Review and Herald, Vol. 38, No. 8. (8/8/1871)

Review and Herald

Aug 8, 1871

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 8, 1871

Examination of T. M. Preble’s First-day Sabbath.

By John Nevins Andrews

BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.

CHAPTER FIRST.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

In August, 1867, Eld. T. M. Preble published a volume of 471 pages, entitled “The First-day Sabbath.” As this book had been announced some years prior to its publication as designed expressly for the refutation of “Andrews’ History of the Sabbath,” its appearance was awaited with some degree of interest. The earliest copies issued were received at the Advent camp-meeting of that year at Wilbraham, Mass., toward the close of that meeting, and one of the first copies sold, was to myself. On perusing the book, however, I was satisfied that it could do little hurt to any who had candidly read the History of the Sabbath which it professes to answer. The work is remarkable for two things: First, for intense bitterness toward myself, for which no provocation whatever has ever been given; Second, for being utterly uncandid in its professed reply to my History of the Sabbath. Such being the character of the work it has never seemed to me especially important to reply to it because not adapted to injure the candid reader. And being constantly pressed with the most urgent duties, I have never seen time to visit those libraries which I consulted in the first place, and to which I must again refer in order to properly vindicate myself from the attack of Eld. Preble. The preparation of a second edition of my work, however, gives me opportunity to prepare also a reply to this book written to overthrow mine, and I gladly avail myself of the privilege.

Before entering upon the direct examination of Eld. P.’s book, a brief recital of facts intimately connected with the present discussion is worthy of the reader’s attention. In November, 1865, a discussion was held at Portland, Maine, between Elds. Cornell and Preble. The question was thus stated: “The seventh-day Sabbath, observed by God’s people prior to the crucifixion of Christ, is still binding upon mankind.” Eld. C. affirmed; Eld. P. denied. In the early part of the discussion Eld. P. made a very bitter attack upon “Andrews’ History

of the Sabbath;” and he had so much to say respecting it that Eld. C. protested against this course of action as being wholly irrelevant to the question under examination. He declined to follow Eld. P. in this thing, but at my request made him this proposition: “The author of the History of the Sabbath will discuss the merits of that work with Eld. P. through the columns of the ADVENT REVIEW, the organ of the Seventh-day Adventists, provided that the discussion shall also be published in the World’s Crisis, the eastern organ of the no-law Adventists.”

In reporting the discussion at Portland, the editor of the ADVENT REVIEW, Uriah Smith, made the following remarks in reference to the foregoing proposition, in that paper of Jan. 30, 1866: “The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in a fair and open encounter.”

The World’s Crisis for Feb. 14, 1866, contained the following response from Eld. Preble:—

“CHALLENGE.

“In the REVIEW AND HERALD of Jan. 30, 1866, in referring to J. N. Andrews’ History of the Sabbath, the writer says:

“The door is now open for them to test this matter, if they dare step in and risk their cause in a fair and open encounter.”

“To this challenge I reply that I am ready, and ‘dare step in and risk’ an open encounter with any man in their ranks qualified to defend their cause in testing the merits of J. N. Andrews’ History, or any other point connected with their theory of the seventh-day Sabbath, either in oral or written discussion, as soon as arrangements can be agreed upon.

“Will they ‘dare’ do it? Will they ‘risk their cause’ in this manner? We shall see. They may try to shield themselves from this issue, by saying they will not debate this question with me unless the World’s Crisis will also publish the discussion. But I am disposed to ‘dare’ them to ‘risk their cause’ in an open encounter through the columns of this paper. But it is quite doubtful whether they will dare to run such a ‘risk’ as this. But we shall see what we shall see. T. M. PREBLE. East Weare, N. H., Feb. 5, 1866.”

The World’s Crisis having published this defiant challenge to the Seventh-day Adventists to risk an encounter with Eld. P. in the columns of that paper, did by that act in the most emphatic manner commit itself that such discussion should be allowed a place in the columns, if the friends of the seventh-day Sabbath should dare to undertake it. Such being the case, it was proper that our General Conference Committee should take action with reference to this matter. It was not merely Eld. P., but it was really the World’s Crisis that thus threw down the gauntlet. And moreover this gave promise of an opportunity to reach the no-law Adventists with the argument in behalf of the seventh day. Only one member of the General Conference Committee was at this time in Battle Creek; but the editor of the ADVENT REVIEW and the editor of the Youth’s Instructor united with that member in responding through the REVIEW of Feb. 27, 1866, to the defiant language of the Crisis. Here is their response:

“Acting for the other members of the General Conference Committee, we would designate Eld. J. N. Andrews as the one to conduct this discussion in behalf of Seventh-day Adventists. And he is hereby instructed to make such arrangements with Eld. P. and the Crisis as shall bring the matter to an early issue. [Signed] U. SMITH. G. W. AMADON. J. M. ALDRICH.”

In obedience to this instruction I addressed the following note of acceptance to the editor of the Crisis:—

“[For the Crisis.] “NORRIDGEWOCK, ME., March 5, 1866.

“BRO. 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.”

As the conductors of the Crisis had indorsed Eld. P.’s challenge for a discussion of this subject through its columns, by publishing that challenge to the world, they could not, without the most flagrant injustice, refuse to insert in that paper my note of acceptance, even though they should decide to shut out the discussion. It would indeed reflect no honor upon them to publish a challenge for a discussion through their columns, and then refuse to allow the discussion to take place; but to go still further and refuse to publish the note of acceptance, or even to let the fact appear that the challenge was accepted, is an act of injustice that can only be justified by proving that the moral law is abolished. And now observe what was done. No notice was taken of this acceptance in the columns of the Crisis, but its editor addressed me a private letter as follows:—

“BOSTON, MASS., March 15, 1866.

“BRO. 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, ME., March 19, 1866.

“BRO. 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 Eld. 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 in 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 Eld. 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 the 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 Eld. P. for a discussion through the columns of the Crisis and of the ADVENT REVIEW?” “Yours in Christ, “J. N. ANDREWS.”

To this appeal the editor and the conductors of the Crisis paid not the slightest attention. Yet to refuse such a demand is so manifestly unjust that we venture to assert that no man dare to defend it. Eld. P.’s challenge was promptly accepted. Yet the Crisis having published that challenge refuses to allow the fact of its acceptance to appear in its columns. 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.

These impressions prevail extensively among the readers of the Crisis, as I am informed by competent authorities. And it really looks as if those who proposed the debate, and then shut out from the columns of the Crisis all mention of the fact that it was promptly accepted, did design by this unworthy conduct to make capital for the no-Sabbath or Sunday-Sabbath cause. It has given opportunity for not a little boasting, and Eld. P., to whom the editor of the Crisis says he sent my letter of acceptance, has had neither the principles of justice nor of honor strong enough to correct the false impression which has thus been fastened upon the readers of that paper.

Nor can it be said that the editor of the Crisis may never have received my second letter, and that he may therefore be blameless. He did receive the first on his own acknowledgment; and that first letter should have needed no second to awaken him to justice. But there is another fact to be noticed. After waiting some twenty days for a response to my second letter, I sent the entire correspondence to the ADVENT REVIEW, in which paper of April 24, 1866, it was published to the world. As this failed to cause the Crisis to correct its injustice, the subject came up for consideration in the ensuing General Conference, May 17, 1866. The following resolution was unanimously adopted and published in the ADVENT REVIEW of May 22, 1866:

“SABBATH DISCUSSION.

“Whereas, There appeared in the World’s Crisis, of Feb. 14, 1866, a very defiant challenge to S. D. Adventists for the discussion of the Sabbath question, particularly the ‘History of the Sabbath,’ through the columns of that paper, and

“Whereas, This challenge was promptly and unqualifiedly accepted, with the offer on our part that it should also appear in the REVIEW, and

“Whereas, The Crisis thereupon refused to allow the discussion to appear in its columns; and further refused to publish the brief note of acceptance from J. N. Andrews, who was designated to conduct the discussion on the part of our people; and further, when courteously requested to let the fact appear that the challenge had been accepted, would not even grant us that favor, therefore,

“Resolved, That we express our surprise at such a course on the part of the Crisis, and our inability to reconcile it with the principles of honor, of justice, and of Christianity.”

This failed to call out, either from the Crisis or from Eld. P., any correction of the wrong with which they stood connected. They could not complain of the language used as harsh or unbecoming, and they certainly were not ignorant of the injustice which we had suffered.

With the action of the General Conference, May, 1866, all effort on our part to obtain justice in this case ceased. It was

in August of the following year, 1867, that Eld. P.’s work entitled, “First-Day Sabbath” was published to the world. Such was its remarkable bitterness toward myself, and such its unfairness and lack of candor in its treatment of the “History of the Sabbath,” and such having been the result of our response to the challenge for a discussion through the Crisis, it did not appear to me, on an examination of the book, best to neglect the urgent and responsible duties that were upon me in order to reply to this work. But in the providence of God a favorable opportunity to prepare a reply to Eld. P.’s book in connection with the preparation of a new edition of the “History of the Sabbath,” having come, this work shall now receive proper attention at my hands.

THE SACRIFICE.

By Sel.

The riches of Christ’s matchless love— More precious to my heart Than garlands e’er for conquerors wove, Or monarchs can impart. His voice—how sweet its accents fall Upon my listening ear! My soul receives the gracious call, That calms each anxious fear.

Deep anguish pierced his bleeding heart, Death’s agony he bore, The sacred Temple’s veil did part— The sacrifice was o’er! Silence reigned deep in Heaven’s high courts, The harp-tuned cherubs cease, While nature in amazement stood Enwrapt in awful peace.

He died for me! each mortal sigh That heaved his fainting breast, Was offered on the cross for me, And through them I am blest. His stripes shall heal our bleeding hearts, His groans shall make our peace; His resurrection gives us life In Him that ne’er shall cease.

There is a fount whose gushing tide Can cleanse from every sin; He stands with arms extended wide And bids me come to him. I’ll go from scenes of mortal strife, From pleasures here that cloy, And in his death will find new life, And in his grief my joy.

—Sel.

A Safe Rule of Judgment.

By George I. Butler

“WISDOM is justified by all her children.” This is the Douay rendering of Luke 7:35. These words were spoken by our Saviour in reference to the fault-finding spirit of the generation who lived when he was upon the earth. They found fault with John because he was very abstemious in his diet; and when the Saviour commenced his ministry, they found fault with him because he was not so. They could not be pleased with any course that could be pursued. But Jesus intimates that they were both justified in the course they pursued, and had all the circumstances been properly appreciated, it would have been known that wisdom actuated them both. While the mission of John was one involving great sorrow, labor, and perplexity, to himself in bringing up a lukewarm church to an appreciation of their duties and present responsibilities, in view of a Saviour near to come, it would be fitting that fasting should be seen in connection with it. But when that Saviour had come, circumstances were different. This was an event anticipated with great joy by every age, and when it was consummated it would not be fitting that his disciples should go about the streets fasting, with evident sorrow, or for him, their Master, to do so. “Wisdom was justified by her children” in both cases.

This is a safe rule of judgment in every case—to judge of a thing by its results. Two persons labor in the same business: both pursue an opposite course, yet both think they are acting wisely. Sometimes it may be important that we should be able to ascertain which is really doing so. Our Saviour’s rule is a good one. Wisdom will be justified in every case by the one who really acts according to it. The result will demonstrate which has been wise. To illustrate: Two men start out in life as farmers. One of them looking mainly to present blessings and ease goes much upon credit, and by means of the money of others he has at command, has plenty of blessings around him; such as good buildings, good teams, good stock, carriages, &c. His family dress well, and to an outward observer he seems to be thriving finely; and he himself may be often deceived as to his real condition, and fancy himself well off. His neighbors think him a shrewd man, a lucky fellow; and he enjoys quite a reputation. But in the meantime he is paying interest largely and is not so economical in the expenditure of means as his real condition demands. His wants are numerous, to keep up appearances. He runs behind more and more, till finally, with a life half spent, he finds himself bankrupt. How many times this is repeated before our eyes; and perhaps some of the readers of this article are going over this same ground. We may be sure this is not wisdom.

Another person starts out in life with a different principle. He determines to pay as he goes. He adopts that great principle of financial safety to buy no more than he can pay for. His real wants are just as numerous as the other’s; but he thinks it best to forego them till he has the means to pay for them. His diet is plain, his clothes coarse, and perhaps he gets the name of being a small-minded man. But he has adopted a principle that looks to him correct. He follows it because he thinks it is right. He lives strictly within his means, and works with energy. His condition gradually improves till his neighbors gain confidence in his integrity. One step after another is gained till he has a handsome property. The latter portion of his life he is surrounded by comparative wealth. All this shows he has adopted the true principle of safety. Wisdom is justified of her children.

Perhaps there is nothing that demands wisdom more than the training of children. The object to be gained is of immense importance. To train a family of children so they will be valuable members of society, moral and upright, whose influence in society will always be found on the right side, and above all, who will possess a Christian character, and live eternally in the kingdom of God, is a matter of mighty magnitude. The promise of God seems sure: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” This is very definite. It can be done then, and the sure result be reached. But here is where the wisdom is needed. As a general rule the course that seems most difficult at first will be the wisest in the end. It seems easier to pacify the child by letting it have its own way so as to get along easily, rather than to teach it to submit its will to proper authority. It is no small thing to learn this lesson. But there is never any real tranquillity or peace in the family without it. It will take much patience, labor, perplexity, and possibly the infliction of pain, to bring it about. How much easier to pacify the child by letting it have its own way for the present, or perhaps divert its mind, or buy a temporary peace by bribing with some gift. This is the general course pursued. But the sure result is, such a child grows up with an unsubdued will, and unless it can have its own way there is constant trouble. It becomes selfish and reckless of the feelings of others. How many such families are seen, some of them almost a hell on earth. But in the other case, with a firm conviction of the correctness of these principles, the parent commences early to stamp the lesson of obedience to just authority upon the tender mind of the child, at first mildly, but continues it with a steady purpose, many times with great perplexity and care, but with a full determination that the end shall be gained. At the age of five or six perhaps the main battle is fought and the victory won. The child expects to submit at once, and cheerfully. All that is necessary then is to wisely but firmly maintain what is gained. Such a family will be the abode of peace, and will amply repay the labor and care previously expended. But a person must expect in pursuing the latter course to constantly meet objections to this strictness from the former class. And individuals whose system of family training has been a wretched failure, if judged by its results, will be very free to give advice and find fault with those who are strict and firm. These lose sight of the principle that “wisdom is justified of her children.”

Here is the important principle that should ever be remembered. Those who are qualified to give advice in any direction are those who have succeeded therein. The same principle holds equally true in the ministry. Those who succeed in bringing many souls into the fold of Christ, will be found to have followed some principle of wisdom in bringing it about, and those who have not been successful could evidently learn of them were they willing to take the pains to do so. Others are able to settle difficulties in churches and by their influence keep things moving forward prosperously. They do so because they have some correct principles of action which they follow. These things are not the result of luck or hap-hazard. This is a rule that will hold good in all the walks of life. Let us all remember that “wisdom is justified by her children.”

GEO. I. BUTLER.

“My only Comfort.”

By H. A. St. John

“THIS is my only comfort since my husband died.” So spake an intelligent lady, a professor of religion too, as she slowly, but nervously, unfolded a handkerchief, disclosing an old pipe, which was soon loaded with tobacco, and the fumes of the filthy, disgusting, and poisonous weed were floating in the air. Comfort, indeed! thought I. Where are we drifting? Was this weighing a husband, the soul of a human being, with a pipe of tobacco, so that when the one was gone, comfort for the loss could be found only in the other? Surely we have fallen upon strange times. The apostle Paul pointed his brethren to the true source of comfort when bereft of friends. It was not, Comfort one another with these pipes. No, no! Far different from this. Please read 1 Thess. 4:13, 18. The true comfort of the Christian in bereavement has been so far perverted by the apostasy that it has degenerated with some to the pipe, and other equally pernicious indulgences. “Lovers of pleasures,” foolish, disgusting, and simple, though they be, “more than lovers of God;” is a characteristic sign of the last days.

Reader, would it not be well for us to examine ourselves upon this point? Do we derive our greatest comfort and pleasure in the service of God, in doing his will, in cleansing ourselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit? or is it in the sinful indulgence of perverted appetites and passions? Guileless in every respect must be those who await the Lord’s return. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.”

H. A. ST. JOHN.

Women laboring in Public.

By I. Fetterhoof

OUGHT women to take a part in public worship? to pray and exhort, encourage others to love and serve God? We believe it is not only their privilege, but their duty, so to do.

1. It must be admitted that under the Mosaic dispensation women were owned as prophetesses, and took part in the worship of God, and gave counsel as God directed them. Miriam, the prophetess, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went out after her. And Miriam answered them, “Sing ye to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.” Ex. 15:20, 21.

2. The Lord made Deborah to have dominion over the mighty. Judges 5:1–13. She was called a prophetess, and judged Israel. Judges 4:4. And the children of Israel came up to her for judgment (verse 5). She arose a mother in Israel. Judges 5:7.

3. Huldah was a prophetess in Israel. The king told his nobles and his priests to inquire of God for him. 2 Kings 22:13. And they went to Huldah the prophetess (verse 14), and she said unto them, “Thus saith the Lord.” Verse 15. The Lord influenced her to speak, and directed her what to speak.

4. Anna was a prophetess. She departed not from the temple, but served God with fasting and prayer night and day. She gave thanks unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. Luke 2:36–38. Thus we see that under the old dispensation God gave of his Spirit to women, and made prophetesses of them, and directed them how to speak, and God’s will was made known to men through them, and God was honored. And truly God doth respect women as much under the gospel as he did under the law. Therefore we see that in the days of the apostles there were women that were prophetesses. Philip’s four daughters were called prophetesses. Acts 21:9. They were teachers in the church. So says Dr. Clarke. It is also said by the Lord that in the last days (that is, under the gospel), he (God) would pour out his Spirit on his hand-maidens. Hence we see that God in giving his Holy Spirit, gave it equally to females as well as males, and said they should prophesy.

What did those women do, of whom Paul said that they labored with him in the gospel? How could they have labored with him in the gospel, if they did not join in the same work that he was engaged in, that is, urging the people to leave their sins, and receive Christ?

Of women employed in this work, were Phebe, Priscilla, Mary, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Euodias, Syntyche, and others. See Romans 16:1, 3, 9, 12, and Phil. 4:2, 3. These women were assistants to the apostles, and Persis, it seems, excelled some of the others. Of her it is said that she labored much in the Lord. Rom. 16:12. We learn from this that Christian women, as well as men, labored in the ministry of the word. In those times of simplicity, all persons, whether men or women, who had received the knowledge of the truth, believed it to be their duty to make known to others the word of salvation, and it is the duty of the preacher to teach, exhort, edify, and comfort.

But it may be said that, if women are allowed to pray and prophesy in the churches, why did Paul forbid them (1 Cor. 14:34, 35, and 1 Tim. 2:11, 12) to speak in the church? Answer. Paul did not forbid them to pray or prophesy in the church, he only forbade them to speak, and usurp authority over the men. Praying or prophesying was not named. The church at Corinth spoke in unknown tongues. 1 Cor. 14:2. It was not profitable, verse 9, he did not want them to be children in understanding, verse 20, but he said, “You may all prophesy,” verse 31. Again, if Paul was not willing that women should pray or prophesy in the church, why did he give them directions how they should wear their hair and dress, when they prayed or prophesied. 1 Cor. 11:5. Would Paul contradict himself thus? No. Therefore he says, Every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head. 1 Cor. 11:5.

To prophesy under the gospel dispensation is to speak under the influence of the Holy Ghost, either in teaching, or foretelling future events. It will cause the wicked to fall. “And so falling down on his face, he will worship God, and report that God is in you.” Often have we seen the power of God manifested, under the pious labor and influence of holy women. Hard-hearted sinners were brought to cry out for mercy, through the blood of Jesus. They have their influence, and may do good. Oh! that all, male and female, that have experienced the power of the Holy Ghost in their souls, would stand up for the Redeemer’s cause, in the church, in the streets, in the social circle, yes, everywhere.—I. FETTERHOOF, in Earnest Christian.

Are we Thankful?

By Isadore Green

It seems that of all people we ought to be the most thankful for the light of present truth, and, to show our gratitude by a faithful performance of the obligations it daily imposes upon us, when we realize from what powerful and demoniac delusions it keeps us, and what a glorious salvation we are to receive as the result of obedience, when it is said, “Well done—enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.” The joy of which we, with our weak and degenerated capacities, are unable to conceive; the realization will prove us to have been as incompetent to grasp them as is the artist, who vainly attempts to paint the sunbeams, or the varied hues of the rainbow, who must, of necessity, drop his pencil, despairing of ever competing with the wise Being who gave existence to these beautiful things.

It is characteristic of our fallen nature to lack appreciation both in spiritual and temporal blessings—especially the former. We lose sight of the Giver in the gift, and approbate self in its reception.

Selfishness seems to be the dominant power, and one of the blighting evils, as well as one of the noticeable features of the last days. “For men shall be lovers of their own selves,” and then a long list of sins are enumerated in its connection; unthankful and unholy, which is but the result of an over-estimate of self. Our hearts are made sad by the ingratitude of friends, but are our feelings comparable with those of the all-interested family in Heaven, for our salvation? the Father who gave his Son? the Son who gave his life as a forfeit, “for ye are bought with a price”? and the angels who work disinterestedly “until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory,” who bear their part in this noble, and godlike sacrifice? Let us be faithful, seek not to emulate self, but be “hid with Christ in God,” that we may be crowned thus at his appearing.

ISADORE GREEN.

Sackett’s Harbor, N. Y.

Many Are Called, But Few Are Chosen

Many are called, but few are chosen.

2 Esdras 2.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

This is a most interesting chapter. It seems to me to give good evidence of inspiration. To the believer in present truth it is of especial interest. I will notice a few points. To the righteous, he says, “I will give thee the first place in my resurrection.” Verse 23. This is equivalent to the first resurrection in Rev. 20. Again he says, “Remember thy children that sleep, for I shall bring them out of the sides of the earth, and show mercy unto them.” Verse 31. This teaches that the saints sleep in the earth, the same as in 1 Thess. 4:13–18. There are many things in this chapter that seem clearly to refer to the work of the third message. Verse 33 says, “I, Esdras, received a charge of the Lord upon the mount Oreb, that I should go unto Israel; but when I came unto them, they set me at naught, and despised the commandment of the Lord.” This seems to refer to the same work concerning the commandments that is introduced in Rev. 14:12; 12:17. The next verse says, “And therefore I say unto you, O ye heathen, that hear and understand, look for your Shepherd, he shall give you everlasting rest; for he is nigh at hand, that shall come in the end of the world.” This so clearly refers to the coming of Christ that it cannot be mistaken. Esdras continues: “Be ready to the reward of the kingdom, for the everlasting light shall shine upon you forevermore. Flee the shadow of this world; receive the joyfulness of your glory; I testify my Saviour openly. O, receive the gift that is given you, and be glad, giving thanks unto him that hath called you to the heavenly kingdom.” Verses 35–37. Then he introduces the subject of those who are sealed for the marriage supper of the Lamb. “Arise up and stand, behold the number of those that be sealed in the feast of the Lord; which are departed from the shadow of the world, and have received glorious garments of the Lord. Take thy number, O Zion, and shut up those of thine that are clothed in white, which have fulfilled the law of the Lord. The number of thy children, whom thou longedest for is fulfilled; beseech the power of the Lord that thy people, which have been called from the beginning, may be hallowed.” Verses 38–41. In Revelation 7, we are told that there is to be a certain “number” sealed, viz., 144,000. These are sealed for the feast of the marriage of the Lamb. Rev. 19. Esdras speaks of a time when this number is made up. He farther says that they have received glorious garments of the Lord, and are clothed in white. John says the same of the 144,000. Rev. 7. Esdras says this number was made up and clothed in white for fulfilling the law of the Lord. Verse 40. Further, he says: “I, Esdras, saw upon the Mount Zion a great people, whom I could not number, and they all praised the Lord with songs.” Verse 42. Who can fail to see similarity between this and Revelation 14:1–3. Again he says: “And in the midst of them, there was a young man of a high stature, taller than all the rest, and upon every one of their heads he set crowns, and was more exalted; which I marveled at greatly. So I asked the angel, and said, Sir, what are these? He answered and said unto me, These be they that have put off the mortal clothing, and put on the immortal, and have confessed the name of God; now are they crowned, and receive palms. Then said I unto the angel, What young person is it that crowned them, and giveth them palms in their hands? So he answered and said unto me, It is the Son of God, whom they have confessed in the world. Then began I greatly to commend them that stood so stiffly for the name of the Lord.” Verses 43–47. How very plain this language is, and how well it compares with the teaching of the Revelation with regard to the coming of Christ, the 144,000, their final victory on Mount Zion, &c. D. M. CANRIGHT.

Rejoicing vs. Murmuring.

By T. M. Steward

WE regard people insane when they turn against their best friends. The spirit of murmuring and complaining is plainly condemned in the Bible. 1 Cor. 10:10. Enoch, in speaking of those who were to be destroyed at the coming of Christ to execute judgment, says they are murmurers and complainers! Then just before the coming of Christ this class will be developed. Jude 16. The children of Israel murmured because God wanted them to deny themselves that they might keep his commandments. They were not willing to be governed by the principles of that law. I think Satan had something to do with their murmuring. What stirred them up to murmur? God told his faithful servant Moses to reprove them. They did not like to be reproved, and accused Moses of trying to lord it over them. This was a terrible sin, for Moses was only telling them what God told him to, for their good. Shall we be instructed by the dealing of God with them? As I was reading in Testimony for the Church No. 20, page 44, I noticed this language: “If you had made God’s word your study, with a desire to reach the Bible standard and attain to Christian perfection, you would not have needed the testimonies.” Can this be possible? After God has “so loved the world as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,” and has kindly given us his precious word to be a lamp to our feet and a light unto our path, we have it for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, what could we ask more? Yet when God had given his own dear Son to die for our sins, and then given us his precious word, to point out before us the path to eternal life, he saw that with all this we should come short in the Judgment and thus fail of life unless he could do something more for us. So he brings in another powerful agency to help the church on to perfection, Eph. 4:12, viz., “the gift of prophecy.” As we have neglected to study the Bible as we should, to see our faults and be reproved thereby, he brings this agency to bear upon us to see if it will not arouse us to see our danger before it is too late to escape. How condescending! how kind! what love!

But why all this trouble and expense? That we (as unworthy as we are) may be saved to enjoy eternal life in his glorious kingdom, that we may be his sons and daughters. Can we meet the Judgment with any defects in our characters and be acquitted? No. How shall we get rid of them? By confessing and forsaking them we shall find mercy. How shall we know what they are? The Bible would inform us, but we have been so negligent in studying it that God proposes to point them out to us in vision through the gift of prophecy. I turn to the Testimonies to the Church, and to my astonishment, I find my faults pointed out that God’s word condemns, but I had entirely overlooked them before. But this testimony is for another, yet it meets my case in many respects. Shall I heed it? Perhaps if I continue to improve upon instruction given to others, I shall get along without receiving direct reproof, and my brethren will never know how much I failed of the Christian standard.

But my selfish, proud heart must be tested to see if I am willing to be led by the Spirit of God. Now comes the testimony for me, pointing out my wrongs plainly and pointedly, and makes me out worse than I thought I was. (Of course it would, for if I had seen all my defects, what use of the testimony?)

Now come in the murmuring and the complaining. Satan suggests that they are too hard on me. Can I stand it? Let me see. Whom shall I complain of? Bro. White? He has nothing to do in preparing these testimonies. He is out of reach. Shall I complain of sister White? But sister White don’t originate these testimonies. You see here is where jealousy is trying to creep in. But the testimony comes from Jesus, who furnished the subject matter for the testimony sent me? It was taken from the book that contains the daily life record of my character. Is it a faithful record? It must be. Then who furnished the subject matter for this testimony? The very one the testimony is for. For what purpose was it sent? That in this mirror we might see ourselves as we are, and thus wake up from self-righteous stupidity to seek God with all our heart and powers. And if we don’t like the record, as given us in the testimony, let us mend our life record by good deeds and righteous acts, by prayers and alms, and as sure as Heaven, our testimonies will improve just as our life record improves. But whom does Jesus rebuke? Hear him, “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Be zealous, therefore, and repent” (reform). What then? Is this an evidence that he loves me? It certainly is. Jesus, the good shepherd, sees our danger, and while he points it out, with unerring certainty, accompanying the warning we hear his lovely voice in accents sweet and comforting, “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” How can I murmur, when all Heaven is interested in my welfare? Shall I complain? Oh, no! Heaven forbid. I am ashamed of my past record; but by the grace of God, I will improve it in the future. Be this the rejoicing of my heart, that “Jesus loves me still,” and that I am still an object of his grace, mercy, love, and compassion. It would be a shame for us to murmur. We have every reason to rejoice. Let us rejoice in the God of our salvation.

T. M. STEWARD.

Continue reading: Parental Duty