Review and Herald, Vol. 27, No. 21. (4/24/1866)

Review and Herald

Apr 24, 1866

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 24, 1866

Sermon. Number Four.

By D. M. Canright

Faith and Works.

BY D. M. CANRIGHT.

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." James ii, 24.

MANY of our orthodox friends seem to hold that the old covenant under which the Jews lived, was a covenant of works entirely, while the new covenant is entirely a covenant of faith; that is, under the old, men were justified with God by works, under the new, by faith. The Methodist Discipline, Part I, Chap. I, Sect. ix, says: "Wherefore, that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort." This position is generally taken to avoid the claims of the law of God. But we think that the connection between faith and works has ever been the same under both covenants. Faith in Christ was as necessary to salvation in the days of Noah, or Adam, as it is to-day. Before the fall, man might have been justified by works only, without faith. We read that God placed him in Eden, surrounded with every thing that was "pleasant to the sight, and good for food." "And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat; but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Gen. ii, 16, 17. As long as Adam had obeyed this command, he would have lived, had it been ten years, or a thousand, or forever. As long as he did not disobey God by partaking of the forbidden fruit, just so long the day in which he should surely die, would not come. Hence he could live, or continue to be justified, by keeping the commands of God,—by his works. "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Rom. ii, 12.

Of course, as long as he did not sin he could not be condemned. But at length man sinned. "And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat." Gen. iii, 6. Death was the penalty for this transgression. "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Rom. v, 12. Here we may understand what Paul says of the law in Rom. vii, 10. "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." Every good law is ordained, not so much to punish the wicked, as it is to protect the innocent. We punish one wicked man, not because we love to torment him, but to deter others from like deeds, and thus protect the innocent. Thus the law is made for our protection as long as we keep it. To illustrate: The law against murder, provides that a man for killing his fellow man shall be hung till he is dead. I am in company with A., and have a large amount of money. He meditates killing me to get my money, but remembers that the law will punish him with death, if discovered. This deters him from killing me. Thus the law accomplishes its design in saving my life. Now suppose that I turn around and kill A. for his money? Then the same law will take my life for it. Thus the law which was ordained to life, or for my protection, I find to be unto death the moment that I transgress it.

So with the law of God. It was ordained for man's good; but when he broke it, it condemned him to death. This then was man's condition after he had sinned; he was condemned to death, for the Lord had said, "Thou shalt surely die." Now a Saviour became necessary: now they needed faith, and could no longer be saved without it. Could they now be justified by simply keeping the law in the future? No; for they were bound to do this any way, if they had never sinned at all. Simply doing their duty, could not atone for their sin. If I should live fifty years, it is my bounden duty to keep every good law of the State, from the day of my birth till the day of my death. Now suppose that when I am twenty-five years of age, I steal, am arrested, judged, and found guilty. I say to the court, "I confess that I have broken the law, and am justly condemned. But if you will let me go this time, I will never steal any more. I will be a good citizen, and strictly keep all the law in the future." Could they let me go on these grounds? would future obedience atone for past transgressions? Certainly not; for if I should strictly keep all the law the rest of my life, I should do nothing more than I ought to have done, had I never broken the law. For the first twenty-five years of my life, I kept the law. This was simply doing my duty. Then for one year I live in violation of the law. This I ought not to have done. Now for the remaining twenty-four years of my life, I keep the law again. But I ought to have done this every year of my whole life, whereas there is one year that I did not do it. How can I atone for that year's transgression? Not by future obedience certainly, but only by suffering the penalty of the law.

So with Adam,—so with every sinner. By this it will be seen that when a man has once sinned, has broken the law, it is utterly impossible for him, by future good works, to atone for his past transgressions. It is a sacred duty which we owe to God, to strictly keep all his law from our birth till our death. "Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." Eccl. xii, 13. If we should do this all our life without doing one wrong act, we would only have done our duty,—have discharged a lawful obligation which we owed to our Creator. "So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which was our duty to do." Luke xvii, 10.

Hence the moment that Adam sinned, he was utterly ruined. The sentence of death stood against him, from which it was out of his power to free himself. He and his posterity must die, must cease to exist, never to live again. But might not God exercise his mercy, and pardon him if he would do better in the future? No; he could not set aside his law; the penalty must be executed, or else lawlessness and anarchy would soon reign in his government. To illustrate: A teacher at the beginning of his school, establishes rules by which his pupils are to be governed, saying that all who break them will be punished so and so. In a few days John is caught breaking the rules. He is called up and confesses himself guilty, but promises to do so no more, if the teacher will not punish him this time. Remembering that John has been a good boy in the past, and that it is his first offense, the teacher lets him go unpunished. In a short time, Charles is found breaking the rules. The teacher calls him up and prepares to punish him. But Charles pleads, "You did not punish John for the same thing; it is not fair to punish me, and let him go free." The teacher could not fail to see the justice of this plea; so he must either let Charles go to his seat unpunished, or show to all that he is partial in his school. So Charles goes back with a promise to do better. Soon Frank is found transgressing, is brought up, makes the same plea, with the same reason, citing the examples of John and Charles. Here the teacher is confounded again. His hands are tied, and he can only dismiss Frank as he has John and Charles before. In this way his rules are soon disregarded entirely, and disorder and confusion reign throughout his school. What must be done? Answer. Punish the first, and every one who breaks his rules, and thus command respect and obedience to them.

So with the law of God. If God should set aside its penalty in one case, he may in the second, and in the third, and so on, or else become partial and unjust to his creatures. In this way his law would soon

be despised altogether, and his government entirely subverted. Therefore the penalty that Adam had incurred, which was death, must be executed. But if it is executed upon man, he is eternally lost. There is one thing more, however, that might be done, i. e., inflict the penalty of the law upon a substitute instead of upon man, and thus allow man to escape while yet the honour of the law is maintained. But man could not furnish that substitute. God only could do it. So we read, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Jno. iii, 16. The promise of this Saviour was made to man before Adam was expelled from Eden, where it is declared, Gen. iii, 15, that "the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head." Now in order to be saved, man must have faith in the promised Saviour. And indeed we find that the righteous began immediately to express faith in him. Thus we read of Abel: "And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and his offering." Gen. iv, 4. He offered this through faith, as we learn from Heb. x, 4. "By faith, Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." By offering an innocent lamb, Abel confessed his guilt and worthiness to die, and at the same time shewed his faith in the true Sacrifice, the Lamb of God, who was to come and bear the sin of the world. The same absolute necessity for faith existed in the time of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and others, that has existed since the coming of Christ. Was not man's relation to God the same then as it is now? Was he not a sinner, condemned by the law of God? was not Christ the only one that could atone for their sins? that could save them from their iniquities? Must not the sinner at that time have faith in the great atonement, in order to be benefited by it, as well as the sinner of to-day? Then why is it claimed that the old covenant was one of works? or that the new covenant is any more a covenant of faith than the old? We will soon show that, so far as faith and works are concerned, there is no difference between the old and new covenants.

Abraham lived under the old covenant, was in fact the father of the Jewish people. Of him we read: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Rom. iv, 1-3. By this we see that Abraham was justified, not by works, but by faith. Query: Did his faith free him from keeping the law of God, as some claim that faith now frees us from obeying it? Let the Lord answer, "Because that even Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. xxvi, 5. By this we see that the very reason why God accepted his faith, was that he obeyed him, and kept his law. James states this very plainly. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which said, Abraham BELIEVED God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God." James ii, 21-23. "Faith wrought with his works," says James, "and by works was faith made perfect." Here is the true relation that always exists between faith and works, viz., by carefully obeying him, and keeping all his commandments, we show our faith in him.

Many seem to think that faith, Christ, and the gospel, were never preached till Jesus came into the world, and that then there was a perfect overturning of all things, so that men are now saved in a far different way from what they were before! They seem to imagine that what would constitute a person a child of God anciently, would make a very bad man now! How absurd! Has God changed? Have right and wrong changed sides? Has God changed his mind and standard of morality? Does he now love that which he once hated, and hate that which he once loved? How blasphemous to charge God with such folly!

My Bible teaches me that the gospel was preached to Abraham, and to all the ancient people of God, and that they were saved by believing it, or damned for unbelief, the same as men are now. "Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." Gal. iii, 7, 8. Of the people who came out of Egypt under Moses, I read: "But with whom was he grieved forty years? was it not with them that had sinned, whose carcasses fell in the wilderness? And to whom swore he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief." Here it is stated plainly that those men fell through unbelief. He continues: "Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: (Then it is certain that the gospel was preached unto 'them,' i. e., those living under the old covenant), but the word preached did not profit them, (why?) not being mixed with faith in them that heard it." Heb. iii, 17, 19; iv, 1, 2.

"But," says one, "that was simply faith in God and his word. I do not believe that they knew anything about faith in Christ as their Saviour—that they partook of that spiritual food, that they lived by faith on the Son of God, as Christians do now." Well, Paul would not agree with you, for he says, "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them; and that rock was CHRIST." 1 Cor. x, 1-4. This is plain, positive, and decisive. The people of God under the old covenant, the same as under the new, by faith, partook of the Bread of Life, which is Christ. Now if faith in Christ will free us from obeying the law of God, or any part of it, it would have freed them just the same; for they had faith in him the same as we have. Did it then free them from keeping the law? Nay, verily. At the very time Paul says they were spiritually partaking of Christ, Moses said to them, "And He (God) declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. iv, 13. Then we see that under the old covenant, it required two things to make a man of God, viz.: 1. Faith in Christ, for the remission of sins; and, 2. Obedience to the commandments of God. We shall soon see that it requires precisely the same to constitute a Christian now.

Then where is the difference between the old and the new covenant? All the ordinances and ceremonies of the Lord's house under the former covenant pointed forward to the death of Christ; while the ordinances of the Lord's house now, point back to the same event. Thus, when the people slew in sacrifice their lambs and beasts, they pointed forward to the true sacrifice, the slaying of the Lamb of God. In themselves, those sacrifices never atoned for one sin. Thus Paul says, "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of those things, can never, with those sacrifices which they offer year by year continually, make the comers thereunto perfect." "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." Heb. x, 1, 4. In Col. ii, 14-17, he tells us the true office which those sacrifices and ordinances performed, i. e., they were "a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ." But this is so universally admitted, that it is not necessary to argue it here. But now what have we in their stead pointing back to the cross? Answer: The Lord's supper and baptism. In 1 Cor. xi, 23-26, we read: "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat; this is my body which is broken for you; this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood; this do ye, as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye show the Lord's death till he come." The broken bread commemorates the broken body of Christ, and the wine, his spilt blood. Baptism commemorates his burial and resurrection, as Paul teaches in Rom. vi, 3-5. "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." The minister leads the candidate for baptism, down into the water and buries him beneath its waves, the same as Jesus was buried in Joseph's new tomb. He then raises him out of the water, the same as Jesus was raised out of his grave. Thus we have beautiful emblems of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection in the ordinances of the Lord's supper and baptism. These point us back to the cross, the same as sacrifices anciently pointed forward to that event. This is the difference between the two covenants, so far as outward ceremonies are concerned. But does this change our relation to the law of God? Not in the least. We still stand on the same foundation that the ancient people of God did, namely, faith in Christ and obedience to the law of God. Thus, in Eph. ii, 20, Paul says that Christians "are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Notice that the apostles under the new covenant, and the prophets under the old, both stand upon the same foundation, which is, as we have shown, faith in Christ and obedience to the commandments of God.

A fact is stated in Gal. iii, 29, which is worthy of our attention. "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed (children), and heirs according to the promise." Every Christian, of course, claims to be Christ's. Whoever then is Christ's, Paul says is a child of Abraham. So then all true Christians are Abraham's children. Now let us listen to the declaration of Jesus in Jno. viii, 39. "They (the Jews) answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." Did Abraham keep all the law and commandments of God? He did. "Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. xxvi, 5. Paul says that all Christians are Abraham's children; Jesus says that, if they were Abraham's children, they would do the works of Abraham; and the Lord says that Abraham kept all his commandments. Therefore the conclusion is unavoidable that Christians are bound to keep the same law which Abraham kept. This proves our statement true, that it requires the same to constitute a child of God now that it did in the time of Abraham.

But here we are met with the objection that, "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Rom. x, 4. Or, as it is stated more to their liking in chap. vi, 14, "We are not under the law, but under grace." "That is," they say "Christians are not bound to keep the old law any more, have nothing to do with it now. It is the old dead school-master which was taken away." If I had not heard this argument used by scores of individuals, and even ministers, I could not have believed that Christians would advocate so absurd and pernicious a doctrine. But, as every Sabbath-keeper knows, this is the "last ditch," the strong hold of those who oppose the law of God. This argument, with them, answers all objections and appears perfectly conclusive. But let us look at this: "Not under the law, but under grace." If this means that we are not obliged to keep, to obey, the law, then of course, we, i. e., Christians are at liberty to swear, steal, kill, &c., as these are a part of the law! But only those who are "under grace" are thus privileged. The sinner is not under grace, hence, he is obliged to keep the law! This may account for the common saying of the day, that it is safer to trust a worldling or an infidel, than a professor of religion. While the Christian (?) can break the law with impunity, the poor infidel will be held to a strict account for breaking it; hence, of course, he must be the most moral man

of the two!

“Stop,” says one, “we do not claim that Christians may kill, steal, &c. It only means that we are not bound to keep the seventh-day Sabbath as the law reads.” Ah, yes, here is the point. By “the law” Paul only means “the Sabbath!” We are not bound to keep that. But he says “THE LAW,” and that comprehends the whole law. The same argument which will do away with the Sabbath, will do away with every precept in the law. Thus men in their mad efforts to overthrow the Sabbath, blindly strike against the whole moral law. It must be a hard doctrine which is so hard pressed as this!

We believe as firmly as our opponents do, that Christians are not “under the law;” but we differ widely with regard to what it is to be under the law. In Rom. iii, 19. Paul says, “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God.” Then the law speaks to those only who are under it. To illustrate: A. is a loyal citizen of the State. He has always kept the law. Hence he is at perfect liberty to go where he wishes, and do what he chooses. The law says nothing to him. At length he changes his conduct and steals a horse. He is caught and the shackles put upon him. Now he is “under” the law; its iron grasp is upon him. He is tried, found guilty, and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. Now the law begins to talk to him, saying, “You must go to prison and work ten years to hard labor,” &c. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law,” or are condemned by it. Thus we see, that to be under the law, is to have broken it, and to be condemned by it. But to Christians, Paul says, “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” How is that? Let us follow Mr. A. a little longer. While he is going to prison with the irons upon him he meets the Governor, who perhaps has been acquainted with him. He humbly begs the Governor to pardon him, pleading that heretofore he has been an honest man, that he is sorry for what he has done, that he will do better in the future, &c. He finds grace (favor) with the Governor, who, moved with compassion, pardons him. Immediately his irons are removed and he is set at liberty. What is his condition now? Answer. He is “not under the law, but under grace.” By the favor of the Governor he is pardoned, freed from the condemnation of the law, and now stands in grace or favor with the others. So with the Christian. He had broken God’s law and was condemned to death. Rom. iii, 23; vi, 23. He goes to God and asks him, for Christ’s sake to pardon a sinner who has repented. The Lord has mercy on him and pardons him,—frees him from the condemnation of the law. Now he is no longer under the law (condemned by it), but is under grace,—in favor with God. Now the important question is, Does this free him from keeping the law? does it give him liberty to disobey it?

Let us return to A. again. After the Governor leaves him, I think I hear him talking to himself thus: “Now I am not under the law, but under grace. The preachers say that means that we are not obliged to obey it any more. What a happy man I am! Now I can steal all I wish to with impunity!” So that night he carries out what the ministers have taught him, and steals another horse. What is the result? All say, that he will be arrested and condemned, brought under the law where he was before he was pardoned.

Just so with the Christian. If he breaks the law after he is pardoned, he will be brought right under it again,—just where he was before. By this illustration I think it is plain what it is to be under the law, and what to be under grace. To be under the law, is to be condemned by it. To be under grace, is to be in favor with God, having our sins pardoned, and living in obedience to the law of God. Now let us hear Paul’s conclusion on this point. “For sin shall not have dominion over you; (why?) for ye are not under the law (not condemned by it, but under grace, pardoned). What then? shall we sin, (transgress the law, Jno. iii, 4), because we are not under the law, but under grace? (‘Certainly,’ say some, ‘if we are not under it, we are not bound to keep it any more.’ But hear Paul.) God forbid!” This is his emphatic answer, which ought to confound all who claim that we may break the law because we are not under it.

In Rom. iii, Paul, after stating that all have sinned and are under the law, condemned to death, says, that God has set forth Christ “to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are passed, through the forbearance of God.” It is for the pardon of sins that are past that Christ died. Let us suppose a case: It has been a wicked man till he is twenty-five years old. Now he is convicted of his sins and wishes to become a child of God, and gain eternal life. But the sins which are past, which he has already committed, condemn him to death. He cannot now atone for them by obedience in the future. What can he do? He goes to God and pleads with him, for Christ’s sake, to pardon his sins which are past. He promises faithfully to keep all his commandments in the future, if he will only pardon him for breaking them in the past. The Lord now pardons his past sins on condition that he will “sin no more.” Then he stands free from his sins just as though he had never sinned at all. To those who have thus been pardoned, Paul now says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Phil. ii, 12. By faith in Christ the sinner obtains favor with God and the pardon of his sins. By works he afterward retains that favor. Thus we see that it requires both faith and works united to constitute a child of God.

In James ii, the connection between faith and works is very clearly explained. James first brings forward the law of God as the basis of good works. “If ye fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment. What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?” To hear opposers of the Sabbath preach nowadays, one would certainly conclude that a man could be saved by faith without works,—without keeping the law. Nay, he would think that whoever did keep the whole law would be sure to be damned! for thus they often talk when opposing Sabbath-keepers. But James asks, “Can faith alone save a man if he have not works?” thus implying that it can not. To prove this, he gives an illustration. “If a brother or sister be naked, or destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works; show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works.”

Here is the test of the true Christian, and here is James’ opinion of those who boast so much of their faith, but think so little of works. To such he says, Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works. So taught James, and so we teach. But the next verse ought forever to confound those who are trusting in faith without works, and show them their awful condition. “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well; the devils also believe, and tremble.” In other words, you that only have faith, have no more than the devils have. So you stand just as good a chance for salvation as the devils do, but not better. If you are saved, the devils will be too! “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness; and he was called, the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

This is the conclusion which James draws with regard to faith and works, or keeping the whole law of God. In teaching the great necessity of good works, we only follow the example of Christ and his apostles. In his first sermon, Jesus said, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in Heaven.” Matt. v, 16. Of a certain class of professors, Paul says, “They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him.” Tit. i, 16. In chap. ii, 14, he says, that the people of God must “be zealous of good works.” In chap. iii, 8, to Titus, a young minister, Paul says, “This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.” So we, as ministers of God, and followers of Christ, must earnestly teach and exhort you to be zealous and maintain good works. But why is God so particular that his children should have good works? There must be a reason for this. To illustrate: A wealthy man proposes to go West and buy a large tract of land and form a colony to suit himself. He begins to inquire, “Whom shall I take with me to form my colony? There is Mr. A., I’ll not have him there, for he will steal, and I do not want any thieves in my colony. I will not take Mr. B., for he does not always tell the truth, and I don’t wish to have liars there. C. I will not take because he is always slandering some one, and thus making trouble.” Thus he wisely rejects all who are not perfectly upright, moral persons, and selects such only as are honest, industrious, good men. By this means he will form a happy society. So with the Lord. He is going to form a colony, so to speak, in the earth made new. Into this society, none but good, honest, righteous persons can be admitted. 2 Pet. iii, 15. If the Lord should admit one bad person there, a thief, a liar, a murderer, a slanderer, or any other bad person, it would mar and ruin the happiness of all. The Lord is now watching and testing us to see whom it will do to admit into his colony, to become citizens there. Our character here will determine our character there. If we are not good citizens, honest neighbors, kind friends, and righteous persons here, where is the surety that we would be in the new earth? Nay, we know that the character that we form here will go with us to the other world. So we may be sure, that, if we are not good in every particular, if we break one point of the law, if there is any sin or unrighteousness in us, God will never allow us to enter into his holy kingdom.

“But,” says one, “I do not believe that Sabbath-keeping has anything to do with obtaining an admittance there.” Well, this one thing I do know, that all who get there will keep the Sabbath then, at least. For thus I read of that place: “For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain. And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.” Isa. lxvi, 22, 23. Thus we see that all will keep the Sabbath there. But if persons will not keep it here, how shall we know that they will keep it there? We have no warrant that they will. Hence they stand no better chance than those who break any other part of the law. “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

Rejoice.

By J. A. Gregory

REJOICE ye saints and sing, Your God and King adore; Let your glad voices ring, In triumph evermore.

CHORUS.—Lift up your heads, lift up your voice; Rejoice aloud, ye saints rejoice.

Rejoice, the Saviour reigns, The God of truth and love; When he had borne our sins, He took his seat above.

CHORUS.—Lift up, &c.

He intercedes on high, Before the Father's throne; The time is drawing nigh When 'twill be said, "'Tis done."

CHORUS.—

He all his foes shall quell, And death and hell destroy; Let every bosom swell With pure seraphic joy.

CHORUS.—

Rejoice in glorious hope; The Saviour soon will come, And take his children up Unto their Father's home.

CHORUS.—We soon shall hear the Archangel's voice, The trump of God shall sound, rejoice.

Selected and changed by J. A. GREGORY.

Durand, Wis.

Creeds and Crime

Creeds and Crime.—The report of the Inspector General of prisons in Ireland for the last year has the following suggestive facts: Of the 32,870 prisoners, 1,094, or a little over three per cent., were Presbyterians; 3,312, or ten per cent., were of the Established church; 28,266, or eighty per cent., were Roman Catholics, and 198 not ascertained. Of the juvenile prisoners, 35 were Presbyterians, 116 of the Established church, and 1,179 Roman Catholics.

Madness and Drunkenness Among Indians

Among the Indians, the terms for madness and drunkenness are identical.

Elder Preble's Challenge for a Discussion Through the World's Crisis.

By John Nevins Andrews

BRN. SMITH, AMADON AND ALDRICH: The Review for Feb. 27, containing the challenge of Eld. T. M. Preble in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of that paper, came duly to hand. In the remarks which you appended to this extract from the Crisis, I found that you had designated me as the person to conduct this discussion on the part of the Seventh-day Adventists. In obedience to this instruction, I addressed the following note of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis:

[For the Crisis.]

Brother Grant: I accept the proposition of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question through the columns of the Crisis, and of the Advent Review. He proposes to discuss "the merits of J. N. Andrews' History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath."

In accordance with this offer, I name two points for discussion:

1. The biblical argument for the observance of the seventh day.

2. The historical argument relating to the seventh and first days of the week, and involving "the merits of J. N. Andrews' History of the Sabbath."

Upon the publication of this acceptance in the Crisis, I will open the discussion of the first point. J. N. ANDREWS.

Norridgewock, Maine, March 5, 1866.

As the conductors of the Crisis had endorsed Eld. P.'s challenge for a discussion of this subject through its columns, by publishing that challenge to the world, they could not without injustice refuse to insert my note of acceptance in that paper, even though they decided not to allow the discussion to take place. Instead of this, however, the whole matter was disposed of by the following letter from the editor of the Crisis, which came to hand March 19th:

Boston, Mass., March 14th, 1866.

Brother Andrews: Your note of the 5th inst. was put into my hands to-day. Our regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis. I have sent your proposition to Bro. Preble. *Your brother in Christ, Miles Grant.*

To this letter, I returned the following reply:

Norridgewock, Maine, March 19th, 1866.

Brother Grant: Yours of the 15th inst. has just come to hand. I learn with surprise and regret, that your "regulations will not allow a discussion in the Crisis." Your regulations did allow the publication of a challenge in the Crisis of Feb. 14, for a discussion of the Sabbath question "through the columns" of that paper. The proposition was clothed in very defiant language, and being admitted into the Crisis by its editor, it did necessarily open that paper to the discussion of this subject. In accepting Elder P.'s proposition thus endorsed by yourself, I did not act upon my own responsibility. I was duly designated by those who have charge of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association, to conduct this discussion on behalf of the observers of the seventh day. In shutting the columns of the Crisis without one word of explanation, you certainly do us great injustice. I think it would have been no more than just that you should have inserted my brief letter of acceptance, accompanied by such remarks as you deemed proper. My regret would have been no less that the discussion could not be had, but I should have felt that you had not been guilty of injustice. We stand before the world "dared" to risk an encounter through the columns of the Crisis, and yet not allowed even to accept such challenge through its columns.

You say that you have sent my letter to Elder P. With Eld. P. privately I have nothing to do. An oral discussion is of very little consequence. I have other, and more important duties to perform. But a written discussion that should bring the subject before the whole body of Adventists, I would deem really important. In good faith I accepted the proposition for such a discussion. If this cannot take place, the fault is certainly not on the side of Seventh-day Adventists. Will you not do us the justice to make a fair statement of the fact that we did accept the proposition of Elder P. for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis, and of the Advent Review? *Yours in Christ, J. N. Andrews.*

This letter was mailed March 20th, and probably reached Boston that night. Having waited till the present date, April 12th, I judge that there is no reason to hope that any attention will be paid to the appeal therein addressed to the editor of the Crisis. I know not on what grounds he refuses to allow the fact to appear that Elder Preble's challenge was promptly accepted. The readers of the Crisis are left to believe, 1. That that paper is open to a fair discussion of the Sabbath question. 2. That the observers of the Bible Sabbath dare not meet the subject in a fair, open encounter, through the columns of the Crisis, and the Review. As neither of these conclusions is according to truth, it is not easy to assign a just reason for the refusal of the editor of the Crisis to allow of their correction.

With regret that this discussion ends in such a manner, I herewith submit my report, and resign my trust. J. N. ANDREWS.

Norridgewock, Maine, April 12th, 1866.

Continue reading: The Law Must Be Preached