Review and Herald, Vol. 7, No. 4. (8/21/1855)

Review and Herald

Aug 21, 1855

Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Aug 21, 1855

WHAT IS THE LAW?

By S. A. Taft

BRO. WHITE:—Will you allow a stranger to say a word in the Review. I have been somewhat an attentive observer of the brethren of your faith, or rather, I should say, of their operations for the past few months; specially since September last, having then had for the first time, an opportunity of hearing an exposition of your views through Brn. Cornell and Loughborough; and am doubtless the individual referred to by Bro. Cornell in Oct. 10th, I think, of the Review. Since then through the politeness of Bro. Titus of this place, and who I have every reason to believe is veritably an heir of grace, I have frequently looked over the pages of the Review, besides having given some little attention to some of the smaller works published at your Office—all of which are now before me, and in which you say a great many good things, and I believe true things too, as well as good.

On the "Sabbath Question," I am frank to say, You are right; as are also our Seventh-day Baptist brethren—provided under the New Dispensation (Gospel age) any one point of time, or any one day of the week is more holy than another. The seventh day is most emphatically the Sabbath, provided we are now shut up to any one day as the rest day or period of holy time.

But without stopping to argue that question, as the matter both for and against, is all before me, I will come at once to the point before my mind. I will say, however, that I love the doctrine of Christ's second, actual appearing, and in its publication I bid you God speed.

The consideration I was after is this—I have just been reading in the Review and elsewhere, the answers to the following question,

WHAT IS THE LAW?

Bro. Cornell in No. 27, Apr. 17, asks this question, under the caption, "The last work of the Church," and the text, "Bind up the testimony; Seal the law among my disciples," &c. In fact a great deal, a very great deal is said in the Review upon this simple topic. Indeed Bro. Waggoner has a little work of 128 pages almost entirely given to this question. Nor are these all, others besides yourselves have written and written largely upon this theme. Andrew Fuller has an article on the law, the perpetuity of the law, &c. After all I cannot say that the answers given and views taken are altogether in harmony with my own mind. Perhaps I am dull. But then I cannot feel that I am to blame as long as I try to see. And in what I say I may not seem very orthodox. But orthodoxy in these days don't amount to much unless it is pretty certain that it is the doxy of God's Bible, and then even, I am sorry to say in a great many cases but little attention is paid to it, even among Protestants who hold that "the Bible alone is a sufficient rule of faith and practice." I reverence God's holy Word, but the opinions of men I will take for what they are worth and no more, if I know it. I despise their ipse dicit whenever, and wherever that dictum seeks to control my conscience; be it politics or religion, no matter.

But to the question, "What is the law"—"The law of God," &c. Bro. Cornell says, "From the scriptures already quoted we learn that the terms law and commandments are used interchangeably, referring to the same code." meaning, I suppose the code of the "ten commandments." This may be so in the scriptures he has quoted, they being in the first chapter which I have not seen. But, if Bro. Cornell means to make this a general rule—as I think he does; for he says, "And it is a fact worthy of notice that where the phrase, commandments of God, occurs in the Scriptures," though I am not certain that precisely that phrase does occur more than once in the Bible, "it almost invariably refers to the ten commandments written upon tables of stone." I join issue with him. The terms law and commandments may be used interchangeably and they may refer to the ten commandments so-called; but that this is an invariable rule, or "almost" an invariable rule I deny. When Bro. Cornell presents his testimony I will examine it.

The truth is, the Jews arranged the Old Testament Scriptures into three grand divisions: 1st. THE LAW, which comprised the five books of Moses, also known as the Pentateuch, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. 2d. THE PROPHETS, also divided into the former and the latter. The former prophets comprised the books of Joshua, Judges, 1st. and 2d. Samuel, and 1st. and 2d. Kings. The latter prophets included all the prophetic books except the book of Daniel. 3d. THE PSALMS, so styled because the Psalms of David stood first in the division, styled also Cetubim, which comprehended all the remaining inspired writings. For proof I refer you first to the arrangement of any common Hebrew Bible. Second to the New Testament Scriptures where these divisions are fully recognized. John i, 45. We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write. Luke xvi, 16. The law and the prophets were until John. Matt. xi, 13. "All the prophets and the law prophesied until John." Luke xxiv, 24. These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me. Verse 27. And beginning at Moses, (the law,) and all the prophets he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Acts xxvi, 22. I continue unto this day, &c., saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses (in the law) did say should come.

But I have said enough to prove my point—Three grand divisions—The Law—The Prophets and The Psalms or The Cetubim. THE LAW was the grand statute and contained all the commandments of God. It was full also of Jesus Christ. THE PROPHETS were the expounders of that law. They were constantly calling the attention of the people to the true import of the commandments, the statutes and precepts of Almighty God as revealed in the law, blessing them when they obeyed, and cursing them when they disobeyed. The prophets also were full of Jesus Christ. THE PSALMS, Hagiographia, "the holy writings," contain the hymns and songs of God's people, the sayings of their wise men, and certain all-important prophecies. The Psalms also were full of Jesus Christ; and therefore beginning at Moses he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself. Blessed Book; and praised be the hand of the man that would detract aught from the Old Testament Scriptures.

The next question is, How are these terms, "The law," "commandments," &c., used in the New Testament Scriptures, and elsewhere even? Bro. Cornell says that they "almost invariably refer to the ten commandments written upon tables of stone." I deny it, and claim that they are general terms and not only "almost invariably refer," but refer altogether to the commandments or statutes of God in general as presented in THE LAW. Whence has arisen this Ten commandment scheme? (I mean no disrespect.) Why is it? On what principle or by what law, are these ten commandments so-called, made to have such a pre-eminent prominence over all the other commandments of God. The fact is his commandments are many; and they are all "perfect converting the soul," regulating the life and conduct of the individual. The ten commandments are not a tenth of all the heaven imposed obligations of the law. Then why select these and trumpet them from one end of the land to the other leaving the multitude unnoticed. Whence is it, I ask again that these ten commandments alone, are taken by the Am. Tract Society, yourselves and others, placed upon cards and scattered over the world like the leaves of autumn? Whence their denomination, "the code," par excellence. I am constrained to say, "This ought ye to have done and not to have left the other undone." But says one, Are not these "the moral law?" Who says, kind reader, that they are the moral law. Bro. Cornell, Bro. White, and others, say so I know: but who are they? The question is, Does the Bible say so. Will you please give me the "chapter and verse" and oblige, Yours truly. Suppose now, I lay along side by side two of God's holy commandments, dare you say that the one and not the other is a part of the moral law, and, if so, which will you take?

Thou shalt not kill. Ex. xx, 13.
Thou shalt not oppress the stranger. Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but shalt fear thy God, &c. Ex. xxii, 21; xxiii, 2, 6; Lev. xix, 14.

I might mention many others, but these are enough to illustrate. Now which are the moral law, and on what principle do you make the precept, Thou shalt not kill, a part of the moral law and not the others?

But say you, "The former and not the latter was written upon the tables of stone." Then you maintain, do you, that just so much and no more as was written on the tables of stone constitute the moral law of God. Well, let us look into this a little: it is an important point; and you do well to take heed lest after all you yourself become obnoxious to the crime of "abrogating" a part of God's law, or what is equivalent thereto, by magnifying a part while you leave the remainder in total obscurity: just as I should do, if I magnified nine of the commandments and left the fourth to go into oblivion. But how do you know that just so many and no more of the commandments of God were written on the tables of stone? Why, say you, the Bible says so. Does it indeed! then that must end all controversy. But where does the Bible say so? I have not had the good fortune to find the chapter and verse yet, and therefore am not certain that I know just how many commandments, or how much and no more was written by the finger of God upon the tables of stone. I know that a certain number of commandments were written there; because the Bible in plain English says so: "And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. xxxiv, 28. But I do not know that no more were written there: indeed I have reason to believe, as I think, that a great many more than the ten commandments were written there. The fact is, it is a naked assumption that ten commandments and no more were written on the tables of stone; and I challenge the proof. But say you, Don't the Bible say, "and he added no more?" Certainly it does, but what of that? The Bible says too that "Cain dwelt in the land of Nod." But what of that? And it says a great many other things equally as good and equally as true. But what of that? How does that help us out of our difficulty? I answer, Not at all. But say you, If the Bible says that the ten commandments were written by the finger of God upon the two tables of stone, and then says, "And he added no more," must not that for ever settle the question? What question, kind reader? Why say you, The question as to the number of commandments written upon the tables of stone definitively. I answer, No. The Bible may say and say of a truth that the "ten words" were written by the finger of God upon the tables of stone and then add, "And he added no more," and still not say what you claim it does say. The question now is, And he added no more to what? Why, to the two tables of stone, say you. But hold, the Bible does not say so; and I go farther, I say it does not intimate any such thing. Indeed as expressed above, it intimates directly the reverse of this. Because the Bible expressly says, [Ex. xxxii, 15.] that the tables were two, and that they were "written on both their sides, on the one side and on the other were they written." Again, God says to Moses, [Ex. xxiv, 12.] "Come up to me in the mount and be there, and I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written, that thou mayest teach them." Now from the size of the ark made expressly to contain these tables of stone, we concluded that the size of the plates, or tables rather, could not have been far from about two by four feet. This will give a surface of some thirty two feet which was all written over. God could write a great deal on so much space; and I have no doubt he did. So much then for the two tables of stone.

But say you, What about that Bible, "And he added no more?" Bro. Cornell has quoted it, Bro. Waggoner has quoted it, (page 21.) Bro. Loughborough has quoted it, Bro. White has quoted it, and, in fact, we have all quoted it, and I thought that was a settled point surely. So it is a settled point, dear reader; and we shall have no difficulty with it the moment we understand all the facts. The expression, "And he added no more," is found in Deut. v, 22. Moses is rehearsing the circumstance of the giving of the law at Sinai, as recorded in Exodus, and after having repeated what God had said with an audible voice to all the people from the summit of the mountain, he adds in the 22d verse, "these words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; and he added no more." But why did he add no more? Why did he not go on,—why stop by saying, thou shalt not covet, &c. In verses 23 to 30 inclusive of this same chapter Moses gives the reason why the Lord "added no more," why he ceased to speak in this awfully terrific manner, and a good reason it was too. But what did God do with these words which he spake with his own mouth unto all the people from the summit of the mountain? Moses tells us, "and he (God) wrote them in two tables of stone and delivered them unto me;" and here we have them, they are not lost. Here is a sublime instance of the Great Preacher, God, attempting to extemporize before a congregation of earthborns: but so awful was the subject, and so terrible was the voice of the Preacher, that the people could not endure it, and therefore he turned away and wrote the remainder, putting in what he had already said, and gave it unto Moses, and he taught it unto the people.

But you say again, Does not James style the law of ten commandments the royal law, and thus give them a pre-eminence? I answer, No. James does not call the law of ten commandments the royal law. James says, [Chap. ii, 8.] If ye fulfill the royal law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well. The royal law, then according to James is the great law of love, and not the law of ten commandments. And this is the moral law of the Bible. Expressed in full it stands thus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. Luke x, 27; Deut. vi, 5. All else in the Bible, ten commandments and all, are but particulars deduced from these two great, all-comprehensive principles. The one belting the entire brotherhood of mankind; and the other linking us all to the throne of God. Here is unchangeable, irrepealable law. Here is moral law; law from which there is no release, no nor ever shall be. To keep this law then, is the whole duty of man. And in order to SEAL THIS LAW AMONG THE DISCIPLES; THEY MUST NOT ONLY KEEP "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS," BUT EVERY OTHER COMMANDMENT, STATUTE, LAW, OR PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN THE WORD OF GOD AS A LAW OF THE RACE.

There are laws, rules, regulations and commandments relating to societies and to individuals under certain circumstances and in certain localities which are of force only while the conditions which called them into being shall last. But the law, Thou shalt not kill—Thou shalt not steal—Thou shalt not oppress the stranger, &c., are particulars deduced from the general principle, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, and are therefore of universal obligation. And yet there is a sense in which those who are united to Christ are delivered from all these even; for Paul expressly says, [Rom. vii, 6.] "We are delivered from the law." What law? "The law of Moses," says Bro. Cornell, meaning the law of carnal ordinances which stood only in meats and drinks; and divers washings. But here Paul and Bro. Cornell are at logerheads. For Paul says, looking at the law from Bro. C's. stand-point, Paul says it is the law of ten commandments; for he says, We are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then—Is the law (from which we have been delivered) sin? (or are we delivered from it because it makes us to sin?) Nay I had not known sin but by the law, (that very law from which we have been delivered.) For I had not known lust except the law had said thou shalt not covet. But what law is it which says thou shalt not covet? Why it is the law of ten commandments. What law then is it we are delivered from? Why, the law of ten commandments, of course.

But, Bro. White, I have already written a great deal more than I intended when I commenced. This is long I know, but I could not say less, nor have I said the half I have to say; and if it should prove that I have not completely exhausted your own patience and that of your readers this time, though I believe you hold to the patience of the saints, you may hear from me again. With many wishes for your success, and with many prayers for the blessing of God to rest upon his own pure unadulterated truth, I subscribe myself, Yours truly. S. A. TAFT. Ypsilanti, June 16th, 1855.

The Truth Endureth.

THEORIES, which thousands cherish, Pass like clouds that sweep the sky. Creeds and dogmas all may perish, Truth herself can never die.

From the glorious heavens above her, She has shed her beams abroad, That the souls who truly love her, May become the sons of God.

Worldlings blindly may refuse her, Close their eyes and call it night; Learned scoffers may abuse her, But they cannot quench her light!

Thrones may totter, empires crumble, All their glories cease to be; While she, Christ-like, crowns the humble, And from bondage sets them free.

God himself will e'er defend her From the fury of her foe, Till she in her native splendor, Sits enthroned o'er all below.—Selected.

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.

By James White

It is with much pleasure that I have read the above article from Eld. Taft, although there is some disagreement between him and the Review and its writers. The spirit is brotherly and kind, and we hail with joy the criticisms and reviews of our position by those whose hearts are open to the truth, and with whom we can investigate the Scriptures without any of that harshness that too often characterizes controversies on points of religion. I like his frank confession on the "Sabbath question;" still I look upon the acknowledgment that the seventh day is the Sabbath, if there is any in this age, as a very slight concession for a Bible student to make, considering the entire absence of any evidence for any other.

On the other hand I was rather astonished that one who appears to have examined the subject with so much care, should introduce a proviso in the case. That the Sabbath is a divine institution all must admit; that it is confined to the seventh day is evident from the Scriptures; that God commanded its observance by a well-defined law is also true. And as a law must be definite in its terms, in order that we may clearly understand our obligation to the lawgiver; so any amendment, alteration, or repeal, must be equally plain and definite. If there is any wisdom or justice in the alteration or repeal, if we are bound to conform to such alteration or repeal, then it needs also to be stated in plain terms, that we may not continue in useless observances, or depart from established usages without good and sufficient reasons. I consider that doubts are not allowable in matters plainly revealed. The clear light of revelation on the rest, sanctification, and commandment of the Sabbath, imposes upon Bro. Taft the obligation to show that the doubt implied by him is allowable, or that the obligation to observe the commandment may have ceased. In this, as in all other cases, an unnecessary inference is without authority. But I am well satisfied that (1.) every objection brought against the Sabbath is merely inferential, there being no positive evidence against the Sabbath law; and (2.) every such inference is unnecessary, there being no passage of scripture expressed in such terms as to oblige us to infer that the Sabbath law is no longer of force. But we shall see that Bro. T. does not even leave himself much room to doubt as he proceeds to argue on the nature and extent of "the whole law."

Bro. T. has fallen into the too common error of supposing that the ten commandments are not the holy covenant which God commanded his people to perform, but only a part of his covenant. Before producing the evidence of scripture on this point. I will quote the words of one who looked at this law with a lawyer's eye, for the express purpose of ascertaining if any thing could be added to or taken from it so as to make it better. His conclusion was that it was perfect.

We need not stop to particularize on the first four. If, from a principle of love to God, we have no other gods before him, abstain from image worship, and reverence his holy name, and his holy day, we shall

doubtless fulfill the great law of love concerning our direct relation to God. Of the others, the person above alluded to says:—

“The fifth defines the peculiar duties arising from the family relation. Injuries to our neighbor are then classified by the moral law. They are divided into offences against life, chastity, property and character. And I notice that the greatest offense in each class is expressly forbidden. Thus the greatest injury to life, is murder; to chastity, adultery; to property, theft; and to character, perjury. Now the greater offense must include the less, of the same kind. Murder must include every injury to life, adultery every injury to purity, and so of the rest; and the moral code is closed and perfected by a command forbidding every improper desire in regard to our neighbor.” And when we consider further that these comprehensive precepts are to be observed from an active principle of love to our neighbor, the perfection of the code is at once perceived and acknowledged. If one scripture is given, defining evil, or showing what it is, and another forbids our following a multitude to do evil, I consider that the second is incomplete without the first.

I am not satisfied that Bro. Taft is correct in saying that there were more than the ten commandments on the tables of stone. His supposition of the size of the stones amounts to nothing at all, unless he can also show the exact size of the letters used in the engraving. In the English translation of the decalogue there are 304 words; which, with the modern improvements in printing, may be placed on a surface of a few square inches; yet with the usual sized letters made by stone cutters on marble slabs and monuments, it would take nearer ten stones the size of the commandment tables to receive so many words. Now if Bro. T. knows that the stones were just the size of the inside of the ark, and has any data by which he can arrive at a just or fair conclusion as to the size of the letters used, I would be glad to consider them; but if he has not, we must then conclude that he has failed in his argument, precisely in the manner that he imputes a failure to us; to wit, by putting forth a “naked assumption,” which cannot be proved. True, Bro. T. says he has no doubt the Lord did write many more thereon; but that does not prove it. It only proves that his doubts, on some points, are much more easily removed than mine. I will here give my reasons for believing that there were no more than the ten commandments written on the tables of stone.

When the Lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, he placed his promises before them with the condition that they should obey his voice indeed and keep his covenant. Ex. xix, 5. By a comparison of scriptures we find that these were but two different modes of expressing the same thing: when they heard his voice on mount Sinai he declared unto them his covenant which he commanded them to perform. But Bro. Taft seems to think that he declared only a small part of his covenant; for he admits that he declared no more than the ten commandments with his own voice, for to that declaration the words “he added no more” apply. But there stands the scripture: “The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire, ye heard the voice of the words but saw no similitude, only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them in two tables of stone.” Deut. iv, 12, 13. The ten commandments were his covenant complete. Moses rehearsed them to the children of Israel, and said: “These words the Lord spake unto all your assembly in the mount, out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice, and he added no more; and he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.” Deut. v, 22. One more text to show the identity of the ten commandments as the covenant of God: “And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights: he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.” Ex. xxxiv, 28. The tables were therefore the tables of the covenant; and the ark in which they were placed was the ark of the covenant. On this testimony of Scripture I am willing to rest the question for the present; and if Bro. Taft thinks the proof is not sufficient, I will engage to notice it further when he produces any proof whatever for his position.

I suppose he will not ask us to consider the arrangement of the Old Testament by the Jews, a correct one, making “the Law” to comprehend the five books of Moses. The arrangement is an arbitrary one, not founded on any necessity therefor in the Scriptures; neither do the texts he quotes from the New Testament prove what he adduces them to prove. That “Moses in the law” wrote of Christ is correct beyond a doubt, as the law of Moses but pointed to Christ: that sanctuary, priesthood, and system of sacrifices were but types of his offering himself for us, and pleading his blood in the Sanctuary in heaven. Heb. viii, 1–5. But that “the law” included the five books of Moses, and that “the whole law,” so understood, was written on the tables of stone, will not probably be contended for. But if Bro. Taft chooses to maintain that there were other moral precepts beside the ten commandments on the tables, I shall not consider myself bound to contend with him—I am willing to meet him on the ground he has laid down in his remarks on the nature and extent of the law. Speaking of the two great principles, he says: “All else in the Bible, ten commandments and all, are but particulars deduced from these two great all-comprehensive principles. The one belting the entire brotherhood of mankind, and the other linking us all to the throne of God. Here is unchangeable, irrepealable law. Here is moral law—law from which there is no release—no, nor ever shall be. To keep this law is, then, the whole duty of man. And in order to seal this law among the disciples, they must not only keep the ten commandments, but every other commandment,” &c. This is good testimony, and to the point. If the ten commandments are deduced from these two great principles, as the Saviour proves, and Bro. Taft admits, then the conclusion is unavoidable that the Sabbath commandment is a part of that “unchangeable, irrepealable law—from which there is no release—no, nor ever shall be.” And that this idea was also in Bro. Taft’s mind appears in that he says, “we must not only keep the ten commandments,” &c. thus showing that however much he may include in the moral law, the ten commandments certainly belong there. Such being his position, I shall, of course, expect to find him keeping God’s holy Sabbath without delay. Though I do not admit that there are moral duties not referable to the ten commandments, I am quite willing he should carry out the principle he has laid down for “sealing the law;” that is, faithfully keep all the ten commandments, and as many other moral precepts as he can find in the Bible.

Bro. T. quotes. Thou shalt not kill—thou shalt not steal. &c., and says they are deduced from the general principle of love, “and are therefore of universal obligation. And yet there is a sense in which those who are united to Christ are delivered from all these, even. For Paul expressly says, [Rom. vii, 6.] We are delivered from the law. What law? “The law of Moses,” says Bro. Cornell, meaning the law of carnal ordinances,” &c. I must think Bro. Taft is mistaken about Bro. C.’s referring Rom. vii, 6 to the law of Moses. That is not according to the belief of Bro. C. as expressed to me, or of any other who teaches the third angel’s message. It is contrary to all the writings on this subject published at the Review Office. Bro. Cornell, also, in his pamphlet entitled, “The Last Work,” on pages 12, 13, refers to this connection [Rom. viii] as being the ten commandments. But be that as it may, we have here an expression from Bro. T. that there is a sense in which those who are united to Christ are delivered from these precepts which are moral and of universal obligation. I notice this because there are many who contend that to be delivered from a law is to be freed from obligation to obey it. But Bro. Taft does not take this position, and his remarks lead in a contrary direction; I presume he believes, as we also do, that we are delivered from the law, in the sense of the scripture, without being released from obligation to keep it.

But “time and space” admonish me that I should close. I must express my regret that I have not the privilege of a personal interview with Bro. Taft. But though we may be separated in body, I hope we may be one in spirit. From his writing I have the fullest confidence in his deep love of the truth; and that he will act upon his convictions, so strongly implied in his remarks on the morality, universality, and perpetuity of the law, (including the ten commandments.) It would be a cause of rejoicing to me to know that Bro. Taft was living in obedience to all the commandments of God. I hope he will so live, and that we may all, by patient continuance in well-doing, receive the reward of immortality, have right to the tree of life, and enter through the gates into the city, and form an acquaintance there never to be marred by absence, united in the bonds of perfect love and peace, never to be disturbed by discord or care.

J. H. W.

The Astonishing Portions.

THE treasures of kings have sometimes been so vast as to pass into a proverb. And yet, what were they but gold or stones dug out of the bowels of the earth, which, amassed to ever so great a sum, could neither give contentment, ensure health, nor lengthen life? But there is a portion of a diviner nature, and infinitely more excellent, which falls to the share of every saint of God; and he himself is this stupendous portion. “The Lord is my portion, saith my soul.”

Now, the astonishing wonder here is, that God, in all his perfections, should condescend, through his Son, to be the portion of his people. But this wonder is not alone, but is joined with another, that is in a manner more surprising still, expressed in these words: “The Lord’s portion is his people, Israel is the lot of his inheritance.”

We know how highly we esteem that which we account our portion. And the pious breathing of the saint is, “Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides thee. My flesh and my heart faileth, but God is the strength of my heart, and my portion forever.” Then, may we not see what value he sets upon his saints, that he, who possesses all things, and has all perfection in himself, should call them “his portion.”

A rich man may condescend to be the prop and friend of a poor man, but will scarcely allow him to be of great account to himself; but here it is otherwise, to the praise of glorious grace, which is not less astonishing in receiving than in giving. He gives the treasures of eternity, which enrich for ever; and receives the cyphers of time, which cannot profit him at all. He gives himself to be ours in his infinite excellencies for ever, and receives us, in all our wants and infirmities, to be his for evermore. Whether is he most glorious in accepting the lispings of faith, “Thou art my God,” or in returning the mutual claim, “Thou art my people?” Because God is the portion of our soul, we have hope; and because he sees the travail of his soul, he is satisfied. O what condescension is this, not only to bow down to give himself away to us, but to take us up to himself! Let philosophers dream on of ten thousand inhabited worlds, yet, among them all, the Lord’s portion is his people, and Israel his inheritance. The heaven is his throne, the earth his footstool, but his portion is dearer to him than both, purchased at an amazing price, and preserved by almighty power, to an immensity of bliss. Precious and costly things are in the peculiar treasures of kings; how noble, then, and excellent must Jacob be (the choice makes it so) whom the eternal King of kings hath chosen to himself for his peculiar treasure, for whom he will give men, and kingdoms for their ransom! Again, a treasure is that which is laid up for time to come; then God will never cast off his own inheritance, give up with his portion, or throw away his treasure, but reserve all to eternity. Finally, if God be the portion of his saints, why such a struggle to fill their coffers with perishing things, and why so disquieted if they do not succeed?

R. F. COTTRELL

By R. F. Cottrell

From Bro. Cottrell.

DEAR BRO. WHITE:—The New York Tent is now at Van Buren, Onondaga Co. We had meetings here last Sabbath and First day, and have appointments for the next. Some that have been interested in the late time movement are interested to hear the reasons of our faith, and will doubtless soon see clearly that we have the truth.

Some strange things occur in these days. On Thursday evening before our tent meeting commenced, a minister of the Christian denomination, (one that commenced a discussion with Bro. Hall in Pennsylvania,) had a meeting at the school house in this neighborhood. At the close of the meeting, the text, "Run, speak to this young man," (Zech. ii, 4,) pressed with considerable weight upon his mind, he therefore gave an appointment for the next evening to speak from it. The meetings have been continued every evening, and this evening is the sixth. Last evening the Baptist and Methodist ministers were present, the former taking a part in the exercises and it seems that they all are determined to have a

rival.

It seems somewhat singular that the people should be so suddenly awakened, at this very busy, and even hurrying time of haying and harvesting, to attend to their spiritual wants, so long neglected, and to labor for souls. It is also strange that the orthodox denominations, who have always accused the Christians of denying the divinity of Christ, should now so cordially unite with them like brothers in one common cause. It puts me in mind of the incident of Pilate and Herod's becoming friends.

But we have confidence that the cause of truth will move forward in this place, and that the honest will take a stand, with Bro. Walker and his family, in favor of the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.

R. F. COTTRELL

Aug. 14th, 1855.

Continue reading: Did the Creator Perform a part of his Labor on the Seventh day?