. How, then, are we to know what Masonry is? I answer: (1.) From the published and oral testimony of those who have taken the degrees; and afterward, from conscientious motives, have confessed their error, and have publicly renounced Masonry. But it has been said that these are perjured men, and therefore not at all to be believed. But let it be remarked that this very accusation is an admission that they have published the truth; for, unless they have published the secrets of Masonry truly, they have violated no Masonic oath. Therefore, when Masons accuse them of being perjured, the very objection which they make to the testimony of these witnesses is an acknowledgment on the part of Masons themselves that they have truly published their secrets.

But again. If to reveal the secrets of Masonry be perjury, it follows that to accuse the revealers of perjury is itself perjury; because by their accusation they tacitly admit that that which has been published is truly a revelation of Masonry, and therefore a violation of their oath of secrecy. Let it then be understood that the very objection to these witnesses, that they have committed perjury, is itself an acknowledgment that the witnesses are entirely credible, and have revealed Masonry as it is. And not only so—but, in bringing forward the objection, they commit perjury themselves, if it be perjury to reveal their secrets; because as I have said, in accusing the witnesses of perjury, they add their testimony to the fact that these witnesses have published Masonry as it is. So that by their own testimony, in bringing this charge of perjury, they themselves swell the number of witnesses to the truthfulness of these revelations.

(2.) Renouncing Masons are the best possible witnesses by whom to prove what Masonry really is. (a.) They are competent witnesses. They testify from their own personal knowledge of what it is. (b.) They are in the highest degree credible witnesses. First, because they testify against themselves. They confess their own wrong in having taken those terrible oaths, and in having had any part in sustaining the institution. Secondly, their testimony is given with the certainty of incurring a most unrelenting persecution. Adhering Freemasons are under oath to persecute them, to destroy their characters, and to seek to bring them to condign punishment. This we shall see when we come to examine the books. Adhering Masons have persecuted, and still persecute, those that reveal their secrets, just as far as they dare. They are in the highest degree intolerant, and this every Mason knows. In a recent number of their great Masonic organ, published in New York, they advise the Masons in Oberlin in no way to patronize those who oppose them. Those who renounce Masonry are well aware of their danger. But, notwithstanding, they are constrained by their consciences, by the fear and love of God, and by regard to the interests of their country, to renounce and expose it. Now, surely, witnesses that testify under such circumstances are entitled to credit; especially as they could have had no conceivable motive for deceiving the public. Their testimony was wrung from them by conscience. And the authors of the books that I have named, together with several others—such as Richardson, Stearns, and I know not how many others—are sustained by the testimony of forty-five thousand who publicly renounce Masonry, out of a little more than fifty thousand that composed the whole number of Freemasons then in the United States. Now, it

should be well remembered that the five thousand who still adhered, belonged almost altogether to the slave-holding States, and had peculiar reasons for still adhering to the institution of Masonry. And, further, let it be distinctly observed that, as they adhere to Masonry, their testimony is null, because they still regarded themselves as under oath in no wise to reveal their secrets; consequently, they would, of course, deny that these books had truly revealed Masonry. I say again, it is mere madness to receive their testimony.

A TOUCHING INCIDENT—SEEKING THE LOST SHEEP.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

[Eusebius has preserved a very touching anecdote related of St. John. It shows the power of love, and teaches us never to cease making efforts for those who have strayed from the fold of the good Shepherd. May it do us all good while we read it. It is copied entire from Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Chap. xxiii. D. M. CANRIGHT.]

“Listen to a story that is no fiction, but a real history, handed down carefully preserved, respecting the Apostle John. For after the tyrant was dead, coming from the Isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went also, when called, to the neighboring regions of the Gentiles; in some to appoint bishops, in some to institute entire new churches, in others to appoint to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Holy Ghost. When he came, therefore, to one of those cities at no great distance, of which some also gave the name, and had in other respects consoled his brethren, he at last turned towards the bishop ordained, (appointed,) and seeing a youth of fine stature, graceful countenance, and ardent mind, he said, ‘Him I commend to you with all earnestness, in the presence of the church and of Christ.’ The bishop having taken him and promised all, he repeated and testified the same thing, and then returned to Ephesus. The presbyter taking the youth home that was committed to him, educated, restrained and cherished him, and at length baptized him. After this, he relaxed exercising his former care and vigilance, as if he had now committed him to a perfect safeguard in the seal of the Lord. But certain idle, dissolute fellows, familiar with every kind of wickedness, unhappily attached themselves to him, thus prematurely freed from restraint. At first they lure him on by expensive entertainments. Then going out at night to plunder they take him with them. Next, they encourage him to something greater, and gradually becoming accustomed to their ways in his enterprising spirit, like an unbridled and powerful steed that has struck out of the right way, biting the curb, he rushed with so much the greater impetuosity towards the precipice. At length renouncing the salvation of God, he contemplated no trifling offence, but having committed some great crime, since he was now ruined, he expected to suffer equally with the rest. Taking therefore, these same associates, and forming them into a band of robbers, he became their captain, surpassing them all in violence, blood, and cruelty. Time elapsed, and on a certain occasion they send for John. The apostle, after appointing those other matters for which he came, said, ‘Come, bishop, return me my deposit, which I and Christ committed to thee in the presence of the church over which thou dost preside.’ The bishop at first, indeed, was confounded, thinking that he was insidiously charged for money which he had not received; and yet he could neither give credit respecting that which he had not, nor yet disbelieve John. But when he said, ‘I demand the young man, and the soul of a brother,’ the old man, groaning heavily, and also weeping, said, ‘He is dead.’ ‘How and what death?’ ‘He is dead to God,’ said he. ‘He has turned out wicked and abandoned, and at last a robber; and now, instead of the church, he has beset the mountain with a band like himself.’ The apostle, on hearing this, tore his garment, and beating his head with great lamentation, said, ‘I left a fine keeper of a brother’s soul!’ ‘But let a horse now be got ready, and some one to guide me on my way.’ He rode as he was

away from the church, and coming to the country, was taken prisoner by the outguard of the banditti. He neither attempted, however, to flee, nor refused to be taken; but cried out, ‘For this very purpose am I come; conduct me to your captain.’ He, in the meantime stood waiting, armed as he was. But as he recognized John advancing towards him, overcome with shame he turned about to flee. The apostle, however, pursued him with all his might, forgetful of his age, and crying out, ‘Why dost thou fly, my son, from me, thy father; thy defenceless, aged father? Have compassion on me, my son; fear not. Thou still hast hope of life. I will intercede with Christ for thee. Should it be necessary, I will cheerfully suffer death for thee, as Christ for us. I will give my life for thine. Stay; believe Christ hath sent me.’ Hearing this, he at first stopped with downcast looks. Then threw away his arms; then trembling, lamented bitterly, and embracing the old man as he came up, attempted to plead for himself with his lamentations, as much as he was able; as if baptized a second time with his own tears, and only concealing his right hand. But the apostle pledging himself, and solemnly assuring him, that he had found pardon for him in his prayers at the hands of Christ, praying on his bended knees, and kissing his right hand as cleansed from all iniquity, conducted him back again to the church. Then supplicating with frequent prayers, contending with constant fastings, and softening down his mind with various consolatory declarations, he did not leave him, as it is said, until he had restored him to the church. Affording a powerful example of true repentance, and a great evidence of a regeneration, a trophy of a visible resurrection.”

FEET WASHING A MEMORIAL OF CHRIST'S HUMILITY.

By M. M. OSGOOD

[The following letter was written to a friend of the writer, who asked for reasons for regarding washing feet as an ordinance. The proofs on this important rite have not been exhausted among us, and though this letter may present some considerations somewhat different from the ordinary teachings on this subject, it is well worthy of a careful reading:]

Bro. O——, As you requested me to bring nothing but Scripture as proof upon that disputed question, I heeded your request, and began to look up my proof texts. After a careful examination of the subject, I not only believe that it was a rite instituted for us to observe until Jesus comes again, but that it was designed as a memorial of the humiliation of the Saviour in leaving the glory he had with the Father, that he might come to this earth and take a servant's place. Before giving my reasons for believing this, I will notice your objections.

1. You say, “If this rite was practiced by the apostles, why was its observance not mentioned by them in their writings? The breaking of bread, or Lord's Supper, is several times mentioned.”

It is true the breaking of bread is several times named, yet I am not certain that it refers to the Lord's Supper every time. See Luke xxiv, 30, 35. Jesus stopped at Emmaus to take supper with the two disciples, and, as he had been wont to do, took bread, gave thanks and broke it, &c., Mark vi, 41; Matt. xv, 36; Acts ii, 46; daily breaking bread from house to house (or, margin, at home), they partook their food with gladness, verse 42, they broke bread in fellowship, had all things common—ate at one table. Acts xxvii, 35. Paul, with the ship's crew, ate the broken bread, and they were not Christians. See Lam. iv, 4. 1 Cor. x, 16, evidently refers to the Lord's Supper; and probably the passage in Acts xx, 7, although I do not see proof positive there. Perhaps you will ask why Paul does not mention feet washing in connection with the bread and wine if they were designed to be observed at the same time? In 1 Cor. x, 16, Paul introduces the bread and cup to warn them against falling into idolatry. He seemed to fear that his Corinthian brethren would join with the Gentiles in eating bread offered to idols, and drinking the wine poured out or offered to demons. See verses 14–31, and chap. viii, 4–13. Christians were to break bread to commemorate the broken body of Christ, They could not share in the Lord's table and the table of demons. 1 Cor. x, 21.

In 1 Cor. xi, 20–34, he mentions the Lord's Supper again to correct another fault. They seemed to have forgotten for what the Supper was instituted, and how the rite was to be observed. So Paul enters into all the particulars, that they need not be in the dark about it, and so eat unworthily. Had the fault been in reference to feet washing, we have no reason to doubt that Paul would have been as particular in enumerating all the circumstances connected with its institution, and the design of it, as in the other case. Against the passage in Acts xx, 7, which may, and may not, refer to the Lord's Supper, we may place the one found in 1 Tim. v, 10. Paul here seems to regard feet washing as essential at least to one class of Christians. If to one, why not to all?

2. You say, “They wore sandals instead of shoes, consequently their feet would become soiled, and often swollen, or sore, by walking without protection in the hot sand. For the host to bathe the feet of his guest was merely an act of hospitality, and was generally practiced in ancient times.”

Did the Saviour then spend some of the last, most precious moments of his life, before his crucifixion, in teaching them a lesson they each already knew? And would such a lesson be so closely joined to the most solemn rites ever to be observed by his followers? I admit that it would be hospitable to bathe the feet of a weary guest, but I cannot find that it was practiced anciently. The host or servant brought water to the guest, that he might wash his own feet. See Gen. xviii, 4; xix, 2; xliii, 24; xxiv, 32; Judges xix, 21, &c. Jesus said to the Pharisees who asked him to eat with him, “Thou gavest me no water for my feet.” 'Tis true Mary washed the Saviour's feet with her tears, but I know of no other instance recorded in the Bible, prior to his own example; and her action will not be claimed for any custom.

3. You say, “The Saviour probably designed to teach his followers to be humble, but it is not necessary to wash another's feet to manifest our humility.”

To which I reply, Jesus did not say, If I then your Lord and Master have humbled myself to wash your feet, you ought also to be humble; but, “Ye also ought to wash one another's feet; for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you.” Example is from the Greek word upodeigma, which Grove defines, example, pattern, copy. Now if I set a copy, I expect my pupils to write the same words, imitating every curve and line, as nearly as possible. Shall we follow our Teacher's copy? (The word “master” is rendered teacher by the Revisor of John.) Jesus saw that his professed followers would shrink from the observance of this rite, because it was humiliating, and by so doing they would in a great measure lose sight of the great sacrifice he made, when he, the Son of God, became the Son of Man. Hence, he urges this plea, “The servant is not greater than his Lord,” equivalent to saying, “If I do this it certainly would become you to.” If this was given as a memorial (as I firmly believe it was), and was understandingly and lovingly practiced, would it not greatly tend to humble our hearts, and make us willing to bear reproach and suffering for his sake? Would it not bring us into nearer sympathy with our blessed Exemplar? It has had this tendency in my own experience, and I, with many others, have found it happy, or blessed, to do these things, after we knew or understood (at least in part,) their significance. I had supposed that Jesus washed the disciples' feet after instituting the Lord's Supper, because it said in John xiii, 2, “Supper being ended,” &c. But I now think it was after the passover, but before the Lord's Supper. My reasons are these:

From Matt. xxvi, 26–30, we learn that after partaking of the bread and wine, they sung a hymn and went out. From John xiii, 23–28, we see that, instead of going out after feet washing, they reclined at table, and ate. As the passover Supper was ended before he washed their feet, it must have been the Lord's Supper they ate afterward. In Matt. xxvi, 21, Jesus says, previous to breaking bread as a memorial, “Verily I say unto you, one of you shall betray me.” But from John xiii, 21, we see that this was said after he had washed their feet. They already understood that he had humbled himself in taking upon him man's nature, with all its painful deprivations, &c. He could give them a memorial of that now. John xiii, 1. He knew the hour had come when he was to be exalted again, and have a name above every name. The time when this prayer was about to be answered, “Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” So he proceeds to give them a remembrance of his humiliation, that they, by often observing it, might realize their infinite obligations to him.

But, in regard to his sufferings and death, they seemed dull of perception; so he comes out plainly and says, “One of you shall betray me;” and in connection with this avowal, after alluding thus to his death, he proceeds to give them fitting memorials of his broken body, and shed blood. Without shedding of blood there could be no remission or forgiveness of sin (Heb. ix, 22), so Christ's blood was shed. The curse of God rests upon every one who has broken his covenant. Jer. xi, 3. They who have not continued to obey his law, Gal. iii, 10, Christ, by permitting his body to be broken with the nails that fastened him to the tree, bore this curse in our stead; for, “Cursed is every one who hangeth on a tree.” Gal. iii, 13. But, back of all this is another necessity. Christ was the beloved and honored Son of his Father. Whatever the Father did, he showed the Son how to do, that all might honor the Son even as they honored the Father. John v, 19–23. Having an undying nature, he could not lay down his life even to save man. He associated only with sinless ones, and enjoyed all the privileges, the blessings, and the surpassing glory of Heaven. If he could give up fallen man to reap the reward of his sin, then he might ever remain in that blissful home, crowned with glory and immortality. But if he would suffer the penalty attached to God's broken law, he must lay aside all this glory, be made lower than the angels, Heb. ii, 7; make himself of no reputation, and take the form of a servant. Phil. ii, 7. Yes, he was among them as one that served. Luke xxii, 27. But for this unparalleled condescension, this clothing with mortality, we must have perished forever. When deciding to give man life, at the expense of his own, which consideration, think you, cost the greatest struggle, the prospect of a few hours suffering on the cross, or of self-exile from all that was dear and desirable in his Father's home? This willingness to be treated as a rebel to his Father's government, seems to me to be the most perfect index to his loving heart. Is not this worthy a memorial? Once acknowledge it as such, and I do not see how any of Christ's followers could feel at liberty to neglect it.

In Phil. ii, 8, we see that he first humbled himself, then became obedient unto death. In the passover instituted in Egypt there was no humiliation connected with the victim's offering. The lamb passively submitted to have its body broken, and its blood shed. So Christ, our passover, 1 Cor. v, 7, was led as a lamb to the slaughter; and as a sheep before the shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. That is, he did not resist them. See Isa. liii, 7, and James v, 6. But our passover differed in some respects. It is not only a better sacrifice, but humiliation of the victim preceded the offering. Hence it must have one more memorial than Israel's passover. That we may love and obey all the precepts is the desire of my heart.

M. M. OSGOOD.

Olcott, N. Y.

Sunshine

By Donald G. Mitchell

SUNSHINE.—The country-houses of Great Britain are by no means shaded as our own; and the most considerable piles of buildings, such as Eaton Hall, Blenheim, Dalkeith, and Burghley House, have hardly a noticeable tree within a stone’s throw of their walls. The flower-patches and coppices of shrubbery approach more nearly, and to the garden-fronts of those magnificent homes you walk through walls of blooming shrubs. But the full flow of the sunshine upon the window is a thing courted. Allowing for all difference in climate, I think there may be a question if we do not err in this country by over-much shading. A cottage in a wood is a pretty subject for poetry, but it is apt to be uncomfortably damp. And there are village streets with us so embowered that scarcely a ray of sunshine can play fairly upon the roofs or fronts of the village houses from June to October. A summer’s life under screen cannot contribute to the growth of roses in the cheeks, any more than to the growth of roses at the door. There is no provision against agues—whether moral or physical—like a good flow of sunshine.—Rural Studies, by Donald G. Mitchell.

Continue reading: Battle Creek Bible Class.—July 11, 1868