Signs of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 36. (7/15/1875)

Signs of the Times

Jul 15, 1875

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Jul 15, 1875

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—No. 7.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

THE subject of the two covenants, which we have considered, brings us to a consideration of the change of dispensation. This, in the estimation of many, effects a change in, or abolition of, the divine law. We will first notice that

A CHANGE OR ABOLITION OF GOD'S LAW IS UNREASONABLE.

We have already shown that the holiness required in the present dispensation is identical with that required in the past dispensation, having the holiness of God himself for its model or foundation. He said, “Be ye holy, for I am holy.” Holiness in the precept, “Be ye holy,” cannot change unless holiness in the declaration, “For I am holy,” shall change. But the holiness of God cannot change while his attributes remain unchanged; or we might say, while he remains God.

We have also seen that his law of ten commandments was the rule by obeying which they would be holy. In doing that law they would form right and holy characters, because that law is a holy law. It being an expression of the will God, it is to us a revelation of the divine character or attributes. For there must be perfect harmony between the divine attributes and the divine will. God cannot deny himself, neither can he change. Our relation to God teaches the same thing.

Man is a moral agent; he is on probation to develop a moral character, and he will be judged at last on a basis purely moral, because God, the judge, is a moral governor. But moral law, emanating from the divine mind, cannot change, or pass away.

There can be no difference between the attributes of God and the principles of his government. As God is just, justice must be an attribute of his government. As God is love, so also must love pervade his government. As God is immutable, so also the principles of his government must be unchangeable. We cannot conceive of his possessing an attribute which does not shine forth in his government.

But as law is the basis of government, for there is no government where there is no law, so of course whatever applies to his government applies to his law. Therefore, to understand the attributes of God, we have but to understand his will, or law, for the latter necessarily grows out of the former. And so our declaration is vindicated, that the law is a revelation of the attributes or character of God.

Now as God, the moral governor, cannot change, and as man is a moral agent, and is required to be holy because God is holy, and the law or will of God is given as the rule of holiness, or the means of forming his moral character, how can that rule change? We are constrained to believe that they who argue for the abolition or change of the law of God—the divine rule of right and morality—do so because they have been misled by superficial views of great principles, not having carefully examined the subject of the divine government, and our relation to it. Of course we now speak of those who have been misled, and who think they are “doing God service,” even while advocating dangerous errors. There is another class, and we fear it is not small, whose opposition to the law of God is best explained by Paul where he says, “The carnal mind is at enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God neither indeed can be.” Rom. 8:7.

This latter class dislike the law because it condemns, and will not justify, them. There is a conflict between them and the law; and the question arises, Which party is right? If they are right and the law is wrong, then the law ought to be put aside, they ought to be vindicated or justified. But if the law is right and they are wrong, then the law ought to be maintained, and they should be condemned. But observation, reason and Scripture, prove that they are wrong—they are sinners and deserve condemnation for their sins. Therefore, if the law condemns them, it does just what it ought to do. The very fact that they complain of the law because it condemns sin and sinners proves that they are worthy of the condemnation under which they rest.

We say that reason, as well as Scripture, sustain us in this position. These persons confess that there is a conflict between them and the law. They are opposed to it, and it condemns them. And this is the ground of their complaint, that it will not justify them. Now looking at the world of mankind, beholding the evil everywhere prevailing, and the evidences that man is a fallen, degenerate creature, can we reasonably conclude that a law would emanate from a holy God which morally considered, is lower than mankind? We cannot. Had man never fallen, had he always maintained his purity of character, the law of God would still have been superior to him, as no person can rise above the law to which he is amenable. Especially could not the creature rise above the law of the Creator. This being true, much more is it true that fallen, sinful creatures cannot rise above the law of a holy God, the law itself being holy. When a conflict arises, the sinful creature must stand condemned, and the law of God must be vindicated.

This argument, reduced to the following form, will show at a glance that our position is the only one which reason can approve:—

1. It is a reflection on the honor and justice of any government to abolish its law while there exists an open rebellion against it. For,

2. If the law was unjust it ought to be abolished. But this fact would palliate the action of the rebels, justify the rebellion, and prove that the governor, or lawgiver, was unjust. Or,

3. If the law was just it ought not to be abolished, but rather enforced, and the rebels either be made to submit to it or be punished. For a governor to abolish a just law in order to favor criminals, is to favor crime and to trample down right and justice.

And thus, whichever way it is viewed, they who argue the abolition of the law justify rebellion and reproach the government of God.

And that position is not only unreasonable and reproachful to God's government viewed in its effect upon the law, but it reflects dishonor upon the gospel, by perverting it to a system of license, instead of vindicating justice by a well-guarded pardon. In this respect they who preach the abolition of the law, or denounce it because it will not justify the sinner, treat it as no man would presume to treat the law of the State in which he resides. Every one will confess that the law of the land is right in condemning the thief and the murderer; they do not find fault with it because it will not justify such criminals. No one will claim that the criminal can escape the penalty of the law but by means of the pardon of the governor. No one will argue that the pardon granted by the governor releases the pardoned one from obligation to obey the law he had transgressed. No one will affirm that the pardon thenceforward becomes the rule of life, or the means of condemnation for future transgression. It is a truth beyond dispute that abolition of law and pardon of the transgressor of that law cannot be united or go together. One would be a nullity if both were attempted. For a law cannot condemn a man after it is abolished, and of course an offer of pardon under such circumstances would be only mockery. Truly such a theory is more than a perversion of the gospel: it subverts the gospel by destroying its foundations.

ABOLITION OF THE LAW IS DISPROVED BY SCRIPTURE.

We shall present but a few points at present under this head, but all that has been said on the nature of the law and on the two covenants, and all that shall be said under various heads, is a confirmation of this proposition.

1. The proof that the law existed before the exode proves that it is not affected by a change of dispensation. As it did not originate with the introduction of the Levitical economy, so it did not cease when that dispensation passed away.

2. It has been shown that the law is the basis or condition of both covenants; that it was kept by Abraham, the father of the faithful; that it stands against the sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, to bar him from the blessing of Abraham; and that it was confirmed a law, an everlasting covenant to Israel. Therefore its abolition is impossible.

3. Jehovah said they would be holy if they kept it, which shows it to be a rule of holiness, and as such cannot pass away till the requirement to be holy can cease.

4. “The law of the Lord is perfect.” Ps. 19:7. Perfection, in moral matters, cannot be improved. Were the law less than perfect it could not be a rule of holiness. Being perfect it cannot be changed without making it imperfect, nor can it be abolished without abolishing perfection and the rule of holiness.

5. This is strongly confirmed by Eccl. 12:13, 14: “Fear God and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man.” When this was written man's nature and relations were exactly what they now are. The requirement to be holy was then just what it now is. It was and is, to be holy because God is holy. Man was on probation as a moral agent, to develop a holy character, to fit himself to stand in the Judgment before a holy God. What a monstrous absurdity to suppose, in the face of Scripture and reason, that a law which defines the whole duty of a moral agent should, for any cause, be abolished. That God to accommodate his government to the circumstances of rebels, should abolish the righteous laws which defined the whole duty of his subjects, would be truly a wonder. It might be very pleasing to them, but couldn't be to his glory. It would affect, not only the stability of his government, but the integrity of his character.

6. “My salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.” Isa. 51:6. This refers to the law of God, and is a direct statement that it shall not be abolished. It must either refer to his law, or to his personal character. That it refers to his attributes or personal character is unreasonable, yes, impossible; for the idea of the abolition of his personal righteousness is too absurd to receive notice. But referred to his law, which is the foundation of his righteous government, the expression is reasonable and, as a revelation, is necessary. And there is proof that it has this application. In Ps. 119:172, it is said, “All thy commandments are righteousness.”

Now as the character of the divine Lawgiver is best revealed to us through the revelation of his will, and as his attributes must of necessity be shown forth in his government, the stability of his character must of course be shown by the stability of his government, or law. For it would be of little account to declare in words that he was unchangeable if he showed in his actions, in the administration of his government, that he was not.

This application of the text is confirmed, not only by Ps. 119:172—all thy commandments are righteousness—but, by the context of the verse under consideration. “Hearken unto me ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law.” Isa. 51:7. And again, Rom. 3:21, which says that the law witnesses to the righteousness of God. This is sufficient proof of all that we have said concerning the relation of God's law to his attributes or character. Did the opposers of the law realize the full force and importance of this testimony we think they would pause in their mad career, and tremble at the bare thought of the result of their action.

7. “He will magnify the law, and make it honorable.” Isa. 42:21. Magnify, says Webster, “to extol; to exalt; to elevate; to raise in estimation.” Do they who oppose the law believe the Saviour did such a work as this? If they believe that scripture we should never learn this fact from their writings. Could it be extolled, exalted, or elevated by its abolition? Did he “raise it in the estimation” of those his professed followers who spare no pains to disparage it? Can they discover any harmony with this prophecy in their own actions? in their treatment of the law?

But again, “he will make it honorable.” This does not mean that it was not honorable before; for we know that God always highly honored his law. The reason why the ark was so greatly honored and carefully guarded was that it contained the law of Jehovah. God ever honored those who honored his law, and turned away from those who rejected it. The text means that he will make it still more honorable; especially as it had been dishonored and rejected. He will rescue it from the reproach which men have cast on it, and elevate it, raise it in estimation higher than it had before been held. So Paul says in Rom. 3:31, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Thus we have both the work of Christ and the position of his true followers pointed out in these texts.

The law had been dishonored by transgression and rebellion. He came to vindicate its claims, to suffer its penalty, thereby showing its sacredness and perpetuity. He enforced it on men by openly declaring that he did not come to destroy it, and that they who keep it and teach men so will be greatly esteemed in the kingdom of Heaven; by teaching it as the rule of life; by showing that it hangs on the principle of love; and by writing it in the hearts of his people in the new covenant. His people join in his work by doing and teaching it; by loving it, by consenting that it is holy, just, good, and spiritual; by showing in all their life that it is written in their hearts.

On the other hand, how do the opposers say the Lord Jesus magnified the law, and made it honorable? By breaking it himself; by teaching others to do so; by abolishing it; by inspiring his apostles to denounce it as a yoke of bondage! If they are not shocked by the irreverence of their position, they ought at least to be struck with its absurdity.

8. “I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. We learn by Heb. 10 that these are the words of the Son of God to his Father. And this shows that it was love of the law which led him to magnify it and make it honorable. As the Saviour loved the law—as it was in his heart—how can he also love those who despise and contemn it? As it was his work to glorify his Father by magnifying his law and making it honorable, by rescuing it from the reproach of men, how can he take delight in those who reproach it, and strive to bring it into contempt?

We think he cannot. We think when “God shall bring every work into Judgment, and every secret thing,” that they who, in probation, “fear God, and keep his commandments,” will find acceptance with him; they will have right to the tree of life, and will enter in through the gates into the city. But the workers of iniquity, however strong may be their profession of faith in Christ, will be caused to depart from him. Matt. 7:21-23.

Thus far we have considered the declarations of the Old Testament. Before giving direct testimony from the New, we will show the harmony between the two; that the New endorses and upholds the Old, but does not supercede or invalidate it.

The Love of God.

By E. T. B.

CAN all the language we possess The love of God in words express? Oh! wondrous thought that from on high Jesus should come to earth to die.

To fit a home for all the blest; So they with him may ever rest; To guide, direct, and dry their tears, And reign with Christ a thousand years.

The months and years are passing by, Look up, dear ones, redemption's nigh, And all the mansions near complete For all the saints to take their seat.

With all the angels in his train, Soon our dear Lord will come again; And shall I of that number be, Who then that glorious sight shall see?

Oh! let us all by faith and prayer, Be sure to gain admittance there; So we may all with Jesus be, And spend a long eternity.

E. T. B.

S. F.

Hope of the Gospel.

By John Norton Loughborough

CHRIST'S COMING NOT DEATH.

Did the disciples understand that Christ meant death when he spake to them of his second coming? We have a most forcible illustration of the fact that they did not so understand it in Christ's words concerning the beloved disciple: "Then, Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus loved, following (which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said, Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?). Peter seeing him, saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me." Did they decide that John the beloved disciple was going to die soon? Let us see: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but if I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" Here is the most positive evidence that the disciples of Christ understood his coming to refer to something besides death.

Calling death the coming of Christ would make an absurdity of the testimony of Paul to the Philippians, quoted above; for it would make him assert that our bodies were fashioned like unto Christ's glorious body when they go into the grave. Paul was not expecting to go to Heaven at death, but he was waiting for Christ to come from Heaven. Not when his body should go into the grave, but when the time should arrive for it to be changed and fashioned like Christ's body. His language in the same chapter plainly shows us what encouraged him to labor and suffer. "If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." Verse 11. The Greek term employed in this text, and rendered resurrection, is ex anastasis, which signifies a rising from the dead, or, as Greek scholars say it might be rendered, "out from among the dead." Paul did not merely wish to rise, but he wished to have a "part in the first resurrection."

The testimony of Christ to his disciples as he was about to leave them, is important, when considered in its bearings upon this subject: "Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me; and, as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go ye cannot come, so now I say to you." John 13:33. By looking at chap 7:33, 34, we shall see what Christ had said unto the Jews: "Then said Jesus unto them, Yet a little while am I with you, and then I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come." The testimony of Christ to the apostles, that they could not go with him, called forth earnest Peter who said, "Lord, whither goest thou? Jesus answered him, Whither I go, thou canst not follow me now; but thou shalt follow me afterwards. Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I follow thee now? I will lay down my life for thy sake! Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice." John 13:36-38.

This testimony of Christ troubled the mind of the disciples. Their hearts had been endeared to him by his many acts of benevolence, but now he tells them he is going back to Heaven—going to return to his Father, and that they cannot go. But he gives a word of consolation to cheer their troubled hearts. "Let not your heart be troubled; ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions; if it were not so I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also." John 14:1-3.

This text is often quoted: "I go to prepare a place for you," "that where I am, there ye may be also," thus designing to convey the idea that the saints go to be with Christ at death. But the text presents no such thought; it says nothing about being with Christ until he comes. "I will come again, and receive you unto myself."

James says: "Be patient, therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it, until he receive the early and latter rain. Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts; for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh." James 5:7, 8. This text shows that, as the husbandman reaps his harvest, so the people of God, the wheat of the earth (Matt. 3:12) are to be gathered when Christ comes.

Peter bears an interesting testimony on the subject of the hope as follows: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which, according to his abundant mercy, hath begotten us again unto a lively hope [hope of life] by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in Heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time. Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season (if need be) ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations; that the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise, and honor, and glory, at the appearing of Christ." 1 Pet. 1:3-7. From the testimony of Peter, we learn that the saints' inheritance is reserved, to be revealed in the last time. Peter himself shows that the last time is the coming of Christ. It is at the coming of Christ that the lively hope, or hope of life, is to be realized.

In giving his charge to the elders, Peter uses words that have an important bearing on this question also: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ: and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away." 1 Pet. 5:1-4.

Christ is the Chief Shepherd; ministers of the truth are under shepherds, called upon to labor, endure, deny self, and suffer for the good of the flock. To encourage them in the self-denying way, Peter points them to the great fact that Christ, the "Chief Shepherd," is to return; that, when he returns, they shall "receive a crown of glory." Then the crown is not promised at death, but "at the appearing of Jesus Christ."

We have now shown that the unanimous testimony of the New Testament, as well as the Old, is, that at the coming of Christ is the time when the saints are to receive their reward.

THE RESURRECTION.

The manner in which the resurrection is treated in the Bible, is such as to show that the dead are not rewarded, or receiving the accomplishment of their hope, between death and the resurrection. We, of course, take the position of a literal resurrection of the body. We will examine still further upon this subject. We shall see that this resurrection is not being brought up in order to receive their reward.

There are some who talk about the resurrection as the rising of the soul from the body, at death, to Heaven; or of the resurrection as a resurrection of the person from a state of sin to a life of holiness. But the resurrection of which we speak, and what we understand the Bible to present, is a resurrection of those who are asleep in death. In claiming that the resurrection is literal, we wish to be understood. We claim that the resurrection brings up the man, possessing the same identity as the man that goes down into the grave.

We shall not follow at length the finely-spun philosophical argument in regard to the passage of the matter of one body into the formation of other bodies, after decomposition. We consider it no objection to the Bible doctrine of the resurrection, 1. For the reason that not a thousandth part of such a decomposed body ever becomes an actual component of an other human body, even on their own hypothesis. 2. Because a substance lost to our sight, may, under the action of God's chemistry, be made again to appear, as well as for man, by his chemistry, to bring to light material that has disappeared from human sight. Notice the case of silver dissolved in aquafortis. Nothing is visible to human sight except what appears like milky colored water. A little common salt separates the silver from the solution, and causes it to fall to the bottom of the dish, from whence it can be gathered again, and melted, with but a very slight loss of its former weight. So God may have materials in his laboratory that may be brought to bear to cause the dead to live again. 3. We do not consider it absolutely necessary to have every identical particle of matter to produce the identical individual in the resurrection.

If the particles of matter of which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were composed, have entered into the formation of other bodies, God has promised that they shall live again. If in the resurrection three men are brought up preserving the identity of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, they will be Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and no one else in the universe; for they will think the same thoughts which they thought, remember that they had performed the same acts which they had performed in their lives, and realize that they are the same beings that (as it seems to them) a short time before, were struggling in the agonies of death.

The same class of reasoners who claim that the matter of our bodies enters into the formation of other bodies when decomposed, contend that there is a constant change going on while we are still living. Some claim that our bodies are all renewed about once in the space of seven years. According to their reasoning, my body has been changed about five times since the period of my remembrance. But still I am conscious that I am the same being that I was before. What produces this consciousness? I answer, the memory of those events connected with my past life.

The objector may claim that the identity is preserved by the soul, and, although the body changes, the mind does not lose its identity, and that it never ceases to think. This is not the fact. There are scores of cases on record, where persons have lost their identity, and in fact all consciousness, for days, weeks, and even months, through disease of the body or injury of the brain, and when the healthy action of the brain was restored, their identity was also restored. I have room to insert but one case here, which was related to me by William Humphrey, of East Townsend, Huron Co., Ohio, in August, 1858. He said to me, one evening, at the close of a lecture on this subject, "Elder, you have explained to-night eighteen days of my life that I never knew what to do with before." Why, said I, how is that? He said, "When I was about eighteen years of age, I was working in a turning shop in the town of Goshen, Litchfield Co., Conn. I was engaged one day in turning a large wooden drum wheel for a shingle machine. I had nearly finished the job, when a young lady came in who worked in the house of my employer, and asked, 'What are you doing, Bill?' I answered, Wait a minute, and I will show you. I was going to start the lathe and sand-paper off the drum, which completed the job. I carelessly hoisted the gate and let the water on to the water wheel; but perceived I had too much motion on the lathe. I thought, I will go and shut the gate; but, at that instant, the drum burst into four pieces, and a piece weighing about sixty pounds struck me on the breast, shoulder, and head, dislocating my shoulder, breaking the collar bone twice, and crushing my right temple so that the skull bones were badly depressed upon the brain. I was taken into the house for dead. Physicians said it was useless to undertake to trepan me, as I could not live. My skull was so badly fractured I could not raise it from the brain. I lay unconscious of all around me, yet taking some nourishment in the shape of gruel, which I swallowed when placed into my mouth. By the eighteenth day, the edges of the skull had knit together, the inflammation had subsided, and consciousness returned, of which I had been deprived during this whole period. I called out, Shut that gate; for the last I remembered was starting to shut the gate. Since that day when I have heard it preached that the mind of man exists independent of the body, and never loses its consciousness, I would think of these eighteen days, and I could not harmonize the two. But," said he, "It's all straight now."

The body preserves its identity. Although changes are taking place in the body, it is a gradual process. A minute cell-structure is broken down and destroyed, but immediately a new one takes its place, and so gradual is the process, that scars and marks on the body still remain. I have scars on my hands that were wounds thirty years ago. I do not urge this to prove that my body contains the identical particles of matter it did then, but it does prove that although particles of which my body is composed may have been changed several times, there is an identity in the arrangement of the particles of the body. We meet a friend whom we have not seen in years, and yet we instantly recognize each other's countenances, though unexpectedly meeting. How is this, if in the change of particles the body does not preserve its identity?

So in the resurrection, an identity of arrangement in man's organism, with what it was at his death, will constitute the identical man. He will look as he looked, think as he thought, remember having performed the same acts which he performed before his death. In God's book, all our members are written. Ps. 139:16.

But, as we have said before, with God's chemistry brought to bear, for aught we know, the essential particles may be produced. If it was left to us to raise the dead, of course we might say, "It can't be done." God has not left that for us to do, but proposes to raise them himself; and we do not conceive it to be any greater act of his power to raise man again than to create him at first.

Cavilers on this subject are well represented by Paul, who says, "Some man will say, How are the dead raised up?" To such we reply, They are raised by the power of God. Says Christ, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." And to the Sadducees, who are objecting to the resurrection, he said, "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God." It is a lamentable fact, that even a great portion of the professed church of Christ, at the present day, deny the doctrine of the literal resurrection of the body; a doctrine so plainly taught by the Bible.

But we will notice a few more scriptures on the subject of the resurrection—scriptures of such character as to show us that there is no reward at death, and that without the resurrection there would be a failure of receiving the reward.

John gives an account of the sickness, death, and resurrection, of Lazarus. "After that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth: but I go that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well." John 11:11. They supposed there was a favorable turn of the disease if he could rest. "Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent ye may believe." Verses 14, 15. He was going to raise Lazarus, which would strengthen their faith, that they might believe. As they came near Bethany, Martha, the sister of Lazarus, met Jesus, and said, "Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. But I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee. Jesus saith unto her, Thy brother shall rise again. Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day. Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live; and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die. Believest thou this?" Verses 21-26.

The idea we get from the above, by comparing it with the statements of other scriptures, is this: Martha had carried the attention of Christ over to the last day. Jesus gives her to understand that he is the power of the resurrection, and that, at the last day, those who were dead, believers in him, should rise, and those who were alive, and believed in him, should not die. As Paul states, They will be "changed in a moment," from mortal to immortal.

Jesus with the two sisters of Lazarus, came weeping to the grave. After praying to his Father, he turns his attention to the grave, and cries, "Lazarus, come forth"! To suit theories of the present time, he should have cried, O immortal spirit of Lazarus, come down from Heaven, and animate this lifeless clay! But we get no intimation from his language that Lazarus came from any place but the grave.

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. (To be Continued.)

Do Good to All Men

Do good to all men, as you have opportunity. Deal out kindness and favors with an unsparing hand. The cause you understand not, search out. If you cannot find happiness by direct search, try another plan. Make others happy, and see if that does not make you truly blessed.

A BAD LIFE

Wilmot, the infidel, when dying, laid his trembling, emaciated hand upon the sacred volume, and exclaimed solemnly, and with unwonted energy, "The only objection against this book is a bad life!"

The Chain of Habit

THE chain of habit is commonly too light to be felt until it is too strong to be broken. This maxim is worth remembering, and pondering; particularly by moderate drinkers and beginners in the use of tobacco.

Testimony to the Truth of the Bible.

By Rev. J. Cumming, D. D.

TYRE from its ruins, Sodom from its ashes, Rome in her apostasy, Jerusalem in her degradation, the Arab in his tent, the Jew upon our streets, all living and lasting, even if unconscious witnesses, proclaim that this book has God for its author, truth for its matter, as it has immortality and glory for its issues.

Let me suppose for a moment, that a number of persons in different ages and places had been engaged in making various parts of a marble statue; suppose a person in Petersburg made a finger, a second in Rome a hand, a third in Edinburgh an ear, a fourth in Athens the body, and so on till the whole was completed, but all without communication with one another, and in different ages as in different lands.

Suppose that when all the fragments were brought together they formed that magnificent statue, called the Apollo Belvedere; would you not say, that some superintending statuary must have guided and given an impulse to every chisel; that some beau ideal, some great archetype must have been placed before each of them, after the form of which they were inspired constantly to work? in other words that they composed the parts, not as their own fancy prescribed, but as the presiding power directed? This is the fact in reference to the Scriptures.

Let us take the portrait of our blessed Lord. Isaiah describes his sorrows, Malachi his triumphs; the dying patriarch proclaims his empire, and the sweet psalmist of Israel the extension of his kingdom; one prophet gives one feature, and one another; and looking at the parts in detail, irrespective of the original and comparing one with another, we should say they are so contradictory that they can never belong to the same being. At last, Bethlehem and Gethsemane rise above the horison—Calvary lifts its awful head—the Son of God appears upon the cross—what prophets said is compared with what Christ is; and lo! all the parts deliniated by the pens of the prophets in distant and different centuries, at first apparently contradictory, come to be put together, and they constitute the "brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person." By this alone it is proved that the prophets "wrote as they were moved and guided by the Holy Spirit," and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah.—Rev. J. Cumming, D. D.

Think Soberly.

If a man think himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself; and in deceiving himself he may often most disastrously deceive others. For many have confidence in a man in proportion to his assurance, his self-confidence, or his position, without regard to his real character. If a man seems sincere they confide in him, forgetting that no men appear more sincere than those who have deceived themselves, and who now of necessity, and with apparent sincerity, deceive others.

It is a sad thing for an honest, well-meaning man to spend years of his life in earnest, zealous effort in a given direction and then awake to the horrible thought that throughout the whole he has been doing a deceiver's work, turning men from the right way, dividing, alienating, and destroying; — and all upon a basis of error, which is not of God for "no lie is of him."

To a conscientious mind it must be most distressing to reflect: "The course I have taken is wrong; the doctrines I have preached are proved false; the leaders I have followed

have gone astray and fallen into the ditch; the measures I have supported have proved disastrous; the men whom I have denounced have been in the right; the doctrines I have fought against still stand, but my followers and associates, whose faith I have undermined, and whose minds I have embittered against everything else, having been misled by me are like sheep without a shepherd, and I am powerless to remedy the ruin I have wrought."

Such might be the reflections of men who have pressed forward to positions of leadership for which they were unfit, who have aspired to teach, when they hardly knew enough to learn, and who have been looked up to as oracles, when in fact they are only blind leaders of the blind.

Unfortunately many of these thoughts will never enter into the minds of those who have been self-deceived. Ignorant, conceited, and self-sufficient, they know little of humility, of confession, of forsaking every wrong way. What they do is invested with a halo of self-confidence. Their very errors are better than ordinary truths. Their follies are marks of divine wisdom. Their wrongs are better than common people's rights. And so whatever position they may have taken, they never recede, never rectify, never confess, but push headlong on, until they plunge into the depths of ruin at the end.

The lesson from all this is, "Think soberly." He who honestly reviews his errors, his faults, his follies, and his sins, cannot think highly of himself, but will rather be clothed with humility. He who has any knowledge of the wisdom and holiness of God, will abhor himself, and repent in dust and ashes. Such a man will not come to the Lord's table and choose for himself the chiefest seat: he will not boast of his wisdom, his holiness, his faith, or his works. He will sit down in the lowest place, conscious of his own infirmity and unworthiness, and nothing but the persuading and commanding voice of Him that bade him shall call him to a higher place.

Let us learn this lesson of humility, for he that exalteth himself shall be abased, while he that humbleth himself shall be exalted; and all be subject one to another, for God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble. — Sel.

Continue reading: Romanism