Earlier text: BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTIONDiscussion in Orwell, Ohio.
By J. H. W.
While in Orwell last fall in the tent I was informed by a man who attended the Yearly Meeting of the Disciples, that a Mr. Higgins, Disciple preacher of Youngstown, Mahoning Co., would like to discuss the Sabbath question with me. This not being very tangible, little was said about it. On coming back to this State I was informed that the desire had again been expressed; and on the 29th of January a letter was handed to me through his friends, proposing to meet me on the subject, also proposing a question for me to affirm, which I accepted: it embraced the present obligation of the fourth commandment. Though I have never been forward to debate, there are circumstances which justify it and render it necessary. Such I judged these to be; and our correspondence resulted in a discussion on the 1st, 2d, and 3d days of March, two sessions a day, of two hours each, in the Methodist house in Orwell. As he had characterized our views as being subversive of the authority of Christ, I introduced the subject by affirming the harmony of the scriptures and the unity of the Father and Son: that the authority of the Son was delegated, and must be exercised in strict accordance with the Father's will; that in giving "all power" to the Son, the Father did not vacate the throne of power, but called the Son to the joint occupancy of it, that the Son could not therefore do anything subversive of the will of the Father. And that the Sabbath was not a New Testament institution; that, though the Sabbath or Lord's day, is clearly taught in the New Testament, it is by recognition, and not by commandment, that the apostles always regarded "the scriptures" as their authority, and to these we must appeal for the institution and relations of the Sabbath. Mr. Higgins early turned his argument, as I expected, to the abolition of the law, and without attempting to overthrow my main positions, repeated and re-repeated the usual round of "not under the law," "Hagar," "ministration of death done away," "no written law from Adam to Moses," &c., which have so often been shown to harmonize and not conflict with "the scriptures." Of all the debates which I have heard or read, I never knew one in which the negative so completely failed to come up to the argument. He attempted to build up a negative merely, and asserted that the law died "by cessation of the government, by limitation, and by appeal." I do not propose to give any extended account of the debate, but merely to notice some points on either side, and on the affirmative mostly such as were not contested at all. 1. At creation the Sabbath was made, "set apart" for man. On this he merely affirmed that there was "no written law," but would not notice the argument or its conclusion. 2. It was God's sign or memorial of creative power, reveals his title, and perpetuates his knowledge. Not noticed. 3. The duty to keep it co-extensive or co-existent with the generations of Israel, which have not yet ceased. This I could not get noticed. 4. The commandment grows out of our relation to the Creator, and of his rights of property as Creator. Certainly as moral as any law growing out of mere human rights. Denied its morality, but would not assail the argument. 5. The ten Commandments were, by the Lord himself, called "a law" (Ex. xxiv) and this is the only law God ever spoke to his people, or wrote with his own hand. Denied that God spoke it to the people; but gave it to Moses to speak to them. 6. God declared they would be "holy" if they kept it. Many scriptures point it out as "righteousness;" that it is the only rule of righteousness or holiness that ever was given—the only complete moral code in all the Bible; of which it is said, it "shall not be abolished." This proposition I advanced with full confidence that it could be sustained, but I expected to have to contest the ground covered by it inch by inch. But to my surprise he would not even deny it, or make any reference to it, though I frequently called attention to it. 7. It was given as a condition of life,—it is perfect,—embracing the whole duty of man. Not denied; though his argument made Christ abolish man's whole duty. 8. It is God's holy covenant commanded to a thousand generations, to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Israel. He said the covenant commanded to a thousand generations, the law to Israel, was the promise of the land of Canaan. 9. Isaiah said the Gentiles should keep it when the Lord's house was a house of prayer for all people. He asserted in reply that the "strangers" and "all people" of Isa. lvi, only referred to the Jews. 10. It is shown in Ex. xxiv, Jer. vi, vii, &c., to be God's law in plain distinction from all other laws. Did not notice it. 11. Promise of the New Covenant embraces the same law in the heart. He argued that the difference of the covenant was in their laws; the fallacy of this I exposed, but he would not notice my argument on the two covenants, though in duty bound to bring on the negative. 12. Kept by Christ as our example. Merely denied that Christ was our example in keeping the law, being under another government. 13. The Lord's day, the Sabbath is recognized by the writers of the New Testament as something known and existing. Not noticed. 14. As it was first given by God himself, before the ceremonial law was given to Moses, that could be abolished without affecting this. Not noticed. 15. That it was the expressed condition of the kingdom, and Christ taught that the kingdom should be taken from the Jews who did not keep it, and given to a nation who would keep it. Matt. xxi, et al. Not even denied or noticed in any way. 16. That all moral obligation to God and man is embraced in it. Acknowledged that "all the law" hung on these, but only nine tenths belonged there as growing out of natural relations. 17. The Saviour endorsed the Father's will, which is his law, (Rom. ii, 17-20.) as the test of his doctrines. Not noticed. 18. When the Saviour presented himself as a sacrifice on the cross, he said the law of his God was in his heart, (Heb. x, Psa. xl.) and to say that, at that time, with that profession on his tongue, he abolished that same law, is to make him guilty of deception. 19. He did not abolish the law in his death, for he came and died to put away sin, or transgression of law, and not the law. Neither of the above were contested. 20. That if abolished at the cross, or "the government ceased," as he said, then there was no government for a time, and all moral obligation was suspended. Though I frequently pressed this, he would not reply to it. How could he? On each of the following points I put forth a proposition, to neither of which was there a reply. Paul endorses it, on the authority of "the scriptures" as inculcating "all good works;" that the transgressor, Jew, and Gentile, must be redeemed from its curse to inherit the blessing of Abraham; that it is the rule of justification, the Gospel harmonizing with it as the means; that it is not made void through faith; that he endorses it by quoting the Old Testament to prove Jews and Gentiles sinners; that it was spiritual, ordained to life; that it will be the rule of judgment, and as such constitutes the oracles of God, or "living oracles" which Stephen said Moses received "to give unto us;" that God is dishonored in its violation; that the carnal mind is opposed to it; that the precept or righteousness is fulfilled in the followers of Christ; (See Rom. viii 4; Whiting's Trans.; Greenfield's Lexicon;) that the same law that now convinces of sin, will not justify, and therefore is not the law of Christ, and is not made void through faith; that repentance is taught toward God, the "one law-giver," and faith toward Jesus Christ, the "Mediator between God and man." He replied to this last however by saying that it was never taught to any but the Jews. Acts xx, 21. On 1 Cor. iii, he asserted that the "ministration of death" was written on stones, and the law written on stones was abolished; and said in advance that if I said it was the ministration and not the law, he was "prepared for me," for he would show that a law without a ministration is a nullity. But I did take that position by showing the figurative use of the term "death;" that the "service" was not on the stones; that Moses' face was vailed, not the law; and that his face and its glory represented that dispensation, or ministration. In his reply he argued that Moses did not represent that ministration, for his ministration did not commence for some time after the law on the tables of stone was given to him; thus making the distinction between the law on the stone, and the ministration, as marked as I could have asked, and he asserted that his ministration had not yet commenced when the man was stoned for violating the law, thus proving, (if there was any proof in his position) that the law was not a nullity without the ministration. In our correspondence I invited him to affirm concerning the first day of the week; but he refused.141Toward the close of the discussion he wished to turn it on that question, which I would allow only on condition that he would extend the time. This he would not do. But when the discussion ended I proposed a remedy for this difficulty, viz., that we debate the same question at some future date, taking longer time for it; for I offered from the beginning to let the largest latitude be given to the question, only so that time be taken to canvass thoroughly. This offer he refused. I then proposed that he affirm on the first day question, and we debate that two days. This he also refused. But he announced that the house was tendered to him to preach in that evening, and he would, by request, preach on the first day of the week. I then stated that I should apply for the house to review his discourse the next evening. I attended his meeting and took notes; but the house was refused for a reply. Thus I was excluded from two synagogues in one week. However I assured them that the truth did not rest on majorities, and appointed to review him on Sunday evening in the Town House. These events are suggestive. Presbyterians and Methodists, whose church standards and standard authors teach the perpetuity of the Law of God in the strongest terms, manifest their eager hope that it is abolished; and those who have made their boast of the Bible as the rule, turn the key upon him who adopts the motto of the Bible and the Bible alone. The conflict approaches; wrath is already manifested against such as "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." And they vainly seek to bind the truth by majority votes. But God is above majorities, and his counsel will stand. Had this principle prevailed Noah might easily have been voted out of the ark; and the "little flock" be deprived of the kingdom. I was well aware that the prejudices and feelings of the majority were against me; but with confidence in the God of truth I was able to rejoice in the truth of God, and I enjoyed the discussion as much as any three days' meeting that I ever attended. And I was not alone. I trust the result will be known in "many days." Sunday the 6th I went to Bloomfield and baptized four; returned to Orwell and had a good hearing, quite beyond my expectations, for the roads were in a far worse state than they have been this winter before. Mr. H.'s Sunday argument amounted to this. Jesus told his apostles to teach what he had commanded: Paul said they were to do all in the name of Christ; therefore whatever they said or did was by Christ's authority, and so is binding on us. Paul met with the disciples at Troas on the first day of the week to break bread. He concluded that Christ had commanded them to do so; for if he had not, they shared in doing it without his authority. Any casual reader can see the absurd conclusions which may be drawn from such premises. My argument on the Lord's day in the New Testament I have been requested to furnish for publication. The Sabbath---Both Sides.
By Editor
THE labor of our faithful missionaries in the East, Elders Loughborough and Cornell, is waking up a new interest upon the Sabbath question, and a more thorough discussion on both sides of the subject. The articles of Eld. T. M. Preble, in the World's Crisis, call the attention of the numerous readers of that paper to the subject in an impressive manner, having been an observer of the Lord's Sabbath, and having a reputation among Adventists as possessing a good degree of candor and piety. We are happy to announce that Bro. Uriah Smith, so favorably known as a clear and candid reviewer, has commenced a faithful review of Eld. Preble's articles, which will probably occupy a portion of each of the remaining numbers of the current volume of the Review. Eld. Preble's articles will be given entire in connection with their review, so that the reader will have both sides of the question at once before him. We decide to print the same matter in pamphlet form for general circulation, and especial distribution in the East. Let the people see both sides of this question. All sincere persons, no matter which side of the question they may occupy, will agree with us that the people should see both sides of the question. He who fears that the people may see both sides, is certainly too narrow in his views to wear the Advent name, and he exposes his lack of real confidence in the position he occupies. We are happy to find in Eld. Preble, as far as we have read his articles, a spirit of apparent candor, and that he does not fall into that contemptible practice, so common to a lower class of opponents to the Sabbath, of descending to bitter personalities, and the common babble about visions, &c., in order to poison narrow minds with prejudice. We now appeal to our friends to help us in the work of spreading both sides before the people. The review of Eld. Preble should be put into the hands of every reader of the World's Crisis. We offer the paper to you, brethren, if you wish to send it to your friends, at the rate of $1,00 a year. Now is a good time to subscribe for it, for them, and if you wish, the subscription can commence with the middle of the volume, embracing the Sabbath discussion at Manchester, N. H. Also, you who have confidence in the ability of the reviewer, send in your orders for the Pamphlet, which will probably be $10 per hundred, that we may better determine how large an edition to print. The Association will donate the work to all candid persons who will not purchase it. Its distribution gratis will be left to the discretion of our preachers, who have the best opportunities to thus circulate it. Let the work of spreading the truth be pushed forward with Christian forbearance and candor, and the zeal of that true loyalty which should characterize the people that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. Sabbath or Lord's Day in the New Testament.
By J. H. W.
One of three positions must be true in regard to the New Testament testimony on this subject: 1. There is a commandment or ordinance for the institution; or 2. There is a recognition of a pre-existing institution; or 3. There is no such institution in the New Testament. This is too plain and reasonable to admit of a doubt; for if there is neither a new one made nor an old one recognized, there is nothing at all. The argument naturally presents itself in the following form: 1. There is such an institution in the New Testament. John says, Rev. i, 10, "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day." This is sufficient proof that one certain day belonged to the Lord at that time; and if at that time, does still. This is confirmed by the record of the Acts of the Apostles, where frequent mention is made of the Sabbath-day, and what was done on it. Now if there was no Sabbath-day at that time, if no particular day was the Lord's day, then the statements of Acts and Revelation referred to were erroneous. But this will not be claimed; therefore we consider it a settled fact that one day of the week was regarded by inspired writers and teachers in the New Testament as the Lord's day, or the Sabbath. 2. We find no New Testament commandment or ordinance for the institution. This proposition being negative in its nature, we rest it on the admissions of the classes advocating the claims of different days. On the part of all those who insist that the Lord's day is the seventh day, we admit the proposition. On the part of those who insist that the first day is the Lord's day, we offer the admissions of accredited authors among them. 1. Buck's Theol. Dict., Art. Sabbath. "It must be confessed that there is no law in the New Testament concerning the first day." 2. Campbell, Lect. in Beth. Coll., 1848. "Was the first day set apart by public authority in the apostolic age? No. By whom was it set apart, and when? Constantine, who lived about the beginning of the fourth century." 3. Challoner, D. D., Cath. Chris. Inst. "Sundays and holy days all stand upon the same foundation; viz., the ordinance of the church. . . . Does the scripture anywhere command the Sunday to be kept? The scripture commands us to hear the church." 4. Neander, (Rose's, p. 186). "The festival of Sunday, like all other festivals, was always only a human ordinance, and it was far from the intention of the apostles to establish a divine command in this respect." 5. Cranmer, Catechism. "We observe the Sunday and some other days, as the magistrates do judge convenient." 6. Melanchon, Augs. Con. "We find not the same commanded by any apostolic law." 7. Scott, D. D., Com. "The change from the seventh to the first appears to have been gradually and silently introduced, by example rather than precept." 8. Clarke, D. D., Com. "It seems to have been by an especial providence that this change has been made." 9. Prot. Epis. Ch., Expl. Catechism. "We meet with no scriptural direction for the change." 10. Dr. Heylyn, Hist. Sab. "For three hundred years there was neither law to bind them to it, nor any rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it." 11. Eusebius. "All things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord's day." Such testimonies might be added to any extent. Another evidence is the fact that those who agree in keeping the first day cannot agree upon a reason for it, which they could readily do if there were a scriptural direction for it. The fact adduced by Dr. Scott, that it was gradually and silently introduced, is sufficient to condemn it. The same may be said of almost every innovation and heresy; but to "good works" we are "thoroughly furnished" by the "scripture." Thus the baptism of penitents was introduced by precept; the sprinkling of infants was introduced "gradually and silently;" and its precise origin is hard to determine. Yet the reason given for sprinkling children is a more plausible inference from scripture facts than the reasons for keeping the Sunday. Dr. Clarke's plea of an "especial providence" might be plead with equal force for any prevalent departure from the teachings of the Bible. Eusebius wrote his statement about ten years after Constantine's edict for "the venerable day of the sun," and he shows to what source it was then ascribed, saying, "we have" done it. Campbell says the first "public authority" for its observance was Constantine's decree, which was in 321, A. D. This is confirmed by Dr. Heylyn, who says there was no law to bind to its observance for three hundred years after Christ. He also says there was no rest from labor or from worldly business required upon it. And Mosheim says that Constantine's edict caused it to be observed with greater solemnity than it had been before. There is no doubt but these statements are all true. To this we may add another from A. Campbell, that "public opinion" demanded of Constantine that such a decree be made. If this statement be true also, then it follows that public opinion regarded the first day as the day of the sun merely, and not as a day of abstinence from ordinary labor. It being thus settled that there is no new institution of a Sabbath or Lord's day in the New Testament, it follows that the true position is the third noticed, to wit: 3. The New Testament testimony of a Sabbath or Lord's day, is a recognition of an old institution. We remark here, that a new institution cannot be proved by a mere recognition or allusion; for it must first be proved that the thing was known to exist to which allusion is said to be made. It is often said that John meant the first day when he said the Lord's day. To establish this it is necessary to prove that the first day was known by that title when the Revelation was written. There is evidence that the first day was not known by that title; there is the fullest evidence that the seventh day was known by that title; therefore if the first day was alluded to by a title which was universally given to the seventh day, it would be deception on the part of the writer. Should I sell a draft on "New York," which should be rejected, what would the buyer think if I should tell him that it was not drawn on the city in the State of that name; but that I "alluded" in the draft to a New York just founded in the Lake Superior Copper Regions? He would justly say it was a deception—a cheat. For New York is well known as a city of mercantile exchange, while nobody knows of any place of exchange by that name in the Copper Regions. So of the Lord's day in Revelation. All Bible readers and hearers knew that the Lord did claim the seventh day as his; that it was his rest-day. And all the New Testament speakers and writers well knew that such an institution did exist, and therefore knew that their hearers and readers would understand them to refer to that existing institution when using its name, unless otherwise informed. But they did not otherwise inform them; thus they sanction the belief that they referred to the same institution, the seventh day. Can this conclusion be denied? If it can, on what ground? Interesting Meeting in Illinois.
By I. Sanborn
Bro. White: Pursuant to appointment Bro. Ingraham and I met with the church in Clyde, Ill. formerly known as Round Grove. This was the first time I ever preached to this church. Bro. Ingraham could not remain with me but three days on account of other appointments. Here I and Mrs. Sanborn have formed many happy acquaintances. A few faithful brethren have succeeded in erecting a comfortable house of worship 26 by 40 which has been well filled with their neighbors for the last three weeks listening to the powerful compelling sanctifying truths of the third angel's message. Last Sabbath, March 5, I baptized fourteen, all young people, among whom were three of Bro. Hart's children and two of Bro. Wick's daughters. I wish to say here without boasting that I consider the whole company that have been baptized the flower of this entire community; and I look upon them as an ornament to this church, and trust they will all be faithful to the end, and meet us in the kingdom. Twenty-five including the fourteen, baptized, were added to the church the same day, and in the evening we met to attend to the ordinances. A large congregation were present, who were solemnly impressed that they were in the house of God, while several others decided to go with us to Mt. Zion. Since writing the above I have continued the meetings one week longer. Last Sabbath I baptized seven more; and eleven, including those baptized, were added to the church, which makes, in all, twenty-one baptized and thirty-six added to the church. I have also sold about thirty-five dollars' worth of books at this meeting and obtained six new subscribers for the Review and four for the Instructor. I should undoubtedly have obtained more, but on account of rain and mud, our meetings were not so thronged as the first; yet I consider it one of the best meetings I ever attended. A lasting impression is left on the community, and quite a number told me they thought they would soon obey, and I trust they will. Here I should not neglect to say that Bro. Robert Andrews, on the twenty-first of Feb. 1864, at the commencement of this meeting, was ordained and duly set apart to the work of the ministry according to the usages of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Wm. S. Ingraham and I. Sanborn officiating Elders. Report from Bro. Cottrell.
By R. F. Cottrell
Bro. White: Since my last report, I visited Cherry Creek, Chautauque Co., and the way seeming to be open, as the F. W. Baptist, is a free house, and—not occupied at the time, and as the Methodists had just closed a protracted effort, I commenced a series of meetings, the first two evenings in the Methodist house and then in the other. The weather and going were changeable; but when it was good there was a good attendance and a candid hearing. The number interested here was greater than at my former meetings already reported in the Review. Some confessed the truth frankly, and others had no objections to offer; but whether they will have a zeal of God sufficient to move them out in obedience, remains to be seen. Ah! here is the difficulty. How the truth would spread, if the people only had religion enough to obey their convictions of duty. I was sorry that there was not interest enough to obtain more subscribers for the Review. They took some books, however, and one subscribed for the Review and one for the Instructor. I still hope to see fruit of these meetings. And I still believe that that part of the State is a promising field of labor. I gave fifteen public discourses in this place. I returned home at the end of seven weeks from my departure, having preached forty times in all during my absence. R. F. Cottrell. Report from Bro. Bates.
By Joseph Bates
BRO. WHITE: We spent Sabbath and first-day, Feb. 20 and 21, with the church in Watson, Allegan Co., Mich. On first-day we held two meetings with the church in a neighborhood where some families had recently located from Ohio, and had requested to hear our position explained. These, and many of their neighbors, seemed much interested to hear. March 6, spent the Sabbath with the church in Allegan. The church here now worship in their new meeting-house, which is very neatly finished. The two churches are struggling, as is also the church in Monterey, to urge their way onward with God's remnant people in the last message. The papers and books from the Association are doing us good. There is still manifest a strong desire to learn more and more of the progress of our holy, onward cause. Testimony No. 10, and Appeal to the Youth, are what we like to read. I trust they are doing us good, and will be blessed to the good of very many in the wide harvest-field. The neatly-finished symbols, and order of the prophetic chart, illustrating so clearly the prophecies of the two great prophets which so strikingly mark the rise and fall of all earthly kingdoms, and the coming of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in all the glory of his Father;—this, with the neatly-polished lithographed chart of the law of God, are beautiful pictures to hang side by side in the dwellings of all Seventh-day Adventists. They show at a glance the outlines of their faith and practice since the great Advent movement of 1844. On reading the Key to the prophetic chart, which in so few words comprehends, and most strikingly delineates, the pictorial illustrations of the visions of Daniel and John, together with the diagram of the great prophetic period of Daniel's 2300 days, and clear proof of its commencement, and also of its termination in the past, I was forcibly impressed to read again what the prophet Isaiah foresaw would be written in a book in the latter day. Here it is. "Now go write it before them in a table and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come forever and ever; that this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the Lord; which say to the seers, see not; and to the prophets, prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophecy deceits." Chap. xxx, 8-10.
Those who are laboring to give correct views of the prophecies of Daniel and John, including the work of the sanctuary and third angel's message, as delineated on the prophetic chart, or "in a table," are very often in company with the people, and their seers which the prophet has herein described. It is a well-established fact that prophetic charts have been used to explain from, since they were first made plain on tables in the year 1842. From this period to 1864 the explanation was written on the chart in connection with the symbols. One important difference or change has now taken place, which appears to be in harmony with the prophecy, viz., the symbols are in their appropriate order written in a table, but the explanation or "words" are noted in a book. Compare chap. xxix, 11, 12. "And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book," &c. Now if it can be shown that the prophetic chart is yet to be amended or re-written, then it is not yet noted in a book, named by the prophet; but if the prophetic chart is now correct, and subject to no further alteration, but written "in a table forever and ever," then is it not clear that it is also noted in a book? NOTE. We are always glad to hear from our venerable Bro. Bates. It is evident that he loves the Advent doctrine, and all connected with it that has been good. His application of the prophecy of Isaiah to the chart seems to us very apocryphal, but it will do no harm unless others make such doubtful exposition of equal importance with plainly revealed, vital points of doctrine. The Sabbath in Africa.
By Editor
WE TAKE the liberty to publish the following extract from a letter from a Missionary in Africa, to a sister in Mass., knowing that it will interest the readers of the Review, to learn that although no missionary has gone to Africa bearing the Sabbath, yet the Sabbath has gone to missionaries already there. Under date of Cape Palmas, West Africa, Jan. 2, 1864, she writes: Thank God I now see clearly that the seventh-day is the Sabbath of the Lord my God, and am keeping it according to the commandment. Mr. Dickson also is keeping it. It is quite singular to keep it here. I do not know of any others on the Coast who keep the seventh-day. But that is no proof against its authenticity. I only wonder that many good people reject the commandments of God by their traditions. Your people may now consider that you have whole hearted Seventh-day Adventists here, waiting with you for that blessed appearing of him whom we love and adore, and purpose to worship evermore. Oh it will be delightful to see him as he is, to worship him aright, and cast our crowns at his feet. Oh how sublime to see the time near even at the door. So I will labor on and pray on and may God's special blessing attend and prosper my feeble efforts in his vineyard. I trust you will sympathise with me in these efforts to glorify God and make ready a people prepared for his coming kingdom. How I would love to recount to you all the way the Lord has led me, and how wedded I was to the tradition I was educated in, of keeping the first-day for the Sabbath. Oh, how hard I found it to decide against what good people had taught me, whose memories I still venerate. But all is over, and for some weeks I have been keeping with you the seventh-day. How flimsy the excuse that days begin and end at different hours, in different parts of the earth. Our Heavenly Father knew this full well, when he appointed the Sabbath for a day of rest. Though the time here is four hours ahead of you, it furnishes no difficulty. The Jews never found any difficulty about the seventh-day Sabbath, and why should we? Difficulties have fled as they always do before true light. We have here now warm summer weather. The birds are singing, frogs peeping, insects humming and flowers blooming, and all nature smiling. Man alone is vile. Oh what a pity that vile man should forbear while all nature sings. “Let him rather grateful incense raise,
And far exceed all other praise.”
May we prove faithful and receive a crown of life and glory, is the heartfelt desire of the writer. Yours in gospel bonds and Christian unity. A YOUNG man had traveled two thousand miles to recover his brother, a sick soldier, but arrived to learn that he had been discharged from the service of his country, three weeks before by the hand of death. Wishing to secure as keepsakes the few effects of his deceased brother, he visited the camp where the regiment was stationed. A fellow-soldier conducted us to a tent that was only large enough to contain two bunks and a small table. Beneath one of the bunks were two or three soiled and dusty knapsacks. The weeping brother proceeded to open one of these, and began the examination of its contents. Every little article of soldier's wardrobe was scrutinized as well as blinding tear-drops would permit. He thinks he recognizes sundry articles as the property of the deceased one. At the bottom of the knapsack lay a Bible. The thought uppermost in our minds at this discovery was instantly ejaculated by our attendant, in these words, "The book will tell." The trembling hands of the bereaved brother grasped the Bible and, unclasping it, we read, "Presented to ——, by his brother, ——, N. Y., ——, 1862." Yes, these were truly the effects of the deceased one. The words, "The book will tell," uttered indifferently by one accustomed to such scenes, struck a chord which has often since vibrated with peculiar emotion in our breast. Yes, the Bible, the book of all books, the "book of life," will tell the name and the fate of many a brother dying away from home. More than this; its perusal will influence the destiny of such, and when, according to the prophecy it contains, the Archangel's voice shall wake the caverns of earth and sea, in search of those who shall have part in the first resurrection, many a one shall be found responding to its life-giving energies whose name was first written by the fingers of affection in some keepsake Bible, the true prototype of the Book of Life.—Home Evangelist. THERE is a day coming when all shall hear the voice of the Son of God and come forth from their graves. "I am the resurrection and the life." "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead and become the first fruits of them that slept. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Here is the foundation of the Christian's enjoyment, mainspring of all his pleasure, the secret of all his happiness. In view of this, he is enabled to distill sweetness and comfort from the things of this life as he makes them instrumental in laying up treasures in heaven. The bright and glorious future spread out before the Christian is that which enables him to surmount the difficulties and troubles, to overcome the trials and temptations that beset him on every hand through life's devious journey. Oh, were it not for these bright and precious promises of the glorious Gospel of the Son of God, how cheerless and gloomy would be the journey from the "cradle to the grave!"—Journal and Messenger. Who Are The Happy?—Lord Byron said: "The mechanics and workingmen who can maintain their families are, in my opinion, the happiest body of men. Poverty is wretchedness, but even poverty is, perhaps, to be preferred to the heartless, unmeaning dissipation of the higher orders." Another author says, "I have no propensity to envy any one, least of all the rich and great; but if I were disposed to this weakness, the subject of my envy would be a healthy young man, in full possession of his strength and faculties, going forth in the morning to work for his wife and children, or bringing them home his wages at night." DIED in Leslie, Mich., Feb. 10, 1864, the wife of Robert Hulet aged thirty-eight years and seven months. Funeral service by the writer. DIED at Stowe, Vt., Feb. 9, 1864, of congestion of the lungs, Sarah A., daughter of Edward S. and Alvira J. Peterson, and grand-daughter of Lewis and Sarah Harlow, aged 1 year and 1 month. Died, of consumption, Feb. 14, 1864, Bro. John Henry Stringer, aged 23 years, eldest son of Bro. and sister Geo. and Catharine Stringer. He loved the Advent faith as the plain teachings of the Bible, and for about two years had been trying to live in careful conformity therewith. He suffered much in his sickness, but with Christian resignation, and when there was a doubt expressed about his recovery, he replied, The Lord's will be done, and eventually prayed that the Lord would lay him away to sleep until the Lifegiver should come, when he would be clothed with immortality. As friends came in to inquire for his health he would improve the opportunity to exhort them to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, so that they with him when Jesus comes might have a right to the tree of life. Sister Stansell’s Search for Truth
By Mrs. A. F. Stansell
ELDER WHITE : I am a stranger to most of the readers of the Review, but as I am striving with them to keep the Sabbath of the Lord, with no one here to join me, I thought perhaps my experience might encourage others similarly situated. I have never heard the present truth preached, but I think I have seen it lived; and it agreed so well with my convictions and ideas of right, that I thought I would look into it, and see if the doctrinal part was in accordance with my views of the Bible. My attention was first called to the Sabbath question. I was at my father's, David Richmond's, in Green Bush, Mich. My dear eldest sister, who is living there, together with my mother, helped me trace the subject; and, my dear friends, I was greatly surprised not to find something somewhere in the Bible commanding us to keep Sunday as the Lord's Sabbath. I have studied the subject more thoroughly since I came home, and find nothing but what corroborates the first proofs. I thought that if the greater mass of people were keeping a wrong day for the Sabbath, perhaps they held other views just as inconsistent with the word of God. I traced out other subjects and found them so different from what the orthodox churches teach, yet so easy to understand, that I wondered why I had been blind so long. Oh, I was ready to receive the truth; for had I not hungered and thirsted after the right, but found it not? Had I not been disgusted with vain pretenders on every side? Oh, such mockery! I think I can with truth say that it is not a great cross for me to give up my friends, if I mean those in the church from which I have just withdrawn. My cross will be to make myself worthy to be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven. I am, as others have been, derided and scoffed at for daring to differ from the old way marked out for me by others; yet I rejoice, and do not waver. I feel that God smiles upon and strengthens me. I was fast sinking in the slough of despond, but his arm of mercy was underneath. He has led me to the light, for which I will praise him forever. I desire to be a faithful follower of Christ. Pray for me. If one of the ministers of this beautiful faith should see it his duty to come here and give a course of lectures, I am confident much good might be done.