Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 13. (9/10/1872)

Review and Herald

Sep 10, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 10, 1872

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

By John Harvey Waggoner

BETWEEN ELD. J. H. WAGGONER, S. D. ADVENTIST, AND ELD. PETER VOGLE, DISCIPLE.

QUESTION.—Do the Scriptures teach that the Seventh day was made a Sabbath at creation, for man's observance?

ELD. WAGGONER, affirms; ELD. VOGLE, denies.

ELD. WAGGONER'S THIRD AFFIRMATIVE.

1. Your comment, “as given on Sinai,” on the precept, “Thou shalt not kill,” has no practical meaning, since it was “binding from the beginning,” and of course binding on those who did not hear it at Sinai.

2. Rev. 1:10, refers to the Sabbath, and to it only, if “the Bible and the Bible alone” is our standard. If we are left to be guided by inferences or tradition it is immaterial to what it refers.

3. Eld. V. now makes a wide difference between his reasons given, and his reserved “argument” for saying that Genesis was written after certain events transpired. But when he gave those reasons he said it was shown “by such considerations as these.” Doubtless that is so!

4. Bro. Vogel is a critic,—and he seems to be determined that we shall realize it. He criticizes my use of the word constitute, because I use it aside from the idea of appoint. True, they may be used as synonymous, and they may not. The distinction I made was this, that the seventh day was constituted a rest-day by the particular act of resting, before it was sanctified or appointed. This is strictly correct both in fact and in language, and I have no fears that my readers will be “bewildered” or have any difficulty in understanding me, even if I am not always as precise as Bro. V. But onward a little in his article I read, “While his resting on any day would constitute it a rest-day (sabbath), i. e., a day in which he ‘had rested,’ it would not constitute it a sacred rest-day,” or day to be observed. Here he makes exactly the same distinction that I made between constituting it a rest-day merely, and appointing it for observance. Why is this? Is he bewildering his readers? Is he “not clear in his distinctions”? Or is this a piece of hypercriticism, taking time to no purpose?

5. Another point involves both criticism and logic, and is most remarkable. He says, “He [Eld. W.] tells us ‘the Sabbath was directly enforced AFTER the exode.’ Of course, then, before the exode it was indirectly enforced.” Oh! of course! That is to say that no precept can be directly enforced at two different times! Perhaps he will yet claim that the precept, “Thou shalt not kill,” is directly enforced in the New Testament, and “of course” it was not directly enforced at Sinai! and then what becomes of his statement at the head of his article? No one will deny that baptism was directly enforced at Cesarea, on Cornelius. “Of course, then, it was indirectly enforced” on the day of Pentecost! Is Eld. V. also “bewildered”? Must our time be consumed on mere catches and plays upon words? To quote his own language, “I trust we will have no more of it.”

6. His questions relative to the seventh day being “a Sabbath in the sense of its being a holy day, in virtue of God's resting on it, before he blessed it,” may amuse the fancy of those who are satisfied to be amused; but he might have saved his time if he had more carefully read my argument wherein I distinctly assert the contrary. Again, he expresses fear that I am misled by the term sabbath: that I confound “a rest-day” with “a sacred rest-day”; and he comments at length on the difference. But he has not stated—he cannot state—that difference more explicitly than I have. I have constantly made the resting the ground and reason of the sanctification, and God himself so declared it.

Eld. Vogel's line of argument marked 1 to 4 is inconclusive. The first will be noticed if it shall be attempted to show there is any point in it.

The second: There is no evidence in Gen. 2:24 of any “comment” of Moses. When Adam named his wife Eve (Chap. 3:20) it was because he knew “she was the mother of all living;” that is, that a race was to spring from her. And he could as well know that “fathers” and “mothers” would, yes, must exist. To say he knew nothing of “progeny” is to directly contradict his reason for naming his wife Eve. Nor is there any “anticipation” of fact occurring, for it only states what “shall” or ought to be in the future.

The third: Not a single text quoted justifies his construction of Gen. 2:3. The parenthetical remark in John 11:2, “It was that Mary that,” &c., directs the mind to another occasion and to a circumstance not then transpiring. In Matt. 10:4, the word of transition, “also,” has the same effect. These texts are unlike Gen. 2:3, and it is wrong to use them as he has done, for the reference in Gen. 2:3, in regard to the sanctification of the seventh day, is only to facts in the immediately preceding connection. Gen. 10 comes properly under the head marked “4.” It is a line traced down, and chapter 11 returns to trace other events. Now in a record of “their generations” some length of time is necessarily involved, for several generations are given; whereas the confusion of tongues occurred but a little more than one hundred years after the flood. Therefore, there is no disarrangement of the chronological order in verse 5. As to the claim on the word Gentiles, the translation is altogether too questionable to warrant it. It simply means nations.

Gen. 3:20, is the only text cited from that book which has a show of aid to his claim on the theory of anticipation. It contains the same causal word that is in Gen. 2:3. So far, all right. Let us further trace the parallel. “ And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because [future fact anticipated] she was the mother of all living.” “ And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because [future fact anticipated] that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made”!! Now, if this could only be made to read, And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because—he brought the children of Israel out of Egypt, what a splendid proof-text it would be for Bro. Vogel's theory! The truth is, the construction of Gen. 2:3, as it refers to nothing but the immediately preceding context, excludes the idea of prolepsis, and Eld. Vogel more than half confesses it, notwithstanding his argument on that point. What, then, must be thought of his labored effort to put my remarks so “severely” against Moses, while he acknowledges what I claim, that there is really no prolepsis, and says that it falls under another head? It evidently was to affect the minds of the readers; a course generally pursued by those who are conscious of the weakness of their cause. I fear, indeed, that the record of Moses has fallen into bad hands—but they are not mine!

The fourth. It is true that the sacred writers often carry down a chain of events, and then return and take up another, even from the place of beginning. He needed not to say, “Even in prophecy,” for it is very common in prophecy. How far did Moses come down in this line, from Gen. 1:1 to chap. 2:3? Through the completed work of creation, to the establishment of the week—which was known to, and recognized by, the patriarchs—and to the appointment of the rest-day; which appointment was based entirely upon the facts just recorded.

But there is quite too much assumed in regard to Moses' bringing down one line of events and then returning to the beginning to take up another, as may be shown hereafter.

According to a promise, I now further notice a point in his first article. He seems to be aware of the strength of the argument for the creation Sabbath, and attempts to turn away its force in a singular manner. Admitting that the Lord rested on the seventh day from the work of creation, and that the Lord's rest is the Lord's Sabbath, (who will deny it?) he says, “There may have been a Sabbath there for the Lord to keep, and for him only.” As keeping a weekly Sabbath necessarily supposes alternations of labor and of rest, and as the Lord's work was that of creation and that only, it follows that the Lord could only keep the Sabbath by continuously creating on six days! Let him deny who can that the Lord's Sabbath dates from the seventh day of creation week. There was its origin—there it was made. Did God make the Sabbath for himself? Did the Saviour say, “The Sabbath was made for God?” Why not “have him”? It was “made for man.” God could not keep the Sabbath, because he did not continue to work after the first six days; but man could rest from his own work and continue to keep God's Sabbath in commemoration of God's resting from his work.

Again Bro. V. admits my position, saying, “As man performed no work in creation he could not rest, could have no Sabbath then.” That is what I claim; it was the Lord's Sabbath because of the work of creation, and his only. The Sabbath was never based on man's work. And here we discover the strength of the truth for which I contend. It was the Lord's Sabbath, and no other, which man was commanded to keep holy. “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work.” “Verily my Sabbaths ye shall keep.” The Lord's Sabbath—the creation Sabbath—and not their own, was enjoined in the commandment. No person can point to a single reason for its being the Lord's Sabbath except the facts of creation. Was the seventh day made the Sabbath rest-day of the Lord at any time but at creation? If so, let it be shown. And the rest-day of the Lord is the only weekly Sabbath enjoined in the Bible.

In view of the clear testimony concerning the making of the Sabbath at creation, the words of our Saviour, Mark 2:27, are very significant. “The Sabbath was made for man.” When was the Sabbath made for man? Most assuredly when it was made, and not at some other time. The Saviour's words must have respect to some relation between man and the Sabbath; and whatever superstitious gloss he intended to remove; whatever tradition he designed to correct; it yet remains true that that relation between man and the Sabbath originated when the Sabbath was made, namely, at creation. God made the world to be inhabited; Isa. 45:18; and he made the Sabbath for man—for earth's inhabitant. In every step—in the resting, the blessing, and the sanctification—he had man in view, according to the Saviour's words. But to say the Sabbath was made at one time, and intended for man 2500 years afterward, is to contradict the words of Jesus.

An important Sabbath testimony (often perverted) is that which presents the Sabbath as a “sign.” It has been claimed that it was a sign between the Jews and the Gentiles to keep a distinction between them. This is not true any farther than it is true that obedience to God always separates to him “a peculiar people.” What is thus affirmed of the Sabbath may with equal propriety be affirmed of any other moral duty. But the Scriptures never present the Sabbath as “a sign” in any such light. In Ex. 31:17, the Lord says, “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever.” It is never said in the Bible that it is a sign between the Jews and the Gentiles, but between the Lord and his people. To take the name of God out of this text and insert “the Gentiles” in its place is as presumptuous as it is to take the name of the Lord out of the fourth commandment, and make it read, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Jews.” But with some it has seemed to make no difference whether the name of Jew or Gentile be used as a substitute, if the name and authority of Jehovah can only be disconnected from the Sabbath.

But of what is it a sign? what is its object? Read the text. “It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.” We notice here, as everywhere in the Scriptures, that Sabbath truth and Sabbath obligation center in the work of creation and the right of the Creator. And it is true that the word “refreshed” does not indicate relief from fatigue; neither does “rest,” when applied to the Lord. But refreshed is additional to rested, and indicates the delight he took in his rest-day.

It can only be a perversion of this text and an outrage on just reasoning to say the Sabbath is a sign between Jews and Gentiles because Jehovah made the world in six days and rested the seventh day. See also Eze. 20:20. “And hallowed my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God.” The creation Sabbath is the Creator's sign or memorial. In many scriptures the power to create and the work of creation are set forth as the distinguishing characteristics of the true God. And the Sabbath is a sign of the exercise of that power. See Jer. 10, wherein the idols and the worship of the heathen are described. “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, they shall perish.” “The portion of Jacob is not like them, for he is the formerunner of all things,” &c. And the apostle Paul used the same fact to distinguish the true God from the multitude of false gods worshiped in Athens; Acts 17, whom they ignorantly worshiped as “The Unknown God,” him Paul declared unto them in these words: “God that made the world and all things therein.” See also Acts 14:15; Rev. 14:6, 7.

It is an undeniable truth that commemorative institutions are the very best means of imparting and perpetuating a knowledge of important events. No other event in the great struggle for American Independence is so well known by all the American people as the signing of the Declaration of Rights; and why? Because the fourth of July has been celebrated as a memorial

day. Books of history and monuments of stone are but feeble reminders compared with a memorial day. As long as the fourth of July is celebrated, so long will the work of our fathers be remembered. Their patriotism, their sufferings, and their triumphs, can never be lost to the minds of the people while that day is observed. And so of the Sabbath of the Lord. He declared it was a sign that it might be known that he was the Lord God: that he was the Creator of heaven and earth. Had it been uninterruptedly and universally observed, the knowledge of the true God—the Creator—could never have been lost to the nations of the earth. Truly its importance cannot be overestimated.

According to the limitations which we have placed upon ourselves I must now dismiss this proposition. Many points necessarily remain unnoticed. But I hope the readers will not pass lightly over it. The subject is important. The text-book is the word of the Most High. Reverence becomes us in all our examinations of its sacred pages. I pray that a sense of our responsibility, and a view of the great tribunal to which we are hastening, may ever be before us; that our lives may be framed in reference to these solemn things. To this end may we all heed the admonition of the divine word: “Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into Judgment.” Eccl. 12: 13, 14.

GROWTH IN GRACE.

I ASKED the Lord that I might grow, In faith, and love, and every grace, Might more of his salvation know, And seek more earnestly his face, 'Twas he who taught me thus to pray, And he, I trust, has answered prayer, But it has been in such a way, As almost drove me to despair.

I hoped that in some favored hour, At once he'd answer my request, And by his love's constraining power, Subdue my sins, and give me rest. Instead of this, he made me feel, The hidden evils of my heart, And let the angry powers of hell, Assault my soul in every part.

Yea, more: with his own hands he seemed Intent to aggravate my woe, Crossed all the fair designs I schemed, Blasted my gourds, and laid me low. Lord, why is this? I trembling cried. Wilt thou pursue a worm to death? 'Tis in this way, the Lord replied, I answer prayer for grace and faith.

These inward trials, I employ, From pride and self, to set thee free, And break the schemes of earthly joy, That thou may'st seek thy all in me. —Sel.

ELD. PETER VOGEL'S THIRD REPLY.

By Peter Vogel

There are some points in Eld. W.'s last affirmative which I may safely pass by without further notice, since they have already received sufficient attention.

Bro. W. comforts himself with his supposed discovery that I am guilty of the same confusion with regard to the use of “constitute” that I charge upon him. From this, the reader will understand that Eld. W. regards my strictures as not without force. But he will also inquire whether Eld. W.'s source of comfort is real, or whether the word, when used by me in his senses, was not borrowed as a quotation from him, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of showing up the fallacy of his reasoning and to make his confusion appear. Possibly these “catches” have caught somebody.

Eld. W. now says that he does not now, and never did, regard the seventh day holy before it was blessed and sanctified. If this is the case, I have certainly misread him. But I cannot dismiss the conviction that his first article, which I have not now at hand, so represents him. However, I am most happy to be set right. He says, “I have constantly made the resting the ground and reason of the sanctification [i. e., making holy], and God himself so declared it.” But the reader will also remember that in his second article he says, “The sanctification of a day consists in a precept for its observance, for a special or sacred purpose.” Now if the day had to be made holy before it became so, how is it holy in itself? And if the making of it holy was by a precept, how is the Sabbath a moral and not a positive institution?

The reader will judge, from his own sense of the force of language, whether to say, “The Sabbath was directly enforced after the exode,” does not most naturally imply that before that event it was indirectly enforced. The transactions on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius, with regard to baptism, furnish no parallel to the above. Baptism was directly enforced once for all on Pentecost. The enforcement at the house of the centurion had no direct reference to baptism, but to Cornelius; and the fact that he was then required to be baptized shows that he had not been required to attend to it on Pentecost. But to clinch it all, Eld. W. says, “Perhaps he [I] will yet claim that the precept, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ is directly enforced in the New Testament, and, of course, it was not directly enforced at Sinai.”

It is well that he says “perhaps,” it may save his reputation as a prophet. He need not ask, “Is Eld. V. also ‘bewildered?’” He will find him clear and pointed then.

My comments on Gen. 2: 3, Eld. W. treats rather cavalierly; but, if I mistake not, the reader will find more pith in them than Eld. W. sees. While I am satisfied that all of the four points, there made, will bear testing, yet, if but one of them would stand, he is defeated. Nay, more; though all were worthless, and I should establish the affirmative of the next proposition, it would suffice to refute his position on that passage. A few things, however, that he says regarding them, shall receive attention.

To prove that Gen. 2: 24, is not Moses' comment on verse 23, Eld. W. cites Gen. 3: 20, to show that Adam had the necessary knowledge to be himself the author of those words. I have, however, already shown that Gen. 3: 20, is an instance of anachronism, i. e., an event introduced before its time. This, the very language of the text demands: “And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was [not is to be] the mother of all living [or alive, not who are to live].”

The instances I cited as cases of anticipation are undeniably such. The mere accident that the sentential or grammatical structure is not the same in Gen. 2: 3, as in some of them, does not affect the case in the least. In this respect the passages cited differ even among themselves, and yet are instances of prolepsis. It is the facts that are essential, not the manner in which the facts are stated.

Eld. W. places two passages in such a light as to pervert facts, and then makes a merriment over his caricatures. They are these:

“And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because [future fact anticipated] she was the mother of all living.” “And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because [future fact anticipated] that in it he had rested from all his work which he created and made!”

If this were really my argument, I should dismiss it with shame, because of its imbecility. But suppose, Bro. W., you place your parenthetic words, “future fact anticipated,” immediately after the and at the beginning of each sentence, then read the sentences in their biblical connections and see “what a splendid proof-text it would be for Bro. Vogel's theory.”

Again: I am represented as “more than half confessing” that there is no prolepsis in Gen. 2: 3. Beg your pardon, sir, I meant no such thing. I claimed all the possible ways exhibited, “comment, prolepsis, anachronism,” and all, as applicable here, but expressed a preference for the various-lines-of-history explanation. If my language seems to you to express more than this, rest assured I meant no more, and accept this explanation.

Eld. W. quotes from my first letter, concerning God's resting at creation: “There may have been a Sabbath then for the Lord to keep, and for him only,” and takes it as a concession on my part that there was then a Sabbath. If he will take the trouble to turn to that letter, he will find that I had for my principal object to show that there was no Sabbath then for man to keep on Eld. W.'s own basis, namely, that “a rest necessarily supposes some work performed.” I did not admit that there was a Sabbath then at all, but said, in effect, If there was a Sabbath, or, to quote the language then employed, “There may have been,” not there was, a Sabbath. I roundly deny that there was any Sabbath then, either for man or God, in the appropriated or special sense of the word Sabbath. That God then rested, i. e., ceased to create, is true, but that this had any special significance, I deny. Strictly speaking, as I intimated in my last, the Lord has never rested since the worlds were made, and if Bro. W. means more than simply completed creation by “he did not continue to work after the first six days,” he clearly mistakes the facts. “Behold, I go forward,” says Job, “but he is not there; and backward, but I cannot perceive him: on the right hand, where he doth work, but I cannot behold him.” Job 23: 8, 9. Even on that famous seventh day, God worked, “upholding all things by the word of his power,” the same word with which he created.

My brother repeats again and again the expression, “My Sabbath,” as referring to the fact that God rested on that day, and denoting possession on that account.

I showed in my last letter, and to this time he has not replied, that such is not the force of “My” as used in such scriptures, but that it expresses possession only in the same sense, and for the same reason, that it does in the phrases, “Mine altar,” “Mine ordinances,” &c. If “My Sabbath” refers to the day on which God rested, then “My Sabbaths” refers to days on which he rested, and there is more than one rest-day of the Lord! Notwithstanding I have referred him to such facts, and without attempting any disposition of them, he repeats with all assurance, “No person can point to a single reason for its being the Lord's Sabbath except the facts of creation!” Tell me, brother, how the Jewish altar came to be the Lord's, and the Jewish ordinances the Lord's ordinances, and you will have answered yourself, having found, not only “another reason,” but “the reason.”

“Did God make the Sabbath for himself?” No, sir; he made it for man. “When was the Sabbath made for man?” Most assuredly when it was made,” Eld. W. correctly replies. But if by this he means that the Sabbath was made for any one by God's resting, I deny it. God's resting on the seventh day did not make it “the Sabbath,” but his “appointing,” i. e., his “blessing” and “hallowing” the seventh day made it “the Sabbath.” We must not deceive ourselves by a play on the two different senses of the term Sabbath. Sabbath (rest simply) is not the Sabbath. God's resting or ceasing to create may etymologically be called sabbath (rest simply), but it was not “the Sabbath,” the sacred rest which was required of man. This Sabbath was made when God enjoined a day on man to be sacredly observed; which took place in the wilderness, as I shall soon have an opportunity to prove.

My brother asks, in effect, if the Sabbath was made after the exode, when God legislated for the Jews only, how was it “made for man,” i. e., all mankind? I answer, It never was made for all mankind. Mark 2: 27, refers only to the Jews. The universal term anthropos (man) is thus limited by the known fact that the Gentiles had not the Sabbath. This is a common use of general terms in every tongue. Thus, “There is one God, and one mediator between God and men (anthropoi).” 1 Tim. 2: 5. Here the term “men” is used universally, since there is no known limitation. “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men (anthropoi), who shall be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim. 2: 2. Here we have the same universal term, unlimited save as faithfulness and ability to teach limit it, and yet the known fact, not here mentioned, that wives are not to be public preachers of the gospel (1 Tim. 2: 12) restricts it in a manner similar to which “man,” in Mark 2: 27, is restricted.

“The week was known to, and recognized by, the patriarchs, says my brother, and this he regards as proof of a creation Sabbath. I wish he had been more explicit in this, and had cited the passages on which he relies. I feel awkward in replying to so broad a statement, referring to many passages in general, but none in particular. Nevertheless I will try.

Gen. 4: 3, 4 is one of the passages to which I suppose he alludes. “And in the process of time [margin, end of days] it came to pass that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord,” &c. (1) “End of days” is supposed to refer to the end of the week. If so, it was on Sunday that Cain and Abel sacrificed, and it proves Sunday-keeping rather than Sabbath-keeping. (2) “End of days” is just as appropriate in itself to express the end of a year as the end of a week; and in this case more so, since after harvest most likely men would bring a thank-offering “of the fruit of the ground.” (3) “End of days” must denote the end or lapse of a year, or longer period, in 1 Kings 17: 7, and Neh. 13: 6. “After awhile [margin, at the end of days]” Elijah's brook dried up for lack of rain. Simply a week without rain would not have had such an effect. During the absence of Nehemiah from Jerusalem various disorders crept in among the Jews. “After certain days [margin, at the end of days]” he obtained leave to return and rectify them. A week would have been too short for all this.

Gen. 29: 26–28. “Fulfill her week,” that is, feast seven days for Leah according to custom [see Judges 14: 10–12] and I will give you Rachel, for whom you shall then “serve with me yet seven other years.” (1) Seven days of festivity no more prove that the seventh day was observed as a Sabbath, than the seven years of service prove that the patriarchs allowed the land to enjoy a sabbath during the seventh year, as the Jews did; or that the seven years of famine (Gen. 41: 26, 29, 53) and of plenty prove the same. (2) In fact, it proves the very opposite, namely, that there was then no Sabbath observed; for they feasted and had a merry time for a week.

It is true that dividing time into periods of seven days was known to the patriarchs. See Gen. 7: 4, 10; 8: 10, 12; 29: 26–28. But (1) This does not prove the observance of the seventh day any more than the division of time into periods of seven years proves a sabbatic year. On the contrary, as we have seen, neither Jacob nor the family of Laban observed such a day, and they were religious people. See Gen. 28: 1–4, et seq. (2) This division of time may have had its origin in the creation week. But it would not follow from this that the seventh day was necessarily kept as a Sabbath. (3) It is by no means impossible that this division of time did not originate in the quarters of the moon, or at least was kept in memory by them, which are about seven days in length. A synodical month is 29d., 12h., 44m., and 2.8sec., in length. A sidereal month contains 27d., 7h., 43m., and 11.5 sec. The Peruvians counted their months by the moon; their half months by its increase and decrease; and their weeks, by its quarters, having no names for the days of the week. They had also a cycle of nine days, the approximate third part of a lunation, as a week is the approximate fourth part. See Kitto's Cyclopedia, Art. Day.

To conclude, Bro. W. has produced no express command or statement, no example or precedent, and no necessary inference of the Sabbath's having had an existence before the exode. This is simply a fact. Whether he has been successful in establishing a probable inference is not for me to decide. Let the reader judge.

Troubles not Detrimental to a Growth in Grace.

By J. Q. Foy

Are not some of us who profess to be Christ’s followers apt to feel sometimes that were circumstances different—had we fewer troubles, cares, and perplexities—we might be better Christians, and excuse the inconsistencies of our course, our worldly-mindedness, our want of interest and zeal in the cause of God, and perhaps our impatient spirit, hoping that the time will come when we shall be differently situated, and more free to serve God, as though our great Example knew nothing of these things? It may be true that had we no trials, was everything pleasant and agreeable about us, if we must go in our own strength, we might be able to pursue a course less objectionable to those around us, do less that would be unworthy our profession in their estimation and pass for very good Christians. But I must believe that so far from troubles and cares being detrimental to our spirituality, they are really necessary, essential to the formation of sound Christian characters. They are the fire that consumes the dross and makes the gold to shine.

To be a Christian is to follow Christ. Was his a life of ease? Had he no conflicts? then may we expect that all will be sunshine. But was he weary from labor? pressed by care? buffeted by Satan? surrounded by enemies, how can we ask anything better? To know how to endure these, follow him to the mountain, to the garden. They are necessary not only to reveal to us the true condition of our hearts and to wean us from the world, but to lead us to feel our dependence upon God, and to seek him for grace to endure patiently, and properly discharge them, thus affording us opportunity to prove, and show to others, the real and substantial character, of the religion of the Bible, thereby glorifying God.

One reason of the feeling mentioned, I conceive to be that of our having too meager views of what the service of God consists, having imbibed the idea that the sum and substance of it are certain forms and ceremonies, good in themselves, but, to which we want time to attend, instead of that heart work, that love for God, and devotion to his cause, that will lead us to study to know his will and pleasure concerning us, and how we may best glorify him; that confidence that will enable us under any and all circumstances to lean upon and to trust in him—the fiercer our conflicts, the heavier our burdens, the greater our perplexities, the more earnestly to seek him for guidance and direction and to be grateful that it is our privilege thus to do.

Another reason, I think has its origin in selfishness, which leads us to lay up treasure on earth, and to not only neglect to seek God, but with this selfish object in view to take upon ourselves unnecessary burdens and cares, which, having no help from above to bear, engross our minds and destroy our spirituality, and we become worldly-minded—carnally-minded, which is death. Oh! are we not too slow to learn? or too apt to forget the great object for which this life of probation is granted? namely, to prove ourselves loyal to our Creator, and thus be brought again into his favor, to which we have forfeited all claim. Are we not too

slow to realize that God requires the whole heart, and that nothing short of entire consecration to his service and meekly submitting to his will in all things will meet his approval? Into this position we must come, and the sooner the better, as then, and not till then, can we enjoy uninterrupted communion with God, be able to “count it all joy when we fall into divers temptations,” and be prepared for translation into his kingdom.

Now, life is made up of cares, perplexities, and sorrows, as well as of joys, comforts, and blessings, and, indeed, these very things which seem so adverse are, when rightly considered, real blessings; for, though for the present they may seem grievous, yet afterward, if patiently borne, will yield the peaceable fruits of righteousness, and will eventually, as says the apostle, work out for us a far more exceeding and an eternal weight of glory.

To the man of the world, the question of success or failure in worldly things is an important one. Failing to accomplish his purpose, how complete his failure, how deplorable his condition. But does he gain the object of his ambition; is he successful; just in proportion his burdens and perplexities increase, until, though admired by some, and envied by not a few, he is doomed to realize that all is vanity and vexation of spirit. But to the Christian, they are what the winds and storms are to the mariner. Keeping his eye fixed upon the haven of eternal rest, he makes use of all lawful means to gain his object. But if he fail? Ah! thank God, there is no such thing as failure. The eternal God is his refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms. The word of the Omnipotent is pledged: “I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.” It is only when forgetful of God, when he forsakes him, and trusts in his own strength, that he is in danger—that he fails. No; I repeat it, trusting in God, he cannot fail. But there must be yielding, submission, consecration. Ambition, talents, friends, life, yea, his own body, all must be a sacrifice upon the altar. And what more reasonable? What less can be required? Rebels that we have been, how else can we show our fealty? Why not then, amid the shifting, changing scenes of life, press onward, until, our earthly career closing, we may be able, with the great apostle, to rejoice that we have not run in vain, neither labored in vain?

J. Q. FOY.

What Doth Hinder Them?

By Mary E. Guilford

Many set forth in the Christian journey with earnestness of purpose, zealously devoting themselves to the service of God. With liberal hands and consecrated hearts they are ever ready to help move forward the work of God. They rejoice in the prosperity of Zion. Their hearts beat in unison with every effort made to advance the cause of truth. Oftimes they struggle on in adversity, enduring toil and privation, and suffering reproach for the cause of Christ which they so much love. With persevering energy they go forward, patient in affliction, calmly enduring persecution, rejoicing in tribulation, counting it all joy that they are accounted worthy to suffer with Christ. Thus they press on, earnestly striving for complete victory over sin. Their influence is powerful on the side of truth. They gather with Christ. They are becoming strong pillars—a tower of strength to the church of God.

But alas! the scene changes. Temporal prosperity dawns upon them, and gradually their love for, and interest in, the work of God begins to wane. Their hearts incline to the world. Their thoughts are absorbed in the cares of this life. When they come to the house of worship they have no cheerful testimony to bear. Frequently they absent themselves altogether from the assemblies of God's people. They are constantly drawing farther and farther away from God, and drifting downward to hopeless ruin. The most tender appeals, or fearful denunciations of God's word, fail to move their hearts. With stolid indifference they glide on toward the brink of utter destruction.

Oh! what has brought about this sad, this fearful change. They did run well for a season. Where is the hindering cause? What has turned the whole current of their affections from God to the world? Is it worldly prosperity? Will they allow the glitter and show of earth, which is as fleeting and transient as the morning dew, to eclipse the glory and unending beauty of Heaven? Or is the cross too heavy? the way too narrow? Jesus has borne the cross before us. He bore it up Calvary's rugged hight and there suffered untold agony that we might have redemption through his blood. His footprints may be seen all along the narrow way. If we would be his disciples, we must deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him. If we would have a home in those glorious mansions he is preparing for his people, we must agonize to enter in at the straight gate. Oh! that all who are lukewarm, cold, and indifferent, in the service of the Lord, would be entreated to return unto God, that he might return unto them and heal all their backslidings.

MARY E. GUILFORD.

Continue reading: Some Common Objections to the Sabbath