Review and Herald, Vol. 40, No. 10. (8/20/1872)

Review and Herald

Aug 20, 1872

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 20, 1872

DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTION

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 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE.

I HAVE received and read your rejoinder, and am happy to continue my argument, believing with you that “truth will triumph,” and praying that God may order our discussion to his own glory.

1. It is quite possible to lay down rules of evidence, and still violate the principles of just reasoning. Of this I think you have already given an illustration, which I will notice when I come to speak of the sanctification of the Sabbath day. It is not the statement of rules that is important, but conformity to them.

2. Your exception to the literal quotation and use of 1 John 3:4, “Sin is the transgression of the law,” was to be expected from one occupying your position. Dropping the article from that text will not avail your purpose, as I think will be shown when we come to an examination of the New Testament.

3. You say of the sixth commandment, “So clear and express is this language that by no possible construction could a Jew make it lawful to kill.” This seems to imply (and I notice it because I think you so intended) that it bound only the Jew. Will you take a definite position on this point? Or will you leave it a matter of doubt just what you intend by this expression? Much is involved in this. There is no mention of the sin of profanity, not even by implication, in all the book of Genesis. Was blasphemy or profaning the name of God, a “transgression of the law”—or of any law—in that age? This question is really involved now, but if you do not choose to avow your position now, it will be relevant under another proposition, and then we will canvass this field. I will resume my argument.

Having examined the Scriptures in regard to the time when the seventh day was made a Sabbath, I come now to consider the second point, to wit, for what it was made.

We have already seen that, according to the Scriptures, “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord” in a two-fold sense;

1. It is his Sabbath, or rest day, because that in it he rested. No other fact is revealed whereby it became his Sabbath. It is God's Sabbath alone, because none but God rested from the work to which it stands related. It is emphatically the Creation Sabbath, and as such is the Sabbath of the Creator.

2. It is the Lord's by right and special claim. When he said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” it was not merely to establish the fact that he rested on that day; but it was the proclamation of a proprietary right in it, for it was the basis of the precept, “In it thou shalt not do any work.” And again he said, “If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day.” Isa. 58:13. See also Ex. 16:23, 25; 31:13–15; Eze. 20:20; Rev. 1:10. And though “The Sabbath was made for man,” all those Scriptures wherein God claims a special right in it prove that it was made for man as a proprietor makes houses for his employees; they are his property, and to be used by them only in his service.

I have before called attention to the truth that the book of Genesis is not a book of law, but a history; and the evidence of the existence of obligation, and not the law itself, is what we are to expect to find in that book in regard to moral duties in that age. He who takes an opposite position; who claims that no duty existed before the exodus of Israel from Egypt except what is specifically recorded, or that nothing was wrong except what was expressly forbidden in the record, places himself in a singular position in regard to the revealed truths of that book. Perhaps no one would directly dissent from the position I here take. I pass to the record for proof of Sabbath obligation from creation.

First, I inquire, What is sufficient proof of the obligation of an institution? Two things, and two only, are necessary to prove an institution and its obligation;

The act of instituting.
The record of appointment.

I say, these are all that can in justice be required; but if we go farther and produce a precept enjoining its observance, in which the obligation is based entirely on the two facts, of institution and appointment, the conclusion is unavoidable that these facts determine the obligation.

I am willing to bear all the burden that justly belongs to an affirmant on such a question as this. And I freely confess that if I could not produce the act of making the institution, nor the act of its appointment, I would be ashamed to claim the existence of an institution, much more to urge any duty to observe one.

And 1st, On the act of Instituting. I have admitted that if we find no act of instituting, or no direct evidence of such an act, we have no right to infer the existence of an institution. But on this there is no just ground for controversy here. The evidence already presented on the making of the Sabbath is sufficient on this point, to wit, that God rested on the seventh day from the work of creation, and blessed the rest day, and claimed it as his own day because of these acts, making them expressly the basis of the obligation to observe it. Scarcely any other institution in the Bible has evidence in its favor so clear, so strong, and so complete as this, that the Sabbath was instituted at creation.

2d, On its Appointment. The evidence of the act of instituting is positive proof of the existence of the institution, but it does not positively determine any measure of obligation in regard to it. The Scripture declares that God rested on the seventh day, and that he blessed the rest day, indicate the regard he had for his rest day—the “sign” or memorial of his creative work. This alone would entitle the day to our high regard, and would be to us a sufficient reason for highly regarding it if we had proper respect and reverence for the mind and blessing of our great Creator. But that would not determine how we should show our regard for it. This is, however, determined with the utmost certainty by its appointment.

The position taken in the above paragraph shows how pointless are the remarks of Elder Vogel on the “necessary connection between God's resting and man's,” and “man must rest simply because God rested.” As he says, he is on the negative, and when I take that position it will be time for him to combat it. The reader will remember that I reserved the direct argument on the obligation to this number. I laid down some principles which he will never set aside; and I did say, and I repeat it, that God's resting on the seventh day is the basis, and the only basis of THE INSTITUTION. And he need not query in astonishment whether I have read the book of Deuteronomy. I think he has read it to little purpose if he cannot make a better use of it than he has done in this article. If Deut. 5 gives the reason of the institution I would like to have it pointed out. Is the seventh day the rest day of the Lord because Israel came out of Egypt? Did God bless the seventh day because he brought Israel out of Egypt? Did he sanctify the Sabbath day because he delivered Israel from bondage? And if so, will Elder Vogel show us the record? Here I stand on safe Bible ground. The reason, and the only reason, ever given in the Bible why the seventh day is the Sabbath, and for the blessing and sanctification of the Sabbath day, is that God rested from all his work of creation. You say it was the Sabbath because Israel rested from Egyptian bondage. But that is a reason of your own making; the Bible does not teach so. “The rest” which was promised them when they came out of Egypt they did not obtain until they gained their inheritance. It was the peaceable possession of the land of Canaan. Please see Deut. 3:18–20; 12:9, 10; Josh. 1:12–15; 21:43, 44. Your conclusions on these points I will notice hereafter.

Now I inquire, When did the Lord appoint the Sabbath? The answer to this question settles the second point in this proposition, for in its appointment we must find the duty of observance. The evidence of its appointment is found in the word sanctified, in Gen. 2:3, and hallowed, Ex. 20:11. The verb sanctified is a correct translation of the original, which is defined by Gesenius, “To make holy, to sanctify, to hallow. 1. To hold sacred, to regard and treat as holy; to keep holy. 2. To pronounce holy, to sanctify, e. g., the Sabbath, Gen. 2:3, also to institute any holy thing, to appoint. 3. To consecrate.”

Dr. Clarke, whose ability on such a question is as much beyond dispute as is that of Gesenius, says, “To sanctify, kadash, signifies to consecrate, separate, and set apart a thing or person from all secular purposes, to some religious use.” Again: “Here the word kadash is taken in its proper, literal sense, signifying the separating of a thing, person, or place, from all profane, or common uses, and devoting it to a sacred purpose.”

The English word sanctify is thus defined by Webster: “1. To make sacred or holy;” to set apart to a religious use; to consecrate by appropriate rites; to hallow.” The second definition refers to moral agents; the third to means. The fourth is thus given: “4. To impart sacredness, inviolability, title to reverence and respect, or the like, to; to secure from violation; to give sanction to.” Hallow is from the same Hebrew word and of course means the same.

I trust we shall have no difficulty on this point. Indeed the question of the Sabbath is not so encumbered with philological difficulties as are some others, for instance baptism. On the word baptism Webster does not conform to the uniform usage of the old Greek writers, nor to the general consent of Greek lexicons; so that in regard to baptism the English reader may become bewildered. But on the Sabbath the only difficulty is to believe the united testimony of the Bible and of Hebrew and English scholars. That no institution can be “appointed,” or “set apart, to a religious use” except by an injunction or precept to those who are to observe it, is beyond denial. I would give Scripture illustrations of the use of the word sanctified, to sustain this declaration, did I think it necessary to so occupy the space. Or, I will yet do so if it becomes necessary! Inasmuch as the sanctification of a day consists in a precept for its observance for a special or sacred purpose, the record of such sanctification or appointment is positive proof of the obligation to observe it. But just such evidence is found in Gen. 2, in the record concerning the creation and the rest-day. From that point the obligation dates.

Compare this strong evidence in Genesis for the Sabbath with the facts concerning some other moral duties—say the third commandment. In all that book we find not a single intimation concerning this; shall we therefore conclude that profanity was not sinful before the law was given on Sinai? Or was this also “Jewish,” and not sinful in the other nations? Evidently it was sinful, for the name of God was holy then as it is now. And so also of the Sabbath; only in regard to the latter, we have recorded facts to sustain our position, while Genesis is silent in regard to the former.

The assumption that God did not sanctify his rest-day at creation, but a long time afterward, is “an inference less than probable,” doing violence both to the record and to reason. It does violence to the record, for it denies the order laid down by inspiration, wresting the third verse from the second chapter of Genesis in its relation to recorded events, and placing it somewhere else where inspiration never placed it. Such a perversion of sacred Scripture as that is very rarely seen. For if the events there recorded did not then transpire according to the order laid down, the record is calculated to mislead the reader, and he who takes a position involving such a consequence should have a very necessary, plain, and decisive reason for his position. But no such reason exists. How incongruous, as a record of creation, is the following reading of Gen. 2:3: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it when he brought Israel out of Egypt; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.” And such an incongruity is produced by that theory. He who asserts that Gen. 2 records events which transpired after the exode should be able to furnish an obvious reason. Whenever the sanctification of the Sabbath is spoken of in the Bible, it is based only upon the facts connected with creation. If there were some other reason given, which originated at some other time, then there would be some show of consistency in that position. But to thus mutilate the record, and take the facts of Gen. 2:3, from their evident and oft-declared connection is without any reason, or necessity—except that which is found in the theory which gives rise to the perversion.

Eld. Vogel, in his effort to sustain this assumption, asserts that Genesis was written

after Exodus and Leviticus, and I must notice his reasoning. (1) He says the opposite has in its favor only “unsupported conjecture.” Not a very strong reason where there is only conjecture on either side. (2) He thinks if Moses had written Genesis before the exode, circumcision would have been so “impressed in his mind,” by chap. 17, as to render the neglect spoken of in Ex. 4:24–26 improbable. That might be so and not affect the question. But if that is a reason, how shall we account for the neglect of circumcision during the forty years' journeying in the wilderness, under the leadership of Moses? Had not circumcision been “impressed on his mind” during that whole time? See Lev. 12:3; Josh. 5:5–7. (3) From the exode till Exodus and Leviticus were written, he thinks Moses was too busy to write Genesis! In this he assumes to know at just what time those two books were written. How did he learn it? Is this a “necessary inference” from any Scripture declaration? It is all groundless assumption. Dr. Smith (Bib. Dict.), with others, thinks there was no original division of the Pentateuch, but that it was written consecutively, and there are some good grounds for the supposition. But Bro. V. thinks it “can be clearly established” that Genesis was written after the other books. If this is, with him, “clear” evidence, what must his inferences be? But this is the kind of evidence on which he grounds his faith that the Sabbath was not sanctified at creation.

Having exhausted my allotted space I am obliged to defer some of my arguments till the next number.

THE RESTORATION JUBILEE.

By W. Milne

When the last sun shall have risen And his last day's journey run; When these days and nights are ended, And an endless day begun; When the last repenting sinner Shall have found the shepherd's fold; And the sealed-up vision finished, As by prophets long foretold; When the cry—Behold, he cometh! Shall by listening ears be heard; For the watching and the waiting, Bringing with Him his reward; Then, a world redeemed shall see A greater, grander Jubilee.

When the fullness of the Gentiles Shall, as promised, be brought in; And the glorious consummation Shall have made an end of sin; When the saved of every nation, Every kindred, tribe and tongue, Shall have ended their probation, Then, that new song shall be sung: “Glory, honor, adoration, To the Lamb for sinners slain; He has conquered, He is worthy Evermore to live and reign. Then a world redeemed shall see A grand, a glorious Jubilee.”

No more sinning, no more sorrow, No more sighing, no more pain, No more doubting, no more fearing, Washed from every guilty stain; Every spot and every wrinkle Blotted out, and washed away, In that precious blood-filled fountain Opened upon Calvary. All who come, and all are welcome, Whosoever will may, Bathing in that living fountain, Wash their blackest sins away; And the blest performers be— In this glorious Jubilee.

Grand, eternal habitations, Where the blest shall have abode; City that hath sure foundations, Built by Israel's mighty God. Nothing, nothing that defileth, Or that hurts, shall enter there; Nothing that by fraud beguileth, Or by cunning that can snare. There will be no hours of sadness, Such as all must suffer here; Sweet, unbroken joy and gladness Shall pervade the atmosphere. And there no jarring notes shall be, At Heaven and earth's Peace Jubilee.

— W. Milne.

Praying Always.

By H. F. Phelps

“PRAYING always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints.” Eph. 6 : 18.

Prayer is the sincere desire of the heart. It may be expressed or it may be simply the meditation of the heart. The Bible expressly enjoins it as a duty of the Christian to pray. But there is, perhaps, no duty so very much neglected as prayer. We are too apt to be satisfied with the form of prayer, a few words night and morning, and we are content. And very many, it is to be feared, do not even pray a little. Too many pass on from day to day without a word of prayer—not even a thought toward Heaven. Such may lay claim to the name of Christian, but that is all they possess. They are not the followers of the meek and lowly Nazarene. The verse we have set at the head of this article brings to view a different nature of things. It says, “Praying always.” We should keep our minds in a continual state of prayer. Indeed, the Christian may well find occasion to pray always; for there are little perplexities, little annoyances continually arising, to which we give way unless we are on our guard against them. And it is through these little things that Satan comes in like an armed man to overthrow the soul. Our Saviour taught us to pray; and it is a model prayer. Let us try to pattern more after it. We are taught to “watch and pray,” and this not as though it were of but little account; but time and again does the inspired penman bring to our view the necessity of watching unto prayer. And our text says, “Watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication.” Watch perseveringly, do not give way. Watch: “Watch and pray, lest ye enter into temptation.” Paul says, “Pray everywhere.” Not pray when we are at home and can pray just as well as not; but pray everywhere. If we are away on a visit, let our light shine, and show our dependence on God by prayer. From James 5 : 13, 14, we learn that we must pray in affliction, and pray if we are rich. “Praying always,” says our text. Pray everywhere.

But again, when we pray we should believe. “Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire when ye pray, believe that ye receive them and ye shall have them.” In the verse before quoted from 1 Tim. 2 : 8, Paul says we should pray “without wrath and doubting.” And Jesus says again, Matt. 21 : 22 : “And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” But we are informed by the wise man, Prov. 28 : 9, that “he that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.” Now it becometh us to look well to it, whether we are of this class. And right here comes in the words of our Saviour, by which we may know whether we are asking right; for we are informed in Rom. 8 : 26, that “we know not what we should pray for as we ought.” “If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.”

If, then, by careful searching, we come to the conclusion that we are abiding in Christ the vine, and that the words of God abide in us, that we are trying to keep all the commandments of God, peradventure we may come even as the poor widow did to the unjust judge, with a determination that our case must be heard, and then, as Paul says in Rom. 8 : 26, 27, “The Spirit also helpeth our infirmities; . . . the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.” Oh! that we may get hold of some of this earnest desire of the Spirit in our own behalf.

When we consider the fact, that our Saviour found it necessary to spend much of his time in prayer, even all night in prayer to God, and going often away alone to commune with his Father, should not we poor mortals be always in prayer. Oh! that we might realise the need of more prayer. God is a prayer-hearing God. His ear is open to attend to our wants if we will only come to him in faith. And when we, as a people, get where we ought to be; when we fully heed the counsel of the Faithful Witness; when we see our lost, our undone condition, without God and without Christ; when we realize our poverty, our blindness, and our nakedness, then will not God hear our cries? Will he not lay hold on us and lift us up? Will he not work a mighty work in the earth? And will not his name be glorified and honored by giving us of his Spirit in such abundance that all of God’s people will move with power, and the work of the third angel soon be accomplished? I believe this will be the case.

Even now the Saviour stands at the door of our hearts knocking for admittance. But what is the matter? He stands there still—has stood there long. Oh! my dear brethren, let us open to the dear Saviour. Let us remove the rubbish that bars the door against his admittance. Oh! if we had zeal in the cause of God, then God could bless us. Or if we were in a cold condition there might be hope in our cases. But oh! we are lukewarm, a terrible condition, and soon to be spued out of the mouth of the Faithful Witness, and we don’t know it. We think we are rich and have need of nothing. But oh, our poverty! God help us.

But how came we into this position? Have we not failed in heeding the injunction of the apostle, “Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication”? May the Lord help us to take heed to our ways, watch and pray, and finally may we be numbered with those who shall be called Israel, or prevailers.

H. F. Phelps.

*Pine Island, Minn.

Pres. Fairchilds in Difficulty on the Sabbath.

By Wm. Penniman

J. H. Fairchilds, Pres. Oberlin College, in his Moral Philosophy, pages 261–4 inclusive, uses the following language in regard to the Sabbath, its change, &c. “The Sabbath, in its principle, is a law of nature; in its form, a positive institution. That positive enactment is found in the fourth commandment, ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’ The form of the precept indicates a previous establishment of the Sabbath. Of this we have the record in Genesis, which presents the institution as coeval with the creation of man; an indication that the Sabbath was for the race, and not for a particular people. A Sabbath divinely appointed was desirable to secure uniformity and to give authority.”

So far he reasons like a philosopher, but when he speaks of the change, he attempts to overthrow the “uniformity” so necessary in God’s plan. He first attempts to prove that a change is desirable by the following arguments, if arguments they may be called:

“If the old day were retained, the old associations would prevail. It would be difficult to turn the thought connected with the Sabbath from the old channel. A change of the Sabbath to another day, a day associated with the crowning event in the work of redemption, would serve this, and thus the Sabbath would be enriched by accumulated memories and associations. Such a change would seem desirable, if it were only allowable.”

Why not let the old associations prevail? Is it not for our good to think of God’s great work in creating the heavens and the earth? Why not think of the reasons which God has given us for remembering his rest day? If the old associations are good, reasonable, and right, why should they not prevail? for if they are founded upon the truth, they “must and will prevail.” Why turn our thoughts from the old channel? The old channel is a good one, then why not sail in it instead of taking a new, which will land us on a sand bar. If, as the writer claims, the original Sabbath was a “positive enactment,” “divinely appointed,” and in its form a positive institution, why change? especially as we have no positive authority for it. So far as the associations are concerned, let them prevail, old and new, we can think of creation and redemption. Again we have a “monument” in baptism by which we can commemorate the resurrection of Christ, and thus in a degree commemorate the great work of redemption.

According to Mr. F.’s own proposition, the change would not secure the “uniformity” so necessary. The change makes confusion, which is contrary to the great plan of the Creator. “If it were only allowable.” The candor of the writer in using the little word if is admirable. This shows that he is doubtful in regard to the allowableness and lawfulness of the change. No! God will not allow it. If man attempts the change, he attempts to overthrow an immutable law.

But why is the change so desirable? Why desire to walk in new paths when the old are the safest and the best? “Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” Jer. 6:16. So it is now. Men clamor for a change, and say as they did of old. Why is it so desirable to follow a multitude to do evil? Why so desirable to be on the popular side? Why so desirable to keep a day without one particle of authority for so doing?

He next assumes that the change is made, and in proof says: “As a historical fact, the change was made early in the Christian era, and has been maintained down to the present time.” Further, “As to the authority of the change, only a word or two can be suggested here.” True, the change has been made, or attempted to be made, but he does not tell when, where, nor by whom, neither can he tell, for no man can tell of any such change by divine authority. In regard to the authority for the change he is quite candid, as he says, “Only a word or two can be suggested here.” It can be safely said that he has not room in his Moral Philosophy, nor will there be in any work he may write to give even one word of authority for the change.

Again, “We find no definite, express command, changing the Sabbath, but the manner of the change harmonizes with the genius of the gospel system.” He is very truthful in the first part of the sentence and makes a very good admission, but the latter part is exceptionable. I would like to ask the learned writer a few questions: First, is it according to the genius of the gospel system to overthrow a positive “divinely appointed,” and, I might add, perpetual, enactment of the old? According to what philosophy and what genius did the Son of God overthrow the works of his Father, when he said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled? Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 5:18, 19.

Did not Christ in these declarations plainly recognize the law, and consequently the Sabbath therein? Finally, does not the genius of the gospel system harmonize with the infinite genius of its great Author, who kept his Father’s commands? If it be true that the manner of the change harmonizes with the genius of the gospel system, then that system must harmonize with the genius of the man of sin, of whom Daniel speaks (by inspiration), that he should think to change times and laws, Dan. 7:25, and with the genius of Constantine (a pagan emperor), who in A. D. 321 enacted the first Sunday law.

This supposed change then has been made, and “The wild solar holiday of all pagan times” (as it is called in the North British Review, Vol. 18, p. 409) has been maintained down to the present time.

But one more quotation: “That the ancient law of the Sabbath remains, only modified in one of its features, as a positive institution is probable, from the fact that all the reasons for the institution exist as of old. If this sentence is abridged as follows, it will be truthful. That the ancient law of the Sabbath remains as a positive institution is true from the fact that all the reasons for the institution exist as of old.”

If it be true that the reasons exist (and all intelligent beings know, or ought to know, that they do), all the logical and sledge-hammer reasoning in the world cannot overthrow this proposition.

This modification in one of the “features” of the Sabbath is no less than an attempted change in the law of God; and that change, to the first day of the week, overthrows the design of the Creator in the law, for the law requires not the first day, nor a day, but the seventh day.

To make his proposition stronger, he puts it in Latin, “Ratione manente lex manet,” meaning, the law stands while the reason stands. The reasons for keeping the Sabbath will stand forever, for God rested on that day; and again, the prophetic finger points to its observance in the new earth, Isa. 66:23, therefore the law must stand forever, and must be as immutable as the throne of God.

Wm. Penniman. Woodburn, Ill.

Truth and Obedience Essential to Salvation.

By Chas. A. Russell

ABOUT the most common objection that the people raise against the truth is, that “it does not make any difference what a person believes if he is only sincere.” This is almost always repeated as a last resort. Such was the case with a gentleman with whom we were conversing lately, who, failing to sustain his position by the Bible, availed himself of this oft-repeated dogma.

According to this theory, some of the most abject heathen will be saved; for it is evident that they are sincere. They would not be likely to voluntarily afflict themselves as many do, enduring excruciating tortures, casting their children to alligators to be devoured, and into the fire to be burned, and throwing themselves under the car of Juggernaut to be crushed to death, unless they believed these things would increase their happiness hereafter. But the Bible declares that such shall be destroyed. Ps. 9: 17.

But it is evident that unbelief is the foundation of this position. Paul, in 2 Thess. 2: 10-12, plainly tells us that those that believe not the truth shall be damned. We have seen the result of unbelief in the past. If the antediluvians had believed the warning God sent them by Noah they might have been saved with him. The same might be said of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and also of Jerusalem.

The Christians, after the withdrawal of the Roman army from around the city, made their escape, in obedience to the warning of the Saviour; while the unbelieving Jews were destroyed.

Thus it will be in the great day. Rev. 21: 8. But it is not only those who entirely reject God’s word that will fail to reach Heaven. Those only will get there who are fitted for it, “through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” To believe different from what the Lord has told us is to make him a liar. I John 5: 10.

From the above scriptures, it is evident that the Lord will not only punish those who disbelieve his word, but will save only those who believe and obey the truth. When we present the evidences of the soon coming of the Lord and the preparation necessary to meet him, as brought to view in the three messages of Rev. 14, particularly the third, many people who profess strong faith in the Bible, rather than take up the cross and keep the fourth commandment, will settle back into this loose, lax position, that it does not make much difference what we believe, if we are only honest, and that it makes no difference whether we believe that the Lord is coming or not if we are prepared to die; but, according to the words of our Lord in Matt. 24: 39, those that know not the time will be lost, for the plain reason that people will not prepare for what they do not believe is coming, and further, we are taught

that without faith it is impossible to please God; so that we cannot please him and disbelieve anything he has told us. Then how can any person please him when they have no faith in what he has said respecting his second coming, and the signs that should be given to show when that event is near. He says, “When ye shall see all these things, know that it [his coming] is near, even at the doors.” No one can show that these signs are not now fulfilled. And he further elucidates the fact by the most forcible illustration in nature, the putting forth of vegetation in the spring, which is unmistakable evidence that summer is near at hand, and then adds, “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.”

This expression of our Lord, “know that it is near,” seems to us as emphatic a requirement as the one to love one another, although a different principle is involved. We would rather not be among those that add to, or take from, the word of the Lord.

CHAS. A. RUSSELL.

Glencoe, McLeod Co., Minn.

Continue reading: The Coming of Christ—No. 5