Review and Herald, Vol. 32, No. 9. (8/18/1868)

Review and Herald

Aug 18, 1868

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Aug 18, 1868

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; PREACH THE WORD. 2 Tim. iv, 2.

SANCTIFICATION THROUGH THE TRUTH.

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.

TEXT.—“Sanctify them through thy truth. Thy word is truth.” John xvii, 17.

This is a very comprehensive subject; so much so that I shall examine it only in a few points. To examine it somewhat fully would occupy too much time for our present purpose.

The doctrine of sanctification is a Bible doctrine, abundantly taught in both Testaments. Sanctity, purity, and holiness, are of like signification when used in reference to a moral agent. Therefore all that is said in the Scriptures on holiness and purity, is direct testimony on the doctrine of sanctification.

This doctrine has been brought into disrepute by the unscriptural notions which have been attached to it. Some contended that it was only a gift in answer to prayer; some said that they had not sinned in thought or action for years, thus disgusting those who were acquainted with the Scriptures, or the lives of the pretenders. Some grew proud and unteachable under the profession, turning a deaf ear to the plainest Scripture requirement, saying if they were sanctified it mattered not at all about their doing such things. Their sanctification was not through the truth—it was against the truth. This is only ultra antinomianism; indeed, the professions of all Antinomians amount to this.

There are some who take credit to themselves for listening to the preached word, or reading the Scriptures, as though it was an evidence of a life accepted of God. The same theory is preached by those who advocate the faith of the world's conversion; saying the world must be getting better, because the Bible is preached to every nation and printed in every tongue. Blind, indeed, must one be to suppose that any one is benefited by merely having or hearing the truth. The Saviour did not thus judge. He said, This is the condemnation, that light is come into the world. It is the manner in which we test the truth that determines our characters.

The apostle says we are justified by faith. But another apostle says faith will not save any one. If it be alone, or without works, it is dead. Many a man believes the truth, advocates it strenuously when it is assailed, and even pays for its support or preaching, yet is no better in his life for his belief. His is a dead faith, without works.

The apostle Peter gives the finality of the work. “Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth.” And now we see the relation of the three steps. To obey we must believe, and to believe we must hear; but hearing and believing, without obeying, does us no good, but brings us into deeper condemnation.

But we have noticed that purity is the same as sanctity; therefore, the apostle's words signify that we are sanctified by obeying the truth; and the Saviour's prayer in the words of our text would mean the same if it read thus, Father, bring them into obedience to thy truth; thy word is truth.

Truths may be variously classified, according to the purpose for which the classification is made. In the view we are taking of truth, it would be primary or secondary, according as it would have a direct or remote effect in the work of sanctification. In some classifications, there could be no more important truth than this, “There is one God.” But in our present examination it is secondary, and for this reason: We are purified or sanctified in obeying the truth, but this truth—“There is one God”—cannot be obeyed. It can be believed, but that, as before said, will not sanctify, for the devils believe it, but it does not improve their character. It is necessary to believe it, however, in order that we may be brought to obey the one God, even as it is necessary to have faith in order to works.

Natural or scientific truths are important in their places; but they are of no importance whatever in the work we are now considering. There are hundreds of scientific truths, evident almost, or easy to prove, yet

a man's character is not at all affected by his belief or disbelief of them. Many of the prophecies have a relative or secondary importance, as they stand related to truths which require obedience. Disconnected from such truths, their importance is sunk—their value destroyed.

From what has been said, we see the fallacy of the objection, or evasion, or excuse, that it does not make any difference what we believe if we are only sincere. If we sincerely believe an error, we shall likely obey that error, but it will not sanctify us. The Hindoo mother believes it is right worship to cast her child into the river; but her belief does not save her from the crime of murder. No one ever says so in regard to any truths except moral or Bible truths. The evasion is mostly used where it should be most carefully avoided. The merchant would not say, It makes no difference whether the money I receive is genuine or counterfeit if I only sincerely believe it is genuine. The traveler to a certain city would not say, It is no matter which road I take, or which direction I travel, if I only believe I am going right, and am sincere. They exercise too much sense and good calculation in such matters; it is only when treating of God's truth that the objection is raised, as if God's truths were of less importance than other truths. If belief only were required, the saying would be just; it would make no difference what is believed. But when works are called for—when action is required—it makes a great difference whether or not you think and act right. If your neighbor believed there was no right in property, and left it there, you would not care; but when he added works to his faith, and took your property, you would demur. It is the work, in all cases, that we are aiming at. Correct faith is important only as it leads to right works.

An error cannot possibly have any sanctifying tendency, however firmly it may be believed or ardently loved, we see the necessity of the condition of the text, that we be sanctified by the truth; and we see also the reasonableness of the work that it consist in obeying the truth.

And having discovered the difference between first and secondary truths in this work, we proceed to inquire, Has God ever signified a difference between the two classes of truth, or revealed to us a system of truth which is primary—which is purely and directly of a sanctifying nature and tendency? This will be readily answered when we give a name to that class of truths. We have seen that truths which directly sanctify must be obeyed; but truths which require obedience are called laws. Hence, law is primary truth; it is directly sanctifying—all else is secondary to it.

But God himself has proclaimed a law; so far, we keep on plain, safe ground. It only remains to be seen whether he has given us any assurance in his word that obedience to it would have the specified effect. By turning to Ex. xix, 5, 6, we read the words of the Lord thus: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, [Deut. iv, 12, 13, shows that the covenant he uttered with his voice was the ten commandments,] then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.” To be holy is the same as to be sanctified; and as Peter said they were purified in obeying the truth, so Jehovah said they would be holy or sanctified by obeying his law; and, as before shown, it is law that has a sanctifying tendency. But how is this related to the text? In Ps. cxix, 142, it is said, “Thy law is the truth.” Thus every link in the chain of evidence is supplied: we are sanctified through the truth, in obeying it; and the law is the truth to be obeyed, by which we will be sanctified or made holy.

Other testimony of the Scriptures, and to great length, might be given, to the same effect. We will but briefly notice a few texts.

Ps. xix, 7, says, “The law of the Lord is perfect.” It is easy to see the effect on the character of keeping a perfect law—it will form a perfect character.

Eccl. xii, 13, says that to keep God's commandments “is the whole duty of man.” Certainly, if man did his “whole duty” he would be pure and sinless in life.

Rom. ii, 13, says, “The doers of the law shall be justified.” This for the reason already given; that the law is perfect,—embracing man's whole duty, and he would be holy, as Jehovah said, in keeping it, and of course be justified because sinless, perfect, holy, or sanctified.

Rom. vii, 14, says, “For we know that the law is spiritual.” Therefore they who keep it will be spiritually minded, the opposite of the carnally minded who stand in enmity against the law and its author.

But as the carnal mind cannot be subject to the law of God, Rom. viii, 7, it will seek evasions. Plain as is the testimony here presented, and evident as is the conclusion that the Saviour's prayer primarily refers to bringing his disciples into obedience to his Father's sanctifying law, the conclusion is still objected to, and the assertion made that in the New Testament the law has nothing to do in sanctifying the believer. To examine that point is mainly the object of these remarks: to connect the Saviour's prayer in our text with New Testament testimony, showing that it is the law by which we are sanctified.

There is a prophecy of our Saviour in Ps. xl, 8, wherein he is represented as saying, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.”

As we found by Ex. xix, and Deut. iv, that to obey the voice of God and to keep his covenant, meant precisely the same thing, so here, by comparing scriptures, we shall find that the will and law of God mean the same. In John vii, 16, 17, the Saviour said, “My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself.” The doctrine of the Son stands in clear distinction from the will of the Father; and the will of the Father is of supreme authority, being given as a test of the heavenly origin of the doctrine of the Son. Of course when we ascertain what the will of the Father is, we shall find that the doctrine of the Son will harmonize and agree with it in every particular; and any doctrine or gospel that will not stand this test, or bear a strict comparison with the will of the Father, is not from Heaven.

The Apostle Paul doubtless understood what was the will of God, and we have his idea in Rom. ii, 17, 18: “Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law.” That the will of God and the law of God mean the same thing here, there is no chance to deny; and that this law is the law of ten commandments is proved by the references in verses 21, 22, to the eighth, seventh, and second commandments.

We are now prepared to trace the prophecy of Ps. xl, 8, to its conclusion as shown in the New Testament. The prophecy says of Christ, or represents him as saying, “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” And the Saviour in all his life did the Father's will, because he kept his Father's commandments and did no sin. Indeed, if the law of God was in his heart, it would be quite to be expected that he would do it with delight. This is quoted in Heb. x, 7, except that “the will” of God is only expressed; but we have seen that the will and the law are convertible terms, referring to the same thing; therefore the full idea is presented. But there is a very plain reason for the omission in this place. The

Apostle Paul is, in this and the previous chapter, discussing the ceremonial law, and to introduce the word in this connection would lead to confusion in the minds of many readers, as it would be difficult for many to discriminate between the laws under such circumstances. As it now stands, all that danger or difficulty is avoided, while the full force and meaning of the prophecy is comprised in the term will. This is in strict harmony with the apostle's course on this subject. In his letters to the Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews, he has always guarded against this difficulty, by not bringing the different laws in close or obscure connection. It will not do for the objector to say that there is a difference of fact between David and Paul's time, so that the law might be properly spoken of in that manner in the Old Testament, and as properly dropped in the New; then it will not do to offer such an objection, for no such facts as these scriptures contemplate existed in David's time. His was prophecy only, and pointed out the position which Christ would maintain in relation to the will or law of God the Father when he did come as a sacrifice for sin. But Paul took up the facts as existing in this age; and if, as the objection would suppose, the apostle omitted the law to make a distinction between will and law in this age; to show that the law was not in the Saviour's heart, we have a two-fold reply, to wit: The apostle himself has proved that no such distinction exists, that when he says the will he refers to the law; and, if such a distinction exists, and the apostle dropped the term to conform to the facts in the case, then it follows that that part of the prophecy relating to the law, did not and could not have a fulfillment in the Saviour. Then the scripture would be broken, and the gospel proved to be not of Heaven—not a perfect fulfillment of the Scriptures.

For these reasons it is not possible that any such distinction could exist, and therefore it is absolutely certain that Paul used the word “will” as synonymous with “law.”

The sacrifices of the Old Testament are brought to view, and the sacrifice of Jesus contrasted therewith; that is, two orders of sacrifices are presented here, as two orders of priests are, in this letter to the Hebrews. That of bulls and goats is removed to give place to that of the Son of God. To this refers that expression in verse 9: “He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.” And this he did when he came to do the will of God; so that, considering verses 9, 10, in relation to the whole argument, the latter part of verse 9 appears in its proper connection; notwithstanding it is somewhat parenthetical, as may be seen by reading verses 9, 10, together. The first part of verse 9, and the whole of verse 10, have a close and obvious connection—a connection so clearly necessary that the expression in the latter part of verse 9 cannot be made to interfere with it. This connection of the subject stands thus: “Then he said, Lo! I come to do thy will, O God. . . . By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all.” The phrase “by the which,” marks its identity, referring us with positive certainty to the “will” just previously mentioned in the quotation from the prophecy.

Some have been misled by an addition erroneously made to the text. Thus, in Campbell's version of the New Testament, he inserts the word, will, in the latter part of verse 9, making it read as follows: “He taketh away the first will that he may establish the second.” But this is unwarranted both by the original, and by the obvious sense of the text. Indeed, he did not pretend that the original justified it, as he placed the word will in italics, a thing which he was not accustomed to do with words necessary to give the sense of the original; and it certainly mars the apostle's argument; he did not write it so.

We have seen that sanctification through the truth, is by obedience to it; that a truth which calls for obedience is a law; and that God declared a law from Mount Sinai, obedience to which would make them a holy people. We have also seen that it was long foretold of the Messiah that he would delight to do the will of his Father, because the law was in his heart. In thus doing he was sinless and holy. But the apostle goes further than this; he identifies the law, as we

have seen, and says, “we are sanctified” by it. The idea of sanctification by the law of God may be startling to some who are accustomed to lightly esteem it, and even speak reproachfully of it. Nevertheless God the Father has so expressed it; David declared also its perfection and converting power; Solomon said that it embraced man's whole duty; and Paul said that the doers thereof shall be justified. Surely to say we are sanctified by it is not to go beyond all these expressions.

But does not the apostle mean that we are sanctified by the gospel? We think not, for the following reasons: First, if he had meant so he probably would have said so; but as he did not say so, we have no right to suppose he meant so. Secondly, he has made a distinction in this very verse which entirely shuts out such a supposition. Having identified the law, he says we are sanctified by it “through the offering of the body of Christ.” Thus the relations of law and gospel are revealed in the work of human salvation; the law to prevent sin, or to convince of sin when it is transgressed; the offering of Christ or gospel, to remit sin and redeem from the curse brought by violation of the law.

It has been shown that the law is primary; it is that which has the tendency in its very nature to sanctify. But the gospel is secondary; it is a creature of contingency. The law grows out of our relation to God as to our Creator, without any regard to any particular position or action on our part. The gospel grows out of a relation we sustain by reason of transgression of law; and which would never have existed had the holy law of God always been obeyed—by a loss or change of our original relation. God placed man in that relation which he desired he should ever sustain; by transgression we are placed in a relation that is contrary to the will of God. Now, the gospel being strictly a remedial system, is designed to restore us to our original sinless condition—to our original relation to God's holy law. How can this be done without removing our sin, and sinful disposition? The position of a great many professed gospel teachers is like that of some physicians who prepare medicines to “doctor the disease,” while the cause of the disease is left to operate with all its force. The true gospel plan is like that of the true physician, who first studies the laws of our being, and then strives to remove the cause of the disease. As surely as there can be no effect without a cause, so must the diseased condition pass away when the cause is removed. Now, the cause of all our moral maladies is sin, which is transgression of the law; and, of course the real object of the gospel must be to remove the cause—the transgression of the law—which will restore us to our original and desired condition in the sight of God.

I have remarked that the will of the Father is given as the test of the doctrine of the Son; of course they will be found in perfect harmony, even as there is, and ever was, perfect harmony between the Father and the Son. But the position of Antinomians involves a conflict of authority between the two. There was a time, all will admit, when the law of the Father was binding on his creatures—on the subjects of his moral government. Against his government a rebellion arose, and the law was boldly transgressed, and its authority set aside. But such a state of things could not be permitted always to exist; means were instituted to vindicate the authority of God; and Jesus Christ his Son was chosen as the agent in this work. And how does he accomplish the work? From the late rebellion against our own government we will draw an illustration of the teachings of that class who try to “make void the law through faith.”

When the rebellion was fully organized and in effective opposition to the government, there were two methods of quelling it which arose in the minds of the friends of the government. One, to convince the rebels of the error of their ways, and bring them back to allegiance to the Constitution of the United States; the other, to put it down by overthrowing the incorrigible and determined opponents of the government. We will suppose that, after spending much blood and treasure, when our prospects were dark, and enemies rejoicing over our calamities, a person had

appeared and offered to take the whole work of vindicating the authority of the government into his own hands, and restore the rebels to their allegiance, or punish them for their treason. The question of his ability to do so great a work being satisfactorily settled, the question would then naturally arise whether he was a safe person with whom to entrust such a work—whether he was truly loyal himself, or in secret sympathy with the rebellion. Being asked to clearly define his own position in regard to this question, he replied that he delighted to do the will of the government; for the Constitution was in his heart. This, of course, would be satisfactory to all, and it is committed entirely into his hands. Having received the fullest power to act in the case—the President strictly enjoining upon all officers, soldiers, and citizens, to render implicit obedience to him, and to aid him as he shall demand. He enters upon the work committed to him; all eyes are turned toward him; every expectation is centered in him. What, now, would be the feelings of the head of the government, and of all law-abiding citizens, to see him, at the very onset, abolish the Constitution? The heart of every traitor would rejoice; while the hearts of the loyal would sink in despair; and all would agree that he was the vilest traitor of the whole—our very worst enemy in disguise. Now this is exactly the position in which Antinomians, or no-law people, place the loyal and law-abiding Son of God. When he says, “Thy law is in my heart,” they change it to mean, that it was rather in his heart to abolish the law. But they who have any regard for the truthfulness and honor of the blessed Saviour will be shocked to see him placed in such a deceptive and dishonorable position.

Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.” The Father had the fullest confidence in the integrity of his Son to carry out his will in all things. Prophecy foretold his love for, and allegiance to, the law of his Father, and that he would magnify and make it honorable. He said he did not come to destroy it. His apostles have abundantly shown that it was not made void; but that it is now the rule of life, as it will be of the coming Judgment.

We have all transgressed this holy law; all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The law is so holy and so just that it is impossible for us to free ourselves from its condemnation, or to restore ourselves to perfect conformity to it. We cannot “purify our souls in obeying” it, in our own strength. In Jesus alone is our ability to perform “the righteousness of the law.” Thus, the apostle says, we are sanctified by it, “through the offering of the body of Christ.” By the offering of his body, his blood was shed for our sins; the conscience is purified and the heart renewed; the body of sin is destroyed, and allegiance is restored to the holy law—the Constitution of the government of God. Yes, the rebellion will yet be crushed in a manner to honor God's government and vindicate his authority—not to set aside his authority, and substitute another will for his. It appears strange, indeed, that any are so bold as to advocate a theory which raises the question of authority between the Father and Son. But so it is—there are many that do thus. And God, who knows the end from the beginning, has pointed out the error, and in words of the most terrible import sent forth a message to restore his people to full allegiance, by keeping the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. When this message has done its work, and the remnant are gathered into the fold of the Good Shepherd, then will they be fully sanctified by the law of God through the offering of the precious body and blood of his dear Son, and forever sing the praises of God and the Lamb, who loved and redeemed them from sin and death. And may the Lord assist us so to obey this sacred law now, that the prayer of the Saviour may be answered in us; that we may be sanctified through the truth of God, and so prepared to enjoy the glories of his everlasting kingdom.

LOST SHEEP.

BY THE AUTHOR OF “YOUR MISSION.”

How many sheep are straying, Lost from the Saviour's fold, Upon the lonely mountains! They shiver with the cold, Within the tangled thickets, Where poison vines do creep, And over rocky ledges Wander the poor, lost sheep.

Oh! who will go to find them? Who, for the Saviour's sake, Will search with tireless patience Through brier and through brake? Unheeding thirst or hunger, Who still, from day to day, Will seek, as for a treasure, The sheep that go astray?

Say, will you seek to find them? From pleasant bowers of ease, Will you go forth determined To find the “least of these?” For still the Saviour calls them, And looks across the world, And still he holds wide open, The door into his fold.

How sweet 't would be at evening, If you and I could say, Good Shepherd, we've been seeking The sheep that went astray. Heart-sore and faint with hunger, We heard them making moan, And lo! we come at nightfall, Bearing them safely home.

A SPECIAL NATIONAL DANGER.

This country rightfully boasts of being the asylum and home of the oppressed of all climes, and works up its liberality and catholicity into rapidly-accumulating stores of wealth. The strangers who come to our shores are the bone and sinew of labor, which is only another name for the property it creates. But it must never be forgotten that, if the country gets this new population, the new population also gets the country; the acquisition is mutual. We do not simply receive so much innocent and enriching labor, and give homes and plenty to oppressed men and women. The problem in that form would be quite harmless. The truth is, that the stranger and foreigner of to-day is the citizen and voter of to-morrow. He no sooner touches our soil than he feels himself to be a neophyte, in training to shape, perhaps, to remodel, the State.

Without meaning to make illiberal or imperious distinctions between citizens of foreign birth and those born on American soil; without wishing to deny the excellent character in all respects of great numbers of adopted citizens, we are not called on, nevertheless, to shut our eyes to great and significant facts. If all foreigners were like the best of them, all would be well. Indeed, it is easy to go still further, and to say that vast numbers of natives are dangerous to the country, by reason of their ignorance and vice. But for these it may be said, in mitigation, except when they have been reared under the shadow of a foreign spirit, in our cities and large towns, that they are not enemies to the essentials of our civilization. Their life and prejudices are American, in the historical sense of the word. With vast masses of our foreign population it is quite otherwise; they are inimical to much which we regard as essential to the stability of republican government.

We need not refer to the fact that our Government, at its very foundation, was based upon Protestant Christianity. This was its life; and yet it was soon found to be broad enough to tolerate all forms of faith. It is not the less true, however, that the nation was born Protestant Christian, that its inner constitution, its inherent bias, its profoundest life, its persistent energy, were all according to this beginning. There was a deep conviction in the hearts of the people that the Bible was the rock of national strength. It was felt that we were only secure of our liberties while public virtue lasted, and that public virtue could only endure while evangelical religion flourished. The churches must be kept open and filled, our schools must be Christian, and a constant stream, deep and wide, of divine instruction must continually pour forth from the churches over the country.

Prominent among the means by which the nation was to be kept Christian, was the Christian Sabbath. It was clearly seen that a sacred Sunday was the holy school-time of the Republic; that if that seventh of the year became common, the Christian education of the nation would soon cease. What would be the use of the churches if the people never enter them, and what time have they for church except Sunday? Let the patriotic reader think of the moral power brought to bear on the country, Sunday after Sunday, in our thousands, and thousands of Christian churches; and let him calculate, if he can, the disastrous effects of destroying that power. True morality can only have a sound basis in Christianity. If Sunday is spent in dissipation, morality dies of contempt for the gospel and the church.

In the light of these thoughts let the reader look at the tendencies of our public life. Only a year ago the Saengerfest of the Germans was held in Philadelphia. Its time included a Sabbath. By the law of the State every drinking establishment of the city was required to be closed on Sunday, but the law, as well as the moral sense of the community, was disregarded, and the lager-beer establishments were boldly kept open under the very eye of the police. Nay, more, the functionaries of the city government, officiating at the reception of the musicians, were weak enough to hear speeches in derision of Sunday laws, not only without rebuke, but without even the gentlest defense of the abused “Puritans.” The danger in such cases is twofold: First, the example is corrupting, and, secondly, these Germans, combined in their societies, whether as sharpshooters, as gymnasts, or as singers, have a political significance. What city or State government can resist the will of thirty thousand voters?—the number said to have been in attendance at one time at the sharpshooters’ show in Jones’ Wood. We know it may plausibly be replied that the party in power, whichever it may be, regards its retention of place as essential to the national well-being, and thinks it must yield something, even, of public morality, in order not to be beaten. But see whither this tends. Most of these associations are notoriously made up of free-thinkers, who deride Christianity as priestcraft, and have faith in liberty only for the sake of its license. They mean to follow the lead of no party, but to sell out to any for the largest price.

They are from countries where Christianity exists by State support, and their remembrance of oppression is associated with the church and the clergy as political powers. They live, to a large extent, in separate quarters of our cities, still further separated by a distinct vernacular from the national life. The feeling that springs from American history is foreign to them. They appreciate our liberties simply on the surface, but are utter strangers to the life, far back, from which they sprang.

These organizations, on the basis of foreign nationalities, for the perpetuation of the life and feeling of “fatherland,” and, in resistance of the true and original American spirit, can not fail to be dangerous. We may boast of the nation’s power to absorb, but that power must have a limit. We must not forget that what is absorbed carries its qualities into the absorbing body, and that the process may go on until the foreign accretions may outweigh the original material, the once living wood may become a petrification.

These cautions are not uttered in the spirit of exclusiveness; they are not akin, or at least not meant to be akin, to the spirit of sect, either in politics or religion. They are only the frank expression of a fear for the national safety. The freest government can rest only upon the largest amount of intelligent virtue. American liberty, at its historical root, is imbedded in Christianity, the Christianity of an open Bible, of a living, evangelical church. Out of this soil is, and must be, its normal development; the attempt to change it by new modes of culture and superabundant grafting may succeed, but if it does it will only give us the dead and shadeless tree of despotism in the place of the old “vine and fig-tree” of the fathers.—Methodist.

Friendly Inquiries.

CHRISTIAN, while Jesus may find some things in you to commend, may he not, and justly too, “have somewhat against you,” because you have left your “first love.”? Let us inquire a little, and ascertain, if possible, whether you have or have not “left your first love.” How delightful it was once, when your hour of prayer came, to enter your closet and hold sweet converse with the “Lover of your soul!” Never-to-be-forgotten seasons, when you did not get tired of praying! You would rather lose a visit from your dearest earthly friend than fail to meet Jesus at the accustomed time and kneeling place.

What a precious season in the family, too, when all were gathered around the family Bible! Your prayers convinced all that you were speaking really to God, and that God was in that place.

But, dear brother, is it so now? Or does your heart shrink back from closet visits? Are your visits short, less frequent, formal, and lifeless?

Does family worship drag? Has the Bible lost its power to interest? Then the sad tale is told. You have “left your first love.” Jesus has something against you. He cannot smile on you until you return, and repent, and do your first works; and you cannot do anything for him while you remain in this state. You can’t pray for or talk with sinners. You are in the way of their salvation. Dear brother, will you not get out of the way? Will you not return to your “first love”? Jesus is ready to receive you. Hear him call you: “Behold I stand at the door and knock; if any man will hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and sup with him, and he with me.”

Prayers for Worldly Prosperity

By Rev. W. Jay.

I once received in the pulpit the following note: “The prayers of this congregation are earnestly desired for a man who’s prospering in his worldly concerns.” If he did this sincerely—and there is no reason to question it—the man showed good acquaintance with human nature. He had studied himself; he had observed others; he had also read his Bible to good purpose.—Rev. W. Jay.

Scripture Notes.

SOLOMON'S HORSES.

2 Chron. 1, 16. And Solomon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn: the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price.

[Had horses.] This Moses expressly prohibited, by which future kings were forbidden to establish a body of cavalry; because this could not be effected without sending to Egypt, the most dangerous of all foreign commerce to true religion. When Solomon had violated this law, and multiplied horses to excess (1 Kings iv, 26), it was soon attended with those fatal consequences the law foretold. For he having, likewise, in violation of another law of Moses, married Pharaoh's daughter, the early fruits of this intercourse; and then, by a repetition of the same crime, but by the transgression of another law, having espoused more strange women (1 Kings iii, 1; xi, 1), they first, in defiance of a fourth law, persuaded him to build them idol-temples for their use; and afterwards, against a fifth law, still more fundamental, they induced him to erect other temples for his own. Now the origin of all this mischief was the forbidden traffic with Egypt for horses. Resist the beginnings of evil.—Warburton, Clarke, Hewlett.

HIGHT OF THE TEMPLE.

Chap. vii, 21. And this house, which is high, shall be an astonishment to every one that passeth by it; so that he shall say, Why hath the Lord done thus unto this land, and unto this house?

Some say the second temple was built up in some parts 700 feet from the valley. It was, probably, on a pinnacle overlooking this hight where Satan set our Lord. Matt. iv, 5.

EVILS OF LUXURIES.

Chap. ix, 21. For the king's ships went to Tarshish with the servants of Huram: every three years once came the ships of Tarshish bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and peacocks.

The imports here mentioned indicate, that prosperity had enervated the minds of Solomon and his subjects, and led them to love things curious and uncommon, though useless in themselves: and, indeed, the East Indian trade has helped to render every nation luxurious and self-indulgent, which has prospered in it, from the beginning to this day.—Scott.

ORIENTAL RAIMENT.

Verse 24. And they brought every man his present, vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment, harness, and spices, horses, and mules, a rate year by year.

[Raiment.] Oriental kings have, ‘in their wardrobes, garments for thousands, the loose robes equally fitting all.’—Jenks.

SCRIPTURAL USE OF SON.

Chap. xi, 18. And Rehoboam took him Mahalath the daughter of Jerimoth the son of David to wife, and Abihail the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse.

[Daughter of Eliab.] Eliab was David’s eldest brother; yet more than 80 years had elapsed, since David, at the age of 30, began to reign. Abihail must, therefore, have been granddaughter, or great-granddaughter to Eliab, and this shows the latitude in which the words, son and daughter, are used in Scripture, for a descendant, even after several intervening generations.—Scott.

Continue reading: FREEMASONRY.—VII