Earlier text: Reasons Why Believers Should Study ProphecyA New Champion with New Arguments.
As proposed in last week's Review, we resume our examination of Eld. Sheldon's effort against the Sabbath, found in the Voice of the West of May 2. It is a pitiful sight to see a man in the present state of astronomical science, stand up and roundly assert that the earth is flat, that it has four square corners, that it is stationary, and that the sun performs his daily circuit around it, either ignorant of the light that exists on this question, or in his willful bigotry despising it. If any man of ordinary intellect and information, would be ashamed to take such a position as this, then theologians, those who set themselves up for teachers in Israel, ought to be ashamed to be found year after year plodding doggedly along through the stupid arguments which have been a thousand times refuted, and making assertions, in comparison with which the declaration that the earth is flat, is glorious and consummate wisdom. Says Eld. S. "The law entire, of which the decalogue was a part, expired at the cross." "The law entire, of which the decalogue was a part." The great truth that the decalogue is of itself a separate and distinct law, is thus quietly ignored. Yet nothing can be plainer than this. We will not discuss the subject here. Those not familiar with it, are referred to Ex. xxiv, 12; Deut. xxxii, 2, and to the pamphlet entitled, The Two Laws, published at this Office. "Expired at the cross." Is he sure of this? His colleagues do not all agree with him. Some place the death of the law at John: "The law and the prophets were until John." Others put it at the cross; others at the resurrection; and some at all three of those places! We would advise them before attacking the enemy to become united among themselves, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. But rather, think of this: The law entire ceased at the cross. God found it necessary to abolish all his laws there. Omniscient wisdom could not frame a law that would be adapted to the race till the close of their probation! But the time came when it was found to be faulty, and must be taken out of the way. There too, God must abolish his own constitution and government, repeal the moral principles binding on man, and sweeping aside all his former work as faulty, imperfect, and unworthy longer to endure, commence entirely anew! And then too, to represent Christ as dying, and offering up his infinite sacrifice to pay the penalty of an imperfect law! No language can be found fitly to describe the mental or moral obliquity involved in such a view. These are the legitimate fruits of the position set forth by Eld. S. and his coadjutors. He professes to find something in our theory which he calls absurdities. We hand these back and call them blasphemies. Having stated that the law expired at the cross, he continues: "But some of its prohibitions and commandments are enforced under the gospel arrangement." Yes. When? where? how? and by whom? These are questions which our opponents forget to answer. It is very easy to assert that the law has ceased, and to be very positive in the matter. And the careless and unthinking will perhaps accept the assertion without further investigation. But let people place the abolition of the law at what point they please, it is impossible to enter into an argument to show just how much of the law has been re-enacted, when it was done, and by whom it was done, and in what manner the change was promulgated, without manifesting their folly to the most superficial and casual observer. Hence on these points they very wisely forbear. In relation to the re-enactment, however, they are pretty sure to state this, as Mr. S. does not fail to do: "But never is the seventh day Sabbath enforced under the gospel arrangement." Until the opponents of the Sabbath show the necessity for the re-enactment or enforcement of that institution in the gospel dispensation, and state what they will acknowledge to constitute an enforcement of it, they cannot justly call upon us for our evidence. When they will do either of these things, we stand pledged to produce a five-fold more frequent recognition of the Sabbath law, and Sabbatical institution in the New Testament, than of any other one of the ten commandments. Mr. S. now writes himself down as a worshiper of images as follows: "We observe only that part of the law which is enforced under the gospel arrangement whether from the tables or from the book." As he cannot find in the New Testament an express re-enactment of that portion of the old law which prohibits the worship of images, such as he demands in respect to the Sabbath, he has positively declared that he does not observe it, hence he must be a worshiper of images. He next gives us the heading, "The decalogue not in force in the gospel age." Over against this we set the words of our Lord, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all [things] be fulfilled." Being, as they are diametrically opposed to each other, we are not long in determining which declaration to adopt, nor will any one be, who prefers the words of the Lord Jesus Christ to the assertions of men. But outside of the decalogue, is there a command anywhere to be found in the Bible for the keeping of any day as a Sabbath? There is not, and none will claim it. If then the decalogue is not in force in the gospel age, and the Sabbath is not enjoined, where is the Sabbath for this dispensation? There is none. This fixes upon him the stigma of "no Sabbath" beyond the possibility of evasion, to say nothing of what it does for the Voice of the West, notwithstanding its editor strenuously spurns (that is in word), the idea of being a no-Sabbath man. We now approach a portion of Eld. S.'s effort, in which for reasons assigned in our former article, we are presented with something which has at least the credit of being tolerably new. On these points we will quote from his article more at length. In answer to the question whether or not the law on tables of stone may continue in force through the gospel age he says: "We reply, no; because several items in that writing on the tables of stone are not in harmony with the gospel arrangement, and are applicable only to the obsolete law of Moses. Let us look at several points: " 'I am the Lord thy God which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.' (Ex. xx, 2). This was true of the Israelites, but is not true of Gentile Christians. They were never in 'bondage' in Egypt; but if this old arrangement of law, engraven on stones, is still in force without change, and obligatory upon Christians, it makes God constantly proclaim an untruth to them, for this statement is a part of the writing on the tables of stone. This is invulnerable proof that this law was arranged, not for Gentiles, but for Jews." If Eld. S. had taken the trouble to examine this point a little more critically, he might have saved himself the mistake of making an assertion so utterly erroneous. Is it not true that the words which preface the ten commandments in Ex. xx, "I am the Lord thy God," &c., were ever engraven on the tables of stone? There is no record of any such thing, but everywhere the contrary. Concerning the writing on the first tables we have in Deut. iv, 12, 13, the following testimony: "And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments, and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." This testimony is sufficiently explicit. "He declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform." What is his covenant? To make the matter plain beyond misapprehension, Moses adds, "even ten commandments." Then God's covenant, not the Sinaitic or first covenant, mark, but God's covenant consisted of something to be performed, even ten commandments. Nothing then belongs to that covenant except something to be performed, something that is a commandment. But the preface to the ten commandments is not a commandment, and nothing to be performed; therefore it is no part of the covenant of which Moses speaks. The inspired writer then proceeds to say in relation to these ten commandments, nothing else, "and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." Nothing but the commandments, therefore, were written upon the tables. That exactly the same writing was upon the second tables, as upon the first, Moses thus testifies in Deut. x, 4: "And he wrote on the tables [the second tables which Moses made and carried up, after he had broken the first] according to the first writing, the ten commandments." See this point discussed at length in History of the Sabbath, pp. 79-81. But Mr. S. should have followed his own reasoning to its legitimate conclusion. Had he done this he would have seen that the language that prefaces the ten commandments, could no more apply to the generations of literal Israel, then future, than to spiritual Israel under the gospel dispensation. For it was not literally true of any of the Israelites, except those then living, that they had been brought up out of the land of Egypt. Thus Eld. S.'s own argument "makes God constantly proclaim an untruth" to all Israel, after the generation that came out of Egypt had passed away. He should be more careful in his conclusions. As an introduction of God to the people as he was about to utter the ten commandments, the words with which he prefaced these commandments were proper. Of that generation to whom they were spoken they were true. Of no other would they be true. They could therefore form no proper part of what should be engraven upon the tables. Hence Moses is ever careful to discriminate between them, and what the tables did actually contain. The second proof that the decalogue cannot be binding in the gospel age is given as follows: " 'For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me,' (Ex. xx, 5). This principle does not hold good in the gospel age, for Jeremiah plainly predicted its termination at the introduction of the New Covenant: 'In these days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge. [Why? Because] Behold the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel' &c. (Jer. xxxi, 29-31). Under the old covenant, the Jews understood that the 'iniquity of the fathers' might be visited upon the children; hence, they inquired concerning the blind man, 'For whose sins was this man born blind? For his own, or for his parents?'—recognizing the principle that the iniquity of his father might have been visited upon him. The same thought was in their minds at the crucifixion, when they exclaimed, 'His blood be on us and on our children.' This principle is not an ingredient of the New Covenant, and is in opposition to it; but if the decalogue, as an unchanged instrument, in its original form, is still in force, this obsolete rule of a dead law must still be in force, and clashing with the principles of the gospel." We behold in this the same lack of discrimination that is so discernible in the preceding argument. Visiting upon the children the iniquity of the fathers, is not visiting upon the children the punishment due to the fathers for their iniquities. These Mr. S. confounds together, and charges the abhorrent doctrine last stated upon the holy, just and good law of God, and its great author. Having stumbled upon this infidel doctrine, cross-eyed prejudice sees in it a fancied objection to the Sabbath, and greedily swallows it. It is no credit to the no-Sabbath side of this controversy to be made to shoulder upon itself assertions by which infidels have tried to blacken the character of the Bible and the God of the Bible. A few pages of Nelson on Infidelity, pp. 271-278, would doubtless do Mr. S. good right here, if we had room to transcribe it. Has he never read Eze. xviii? God there expressly declares that the son shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers. Verse 20. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." This certainly does not belong exclusively to the new covenant. It was applicable under the old, as well. And it seems to have been spoken to correct an error into which the Jews had fallen, expressed in verse 19, thus: "Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity189of the father?" Or in the passage quoted by Mr. S., Jer. xxxi, 29, it reads, "They shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape and the children's teeth are set on edge." Then this is something that they say. Has God ever said it? Never. And cannot our friend discriminate between what God says and what man says? If not, we shall next expect to hear him trying to prove a temporal millennium from Isa. ii, and Micah iv. But when does the language which he quotes have its special application? To the new or gospel covenant he answers. Then that covenant has not yet commenced, for at the time when that language was to apply, God says of Judah and Israel, "And it shall come to pass that like as I have watched over them to pluck up and to break down, and to throw down, and to destroy and to afflict; so will I watch over them to build and to plant." Then follows the language in question, "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape," &c. But Israel and Judah, as he views them, are not yet planted and builded, but scattered all over the earth. Hence on his own ground the time has not yet come for the new covenant to take effect! But the second commandment refers to nothing of this kind. The effects of the fathers' vices physical and moral, are seen in the children. They are visited upon them. And this principle is just as true under this dispensation as under the former, and will be so long as sin exists and is transmitted from father to son in a long line of transgressors. Our space is again exhausted and we are compelled to defer the examination of the remainder of Mr. S.'s article to some future paper. Destitution and Suffering at the South.
Two things we unmistakably read, in the well-authenticated accounts of the terrible state of things now existing at the South: first, the righteous retribution of a just God on the foul sin of slavery which they have so long persistently cherished; and second, the fulfillment of certain predictions of calamities to come upon them, given through the spirit of prophecy at an early stage of the war. In Testimony No. 7, p. 16, we read, "God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery. He has the destiny of the nation in his hand. He will punish the South for the sin of slavery, and the North for so long suffering in overreaching and overbearing influences." For its complicity with this great crime the North has had to endure the terrible pressure of this bloody struggle for four weary years; but the most direful results of the war seem to be falling upon the South for the sin of slavery itself. Again we read in Testimony No. 9, p. 12, in regard to the South, "Their foot shall slide in due time." And again on p. 4: "God is not with the South, and he will punish them dreadfully in the end." The late events of the war, afford a sufficient commentary on these points. The following items gathered from the latest papers are only a few additional particulars. The following description we find in the New York Express: 'AN APPALING PICTURE OF SOUTHERN DESTITUTION.
'A late prominent Southern leader, not many days ago, said to a company of Northern gentlemen at Richmond: “ ‘We are defeated; yes, if you please, we are conquered. Look at our condition. Our rich have become poor, and our poor, beggars. Our soil has been desolated by contending armies, till there are no crops in the ground, few houses fit to live in, no fences, and no timber to make any; no cattle, no horses, no railroads, no locomotives or rolling stock, no steamboats, no flour mills, no cotton, no tobacco, and no food that is available, save as we get it from your commissariat. In a single night our currency perished in our hands, losing even its pitiful price of five cents on a dollar. I know families—yes families heretofore comfortable, and even rich—who would thank you for a supper of corn meal.’ ” “Another account from a Union soldier, says: “ ‘Let free passes be given to all in the North who doubt the prevalence of the direst poverty and distress among the people of the South, and there will be a new field open for your Sanitary Commission.’ ” Rev. H. M. Gallaher, on a recent visit to Charleston, S. C., writes to the N. Y. Independent: “Our first sight of Charleston was a disappointment. We did not expect to see such terrible desolation, and we wondered how the rebel newspapers could have kept back a knowledge of their sufferings. “One-third of the city, and perhaps the best third, is utterly destroyed. If New York city extended only to Canal street, and a fire, three blocks wide, should burn its way from Fulton Ferry to the foot of Barclay street, it would be something like what has befallen Charleston. “Then, what is untouched by the fire is pierced and torn and shattered by our shells. Every second building, at least, is injured by them. The Mills House, an imposing structure resembling the Sherman House in Chicago, was hit eighteen times. We gathered some blooming white clover from the grass that grew thickly at its closed doorway.” The Detroit Tribune has the following: “ ‘Dispatches from Richmond show a terrible state of impoverishment which the people of Virginia are now found to be in, and to which they have been reduced by the drafts of the rebel military establishment on their resources of all kinds. Thousands of the inhabitants of Richmond, Petersburg and the surrounding country are preserved from starvation only by the supplies of food which the United States Commissaries issue them.’ ” The New York Tribune gives a picture of present and prospective Southern desolation as follows: “The Southern Rebellion is dead, after having caused the death of a large share of the Southern people. Persons who have recently passed through the accessible portions of the Atlantic Slave States report a frightful scarcity of able-bodied males. A few old men, a few cripples; not many boys able to shoulder a musket, with a sad abundance of widows and orphans, ill clad, coarsely and scantily fed, woe-begone, hopeless—such is the wreck left behind by the fugitive chiefs of the Slaveholders’ Confederacy. Since the capture of Jerusalem by Titus, there has been no such utter ruin. In many places, a dumb stupor appears to have full way over what are left of the Whites, so that they seem to have no thought and no care for the future. “Of course, there is much bitterness and vengeful hate still cherished by the dupes of Secession; many believing that the North made causeless war on the South and crushed it by brute strength in the wantonness of conscious power. But, though hate remains, and may impel to isolated acts of crime, there is no thought of further warfare. The subjugation is felt to be complete. “The Government will soon, we trust, be ready to speak comforting, reassuring words to the great body of the Southern people; but meantime the planting season is swiftly passing unimproved. The negroes, with a justifiable fear of guerrillas and of re-enslavement, desert the plantations and rush into the idle, famishing cities, leaving tillage unattempted; for the Whites have little force, less heart, small aptitude for labor, and are destitute of seed, implements, animals—in short, everything. And there is great danger that the season of vegetation will pass mainly unimproved, and leave large sections of the South exposed next Winter to the horrors of actual famine.” Committee Men.
By J. Clarke
WHEN you speak of committees and their labors, you are probably thinking it not very important as to who they are, or what they do. Committees are generally chosen to arrange plans, to investigate causes, to mature unripe schemes, to forward business arrangements, to settle perplexing questions, or to take charge of business matters. Political, legislative, religious, scientific, educational, and financial bodies of men, throw the most arduous and difficult labors upon committees, often clothing them with ample powers. In our public buildings in Washington, are many committee rooms where the most important business for the country is transacted, and perplexing cases are put in shape for legislation. In the committee rooms of the Bank of England, decisions are often made, affecting in a greater or less degree, the interests of towns, cities, states, and even empires. When you choose, or appoint men to act as committees, you seek plain, candid, intelligent men, who are well posted upon those matters about which they are expected to deliberate, and you feel a sense of relief when you have committed your case to a committee, upon whose judgment you rely. The great work of reform now in progress in the movement of the S. D. A. church, is much of it intrusted to committees: General Conference, and State Conference committees, whose duties are extensive, laborious, and responsible. Sometimes a committee may labor (in the fire, as it were) in the midst of opposing elements counteracting evil influences which have become serious hindrances to the cause, and silently removing obstructions, so that the car of reform may move on, and seem apparently to do nothing; at least it appears so to those who do not look carefully and consider what they affirm. But your committee men must be patient, devoted to the cause, willing to suffer reproach, looking to Him who takes note of every hour, every tear, every pang, every prayer, devoted to the cause of God. When you would build upon the margin of a lake or stream, you drive spiles into the ground, and there completely buried out of sight, they humbly perform an important part. Even so must some labor, content to stand firm, immovable, even doing much with the gratitude of but few. But thank God, their work is registered in his book. J. CLARKE. “Revival of Religion.”
By R. F. Cottrell
SIGNS OF THE CONVERSION OF THE WORLD.
IN the Sabbath Recorder of Apr. 13, under the caption of The Good Time Coming, is an extract of a discourse, from which is taken the following language: “We are witnessing the grandest revival of religion since Luther hurled his thunderbolts against the Vatican. The demon of treason, through red-handed war, has evoked forces for good, and organized charities, which otherwise might have slumbered for centuries. It has aroused a nation, well nigh dead with indifference to the claims of humanity. Thousands who had connived at the wrongs done the black man, now shout, ‘Down with the oppressor! The negro is a man, and he shall have all the rights of a man.’” That thousands of such conversions have taken place is evident. The means by which these remarkable conversions have been accomplished is also fairly set forth. It is the “demon of treason” that has evoked these forces for good. Had not this demon turned revivalist, the world “might have slumbered for centuries” without seeing this, “the grandest revival of religion” since the days of Luther. It has been formerly taught that the “glorious fullness of the gospel dispensation,” of which my friend speaks, was to be the result of the preaching of the “gospel of peace,” which would cause the nations to learn war no more. But there being no signs of the world's conversion by this means, and seeing that war converts men much faster, it is natural for those who will have this fable to be the truth, to look to other means to accomplish so desired and desirable an end. But it is well to inquire whether men are made better by being converted, or whether they become tenfold more the child of hell than those who converted them. If the latter should be the case when the “demon of treason” is the preacher by whose means they are converted, the case is bad enough truly. In all candor I ask, Is true religion, living piety and godliness, increasing in our land? Is it not rather a fact, that political excitement, the spirit of war, and an increasing, sordid avariciousness, have taken possession of the minds of the people, to the almost utter exclusion of all religious sentiment? Are not the people sinking lower and lower in the scale of morality? The church ought to take the lead in reformatory movements, taking a stand upon high and holy principles. But how has it been? Is it not a fact, that the American churches have been “the bulwark of American slavery,” as some in high standing have declared! Now I wish to ask, Is the conversion of these churches genuine? Let us see how it has been produced. Have they seen their sins, and had genuine, heart-felt penitence? We shall see. In the first place, treason and rebellion reared its brazen head and front in behalf of that diabolical institution190which politicians and religionists, were agreed not to meddle with. Especially were the leading churches, self-styled evangelical, so wrapped up in pro-slavery principles, that, in the great revival prayer meetings of a few years past, a prayer for the poor bondman, despoiled of all his inalienable rights, could not be tolerated. The rebellion comes. The civil power of the nation is awakened and on the anxious-seat. Politicians soon begin to be converted soundly, it would seem, and resolve to serve the country by the death of the monster so long petted, but which was now aiming a death-blow at our free institutions and our government. Last of all the churches, moved by patriotism more than by religion, begin at once to declare their conversion. They come out shouting happy in anti-slavery principles, before it was ever known that they were laboring under conviction. They take the same anti-slavery position now, on account of which, twenty years ago, they would exclude a minister from preaching in their churches, even on occasion of a funeral. I question the genuineness of their conversion, on the ground that the work is too superficial, not being preceded by a deep and thorough conviction of sin. Patriotic excitement seems to claim a larger share in their conversion, than a just sense of the appalling heinousness of their sin. It is easily seen that, instead of the church moving forward in the conversion of the world, the political world has taken the lead, and the church has been induced to profess conversion, leaving it extremely doubtful whether she has truly experienced a change of heart. No greater and more palpable deception could possess the minds of the religious world than the anti-scriptural idea of the world's conversion. Yet men seem bound to believe, in the face of scripture and of facts, that the world is growing better and better, and the hope is cherished, in the midst of the most flagitious crimes that ever disgraced humanity, that righteousness will soon run down our streets like rivers, and in the midst of wars, that gentle peace is about to spread her golden wings over the world, and that the nations will soon learn war no more. Stupendous and transparent delusion! contradicted by the most express declarations of the word of God, and by every transpiring fact or sign of the times. But the most astonishing thing of all, is that Seventh-day Baptists—a people enlightened in the obligation and perpetuity of the moral law, and consequently acquainted (or ought to be) with the corrupted state of nominal Christianity—should chime in with the rest, in this siren song of peace and safety! A people who have tried in vain, and about given over trying to convert those who profess loyalty to the King of kings, to the most simple and obvious requirements of the moral law, the ten commandments—that they should fondly imagine that a church, that will not be converted to the plainest teaching of the explicit law which they profess to keep, is about to convert the whole world to the holy principles of God's word, is so preposterously absurd that language would fail me to express my astonishment. My dear friends! before you talk more of the conversion of the world, I beseech you to convert a few professed Christians to the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. A stream cannot rise higher than its fountain. How then can the world be truly converted, while the church that is to convert them remains unconverted and unconvertible! How is the church to be converted to that which you know to be the truth of God? Must we have another rebellion to evoke the forces which are to accomplish the Sabbath reform which is so much needed? From present appearances the “evangelical churches” will still “slumber for centuries” over this subject, unless aroused by some imminent, national peril. Alas! If these are the forces which are to convert the world, the temporal millennium, which men are promising us, must be a vast distance in the future. The Image of the Beast.
By Wm. C. Gage.
THE curious and rapid changes in public opinion have often been made a subject of remark by mauy statesmen and orators, and the ease with which the views of the masses are said to be moulded by designing men, has been considered by some as a barrier to a republican form of government. Yet the keen-sighted observer cannot fail to see that some of these wonderful changes are but the development of a germ long hidden and dormant, which has only waited for the favoring elements to foster its growth, and hasten it to maturity. This peculiarity is strikingly manifested in the eagerness of the public to endorse anything and everything teudiug to a union of church and State. While the unvarying profession of our government has ever been "liberty of conscience aud freedom to all," and it would seem to the casual observer that this principle had always beeu carried out, yet, if we carefully examine our history, we shall find that practice has uot always conformed to profession. This is familiarly illustrated in the case of our Puritan forefathers, who were ready to persecute those who differed from them, even while their own backs were smarting from the wouuds of religious intolerance. Perhaps some may claim that, notwithstanding this was a marked characteristic of the early stages of our governmeut, we have uow outgrown it, and are further removed than ever from a union of church and State. For the beuefit of such, we subjoin the following extracts from a lecture delivered iu Concord, N. H., by a very popular clergyman, before a "full and delighted audience," who mauifested their approbation by "frequent applause." “The Flag and the Cross are my theme to-night. The Cross is the symbol of our religion. It reminds us of the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the sacrifice of Christ, the redemption of the world. The Flag is the emblem of our nationality, the symbol of liberty and order. They should be associated, intertwined about our altars. There is no desecration in the act. There is little danger of too intimate union between church and State. If our religion be uot brought iuto coutact with politics and business, and all the everyday concerus of life, it is not a blessing, but a curse. The assumption that Christian ministers should not intermeddle with affairs of State, is a great aud aud daugerous heresy. We have uudertakeu, as a natiou, to divorce the Flag and the Cross. * Wouli we have our nation prosper, we must solemnize anaw the union between the Cross and the Flag. That the above is a fair expositiou of public opinion, is appareut from the fact that it was "frequently applauded," and thus virtually eudorsed by a large and iutelligent audience. While those who are observiug may be led to iuquire, "What will be the result of all this?" the student of prophecy cau confidently answer, "A uuiou of church and State," for to him it is but an evideuce that the "sure word of prophecy" is being fulfilled, which demands an "image to the beast." Rev. xiii, 14, 15. All expositors are agreed in saying that "the beast" is the Roman Catholic power, which was distinguished in prophecy as a uniou of church and State. Its "image" will be like it, and therefore a similar uuiou must be expected under the government symbolized by the two-horned beast of Rev. xiii. That All-seeing Eye.
By Delia A. Eddy
Did you ever think of it, that the eye of God is upon us at all times, and that our characters are truly daguerreotyped in Heaven? that every word, and thought and act, that inward but hidden spite against a brother, that secret lust, that self-loving look in the glass, that envious look at your neighbor, that hidden corner of your heart where burns occasionally old grudges, unforgiving injuries, unlawful love, impure thoughts, unholy desires, fashions which would make you blush to tell your most confiding friend? Think of this, and remember that it is all open before him with whom we have to do. On the other hand, he that overcometh, shall inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. Oh, how cheering to the lonely Christian who is struggling on to reach the end of the Christian race, to know that every victory, every sigh for freedom, every groan and tear on account of sin and temptation, every struggle for emancipation, every longing for light, every agonizing prayer for the leading of God's Holy Spirit, is also recorded in Heaven, and is noticed by that all-seeing eye. And the great Jehovah, whose piercing eye enters every heart with no respect of persons, views the hidden springs of actions and motives. Oh let every honest heart be encouraged to press onward and upward, and endeavor at all times with an outstretched arm to help all those who need help, and thus fulfill the law of Christ. Let us, brethren and sisters, endeavor to keep ourselves pure, and walk close with God, so that we can view our own hearts as they are viewed in Heaven, and when Jesus comes, may we have on the wedding garment, and our lamps be trimmed and burning, waiting for our returning Lord. "May our lamps be always burning,
And our loins be girded round,
Waiting for our Lord's returning,
Longing for the welcome sound."
Watchfulness.
By J. N. Wilkinson
"And what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch." Mark xiii, 37. In the first place, we wish to inquire for what purpose this admonition was given. We are told by some that we should watch to understand the definite time of the coming of the Lord. So it would appear that after the time was definitely understood, there would be no necessity of watching. But says Jesus, "Take ye heed, watch and pray, for ye know not when the time is." Mark xiii, 33. And again, "But know this, that if the good man of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up." Matt. xxiv, 43. Thus we see the importance of watching. It is evident from the word of the Lord, that the time of Christ's coming will not be definitely understood this side of probation. And still we hear people say that they believe that time is in the Bible. This class of individuals are so used to hearing time advocated among them, that unless they can hear it preached, they lose all their energy and zeal. But while time is being promulgated, they seem all absorbed in the coming of the Lord. They are not satisfied with the first and second angels' messages, which they admit are in the past, but still think that we must yet have the midnight cry; and finally they come to the conclusion that the first angel which said, "Fear God and give glory to him for the hour of his judgment is come," was mistaken, after all. But, says one, does not the apostle say, "But ye brethren are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief?" 1 Thess. v, 4. Certainly; but why191is it that we are not in darkness? Because we have seen the signs of Christ's coming, and "know that it is nigh even at the door." Mark xiii, 29. Says the apostle Paul, "But of the times and seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you." Why? "For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say Peace and safety, then sudden destruction cometh upon them." 1 Thess. v, 1–3. Here the apostle conveys to our mind the idea that the coming of the day of the Lord will occur like the coming of a thief in the night; and unless we are heeding the admonition of our Saviour, it will come upon us unawares. But, says another, Paul says, "And that knowing the time, that now it is high time to wake out of sleep, for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." Rom. xiii, 11. But what time does the apostle here refer to? I understand that it is the time of the judgment, or the time in which we now live, declared by the first angel, Rev. xiv, 7, which we believe has been going on since the ending of the 2300 days in 1844. "For now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." What was it that we believed? Why, that the days would end, the judgment sit, and that Christ would come to gather his people to himself in 1844. But being disappointed by the passing of the time, we were led to investigate the subject of the sanctuary more closely, and found that the word of the Lord did not call the earth the sanctuary; consequently our attention was turned to the ministration of Christ in the temple in Heaven. But again, says Paul, "Cast not away your confidence which hath great recompense of reward. For ye have need of patience, that after ye have done the will of God ye might receive the promise." Heb. x, 35, 36. How have we done the will of God? Is it by embracing all the different times that have been agitated by different classes of Adventists, and denouncing the Advent move in 1844 as an error? Certainly not; but by acknowledging the hand of God in that move, and the truthfulness of the first and second angels' messages, and also of the third. And now what must we do? We must exercise patience, this is what the apostle says we have need of. And the third angel declares that this is the time when it would be manifest among the saints. Why should we cultivate patience? "That we might receive the promise." When do we expect the promise? When Jesus comes. "For yet a little while and he that shall come, will come, and will not tarry. Now the just shall live by faith." Heb. x, 37, 38. "Though it tarry, wait for it, because it will surely come, it will not tarry. * But the just shall live by his faith." Hab. ii, 3, 4. We understand that since the third angel's message began to be proclaimed, we have been living in "the patience of the saints," when we should live by faith, and exercise a spirit of watchfulness. We should watch the signs of the times and know thereby that the day of God's wrath is right upon us. And again, because we know the time in which we live, (not the definite time of Christ's coming), we should "watch unto prayer" that we may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass and to stand before the Son of man." Luke xxi, 35, 36. SINCERE repentance is never too late, but late repentance is seldom sincere.