Earlier text: The Sermon.Battle Creek Bible Class, Feb. 1, 1868.
This session of the Bible Class was given wholly to the consideration of questions, which had been proposed by different ones for the action of the class. 1. The first question introduced related to the propriety of preparing food upon the Sabbath. This grew partly out of the lesson the preceding Sabbath, which spoke of a day of preparation for the Sabbath, and partly out of inquiries sent in from abroad. After remarks by various ones on the evident design of the day of preparation, the impropriety of using the heartiest kinds of food on the Sabbath, bread and fruit being preferable, &c. &c., the class gave it as their conviction that all labor in washing dishes, making beds, and other household duties should be strictly avoided, up to the point of absolute necessity, and voted to adopt the testimony of Spiritual Gifts, as expressive of their minds, and sufficiently explicit on this question. See Spiritual Gifts, Vol. iii, pp. 253, 254, 293. [As this was given in Bro. Miller's communication last week, its insertion is omitted here.] 2. “Is it a legitimate business for Sabbath-keepers to engage in, to manufacture, and teach the art of manufacturing, hair jewelry, going about the country for that purpose?” In the discussion of this question, the manufacture of gold jewelry, wax work, fashionable dress and bonnet making, costly and useless work in building, and, in short, all unnecessary labor, was fully discussed. A carpenter building a house for another, is simply his servant, and does as he is bidden. Fashionable dresses and bonnets, though they may be foolish and extravagant, yet do serve a certain purpose; while it was suggested that hair jewelry could serve no useful purpose with the single exception of watch-guards. After quite an animated discussion, the following resolution was offered: Resolved, That we consider the teaching of the manufacture of hair jewelry, a legitimate business for Sabbath-keepers.” No one seemed ready to vote for this resolution; while quite a number voted against it. It was therefore lost by a very decided majority. Another resolution was then offered as follows: Resolved, That we do not deem it right to encourage the art of the manufacture of hair jewelry, or the teaching of the same, by Sabbath-keepers, but would advise any who may be engaged in it to seek a more useful employment.” This resolution was passed with no dissenting votes. 3. “Is it a violation of the Sabbath to deal out milk on that day to those who are regular customers?” Under this question, the various circumstances in which persons are sometimes placed, were taken into consideration, such as the wants of children, the infirm, &c. It was suggested that at certain seasons of the year, milk was very liable not to keep for 24 hours, in which case it must be procured on the Sabbath, if used at all. This was answered by the fact that in such instances it was rarely the case that the persons could not do without it till after the Sabbath. Those receiving milk can receive it just before the Sabbath, and the following night just after, so as not to violate the sanctity of that day. It is evident that the pay is the great point with those who deliver milk on the Sabbath; as it was considered quite certain that if they could receive nothing for what they disposed of on that day, they would very soon devise some method of avoiding the practice. If any are disposed to give away milk on that day, nothing can be urged against it. It was remarked that those who have cows, milk upon the Sabbath, which is more labor than going a short distance to obtain some from a dealer. This was met by the consideration that delivering and receiving milk is a matter of traffic, while milking cows is a matter of necessity. But on this point it appeared from the testimony of some, that brethren were more or less at fault in many places. One instance was mentioned, in which a brother having quite a number of cows, was in the habit of milking them three times upon the Sabbath instead of only once as it should have been. Thus he would keep about his other work till the Sabbath commenced, and do his milking afterward. In the morning he would milk again, and the next night was sure to have his milking done before the Sabbath ended. This was considered a plain infringement of the Sabbath law. He should have milked before the commencement of the Sabbath, and the next night deferred it till the Sabbath was past, milking only in the morning upon that day. All circumstances considered, the class unanimously passed the following resolution as an expression of their views on this point: Resolved, That, in the opinion of this class, it is an infringement upon the Sabbath, to buy or receive, sell or deliver, milk upon that day. 4. Would you consider it a transgression of the fourth commandment for a Sabbath-keeper, who has a license from town or city authorities, to sell ardent spirits for medicinal and chemical purposes, to sell these articles on the Sabbath day? Could such an act be construed to be one of mercy or necessity? Is it your opinion that the above employment is a suitable one for Sabbath-keepers and Health Reformers to engage in? Not deeming it necessary to spend a great amount of time in the discussion of this question, the class proceeded to adopt the following resolution, which was passed unanimously. Resolved, That the traffic in drugs or ardent spirits as medicinal agents, is productive of much evil, and should not be engaged in by a Sabbath-keeper or a Health Reformer, either on the Sabbath or any other day. 5. A correspondent writes: I have had the following question propounded to me, which I wish to lay before the Bible Class, to wit: “If Jesus be the only life and resurrection, will the wicked be raised? and if so, by what power?” To this question it was answered, 1. That Christ is the only life and resurrection. 2. That the wicked will be raised. 3. That they will be brought up by the power of Christ. The reasons for this position were given in brief as follows: 1. The penalty pronounced upon Adam for transgression was death, affecting his posterity equally with himself. 2. There being no arrangement for pardon previous to his sin, that penalty must be inflicted; and it has been inflicted upon Adam and his descendants to the present day. 3. The plan of salvation, entered into immediately upon the fall of man, placed the race upon a new probation, giving them another chance for life, the first having been lost by Adam. But 4. Had not the plan of salvation supervened, the death suffered as a consequence of Adam's sin would have been final and eternal. Therefore 5. The plan of salvation involves the restoration of the entire race from the state to which they are reduced by the Adamic penalty. This must be so; for if one accountable being is left without a resurrection, he is simply under the Adamic penalty, his state resulting not from his own probation, but from that of Adam. But this is the very thing the plan of salvation proposed to undo; that is, to place every man on his own behaviour, and make his future life or death result solely from his own personal actions. When the race are thus released from the Adamic death, a death which has no bearing on the future destiny of either the righteous or the wicked, then accordingly as each person is found righteous or wicked, judged by the moral law applied to his own personal actions, he is acquitted or condemned. If, having availed ourselves of the provisions of the plan of salvation, the righteousness of the law, through the merits of Christ is found to be fulfilled in us, so that the law has no claims against us, we then live on forever and ever. If, on the contrary, we have not through the mediation of Christ become released from the claims of the law which demands the death of the transgressor, and are found guilty, the penalty for sin, death, is re-inflicted, and we are remanded back into that state133from which we were brought, to answer for our personal conduct during life. Christ is the author and finisher of our faith, the beginning and the end of the plan of salvation; and by his power its provisions are all carried out. Hence we read that all that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. Hence, also, while those who seek for glory, honor, and immortality, are to be recompensed with eternal life, there are to be recompensed unto them who are contentious and do not obey the truth, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Gentile. Rom. ii, 6-9. This necessarily supposes a restoration to consciousness; for tribulation and anguish cannot be recompensed upon a dead man. The class acquiesced in the foregoing statement, as correctly meeting the question. 6. Another correspondent proposed the following question: “I heartily acquiesce in the decision of the Bible Class, on the question of hop-raising, and would respectfully offer for their consideration the following: Is the practice of raising and fattening swine for the market, morally right?” Drs. Lay and Russell, from the Institute, being present, participated freely in the consideration of all questions relating to hygiene, and added not a little to the interest of the examination of these questions. But three arguments can be urged in favor of raising swine. 1. The hog is a scavenger, and therefore useful in this respect. 2. Pork raising is a source of profit. 3. People will have it, and we might as well supply it as anybody. Against these reasons it was argued, 1. That the hog is a scavenger only when permitted to run at large. As he is usually kept, in a foul and contracted sty, he is a source of much more filth than he removes. One such pig-sty is sufficient to pollute a small farm; and these are usually situated in close proximity to the dwelling, where the inmates get the full benefits of the exhalations. 2. The question of profit should not be allowed to influence us in matters of right and wrong. Otherwise the liquor seller can defend his traffic; for scarcely any trade is more profitable. 3. The third argument might, with equal propriety, be urged in favor of selling whisky, tobacco, or any other injurious article which is in general use. The sole question then is, Is it injurious to such a degree that we act consistently in furnishing it to our neighbors? It was clearly brought out that the fat of a sty-fed pig is simply an accumulation of effete and waste matter which should have been thrown out of the system, and would have been, with proper exercise, and that such accumulations of fat are shown by chemical analysis to contain the same constituent elements, as pus, or the matter discharged from boils and abscesses! Instances were mentioned in which it had been thrown into the face of Sabbath-keepers, that they would not use pork themselves, knowing its tendency to disease, yet would not hesitate to sell it to their neighbors, to spread disease among them. It did not require a lengthy examination of this question, to render the class unanimous in the following resolution: Resolved, That we deem it inconsistent for a Sabbath-keeper or health-reformer to raise pork, to sell to his neighbors, while he argues that its use is a source of disease, and therefore refuses to use it himself; and we would discourage such practice among our people. The correspondent who sent in this question in relation to pork raising, states in his communication, two incidents, which we deem it proper to lay before the reader, to show the sickening and suicidal course some will pursue in reference to their own diet, and thus, greatest of all earthly blessings, health. He says:— “I once assisted to butcher a hog for a neighbor. It had been sick of the blind staggers for some time. It refused to eat; and its owner fearing it would die, actually butchered it, for the eating of himself and family.
“Another neighbor, offering for sale in market the carcass of a diseased hog, was met with the inquiry. ‘How long had it been dead before you butchered it?’ Not being able to give a satisfactory answer, he was unable to sell, and, therefore, from a principle of strict economy(!), took it home and ate it in his own family!” [Bro. Gage being absent we have hastily prepared the above report.—Ed.] Are the Dead Conscious? No. 7.
By Editor
Phil. 1, 23. “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” We are anxious to give all the passages adduced by those who advocate life in death, their true bearing, and all the force to which they are entitled. Truth is too strong to need prevarication. We therefore differ from our opponents only where we feel obliged to do so—where to follow them would be, to the best of our discernment, to adopt unsound principles of interpretation. In the present instance we can go with them in every particular except the conclusion. We concede, then, that the language of Paul in Phil. 1, 23, and the context, conveys the following meaning: first, that he had only two states in view, viz., life and death; as he says in verse 20, “So now, also, Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain;” [not to me but to the cause of Christ]; that is, it would be equal gain to the cause of Christ whether he should live or die. Second, that he knew not which he should choose, provided it was placed before him as a matter of choice, for he had a desire to depart and be with Christ, but it was more needful for his brethren that he should remain. If he should consult his own personal desires, he would depart; he longed to go: but then the church could illy spare him; they had need of his presence and his labors. “To abide in the flesh,” says he, “is more needful for you.” Perhaps the apostle here had his eye upon the grievous wolves, of which he elsewhere speaks; and he knew it was needful that he should live to beat back those fell destroyers from the fold of Christ. Third, that by the expression, “to depart,” he meant death. Then, says the objector, you agree with us that when a saint dies he is immediately with Christ in Heaven? By no means, we reply. If you take this testimony to prove the conscious state, it is vulnerable still in its most vital point; for it does not state how long a time elapses between the departing and the being with Christ: it does not say that the being with Christ is immediate. But it would seem so, from the manner in which it is expressed, says one; and we reply, it would not be proper to express it in any other manner, since a person absolutely unconscious as in death, has no perception whatever of a lapse of time, and the next event of which he has any knowledge, is what opens to him beyond the resurrection. No perceptible time elapses to the dead between their death and the resurrection. When Abel shall come forth at the trump of God, it will seem to him but an instant before, that he was falling beneath the murderous hand of Cain. Says Bishop Law, “The Scriptures, in speaking of the connection between our present and future being, do not take into the account our intermediate state in death; no more than we in describing the course of any man's actions, take into account the time he sleeps. Therefore, the Scriptures (to be consistent with themselves) must affirm an immediate connection between death and the judgment. Heb. ix, 27; 2 Cor. v, 6, 8.” It may be objected again, that Paul, according to this view, would gain nothing by departing, since he would not be with Christ any sooner than if he should remain in the flesh a while longer. Measuring the time absolutely, he would not, to be sure; but measuring it by his consciousness (his only means of measurement), and he would; just as much sooner as what time elapsed between the penning of that sentence and the day of his death. Paul, then, in Phil. i, 23, does not contradict what he elsewhere says, when speaking of the dead, he tells us plainly that they are asleep.—Ed. Tell me the meaning of Scriptures. One gem from that ocean is worth all the pebbles of earthly streams.—M'Cheyne. PSALM XV, IN METER.
By E. G. R.
Who in thy tabernacle, Lord, shall dwell?
Oh! who shall stand upon thy holy hill?
He who in his uprightness doth abide,
Who worketh righteousness and hateth pride;
Who to his neighbor will no evil do,
And in his heart the truth he speaketh too;
He who with sland'rous tongue will not backbite,
Nor to reproach his neighbor doth delight;
Who every wicked person doth contemn,
But those that fear the Lord, he hon'reth them;
Who breaketh not an oath though to his hurt,
And changeth not, the evil to avert;
He who on loans no usury doth take,
Nor doth for gain the innocent forsake.
He shall abide who doeth these things well,
And in thy holy hill shall ever dwell. E. G. R. [BRO. SMITH: The following comments on Matt. v, 19, 20, I copy from the second volume of Joseph Longking’s Notes on the Gospels, and if you think them worthy of a place in the columns of the Review, I should like for the sake of others who do not fully see the distinction between the two laws, to have you publish them. Wm. H. WILD.] Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets, &c. The original word rendered to destroy, also means to loose, to annul, or make void, by freeing from. The term, law, signifies a rule of action; a precept or command from a superior authority, and to which obedience is due. This word is used in two leading senses in the New Testament. One embracing the whole Mosaic institution or ceremonial law, the other signifying the moral law. The moral law is contained in the decalogue or ten commandments, recorded in Ex. xx, 1-17, and specifies the duty we owe to God and each other. The ritual or ceremonial law is that which regulated the services of the Jewish religion. Our Saviour seems here to refer particularly to the moral law, which he fulfilled or perfected by explaining its spiritual nature, enforcing its obligations, and declaring its perpetuity. There is also a sense in which Christ afterward fulfilled the ceremonial law, when, by becoming a sacrifice for sin, he abolished it, for this law was but an index pointing to Jesus Christ, and after his death was no longer needed, its types being all fulfilled in him. The term prophets, means the prophetical writings, particularly, says Watson, the preceptive parts. Some think our Lord made the declaration contained in the text, lest the Jews should suppose him to be a setter-forth of new laws. Verse 13. Verily.] Truly, certainly; a strong affirmation and denoting the great importance of what follows. Till heaven and earth pass.] While the world lasts. How unchanging are God’s requirements, and his faithfulness. One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law. Jot is the name of a Hebrew letter answering to our J, the smallest character in that alphabet. One tittle, that is the smallest particle. This word is supposed to refer to the smallest dots or points which distinguish some of the Hebrew letters from others like them in appearance. The phrase imports that the smallest requirement of the (moral) law shall not be abrogated or superseded; for, being the foundation of our duty to God and to each other, this law is of perpetual obligation. Verse 19. Whosoever shall break.] Violate or transgress. One of these least Commandments.] That is, one of the least, &c. The Scribes and Pharisees made many frivolous distinctions between what they termed great and small commandments. None of these commandments, however, are of small import. They are all binding, equally binding. Shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.] A phrase which imports that such persons shall have no portion in the heavenly kingdom. Although by the deeds of the law, merely, no one can be justified before God, yet it is equally certain that those who hold that faith in Christ, unaccompanied by obedience, is sufficient to salvation, will come as far short of the crown of righteousness. Verse 21. Ye have heard.] From the Scribes and others, reciting the law. Jesus now proceeds to give a more spiritual and authoritative interpretation of the moral law, than had been generally given. He shows that it was designed to take cognizance, not only of the outward act, but of the secret thought. By them of old time.] This should probably be, to them of old time, as the margin reads. It seems to refer to the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. Thou shalt not kill.] See Ex. xx, 13. The Jews understood this merely to forbid the act of murder. Jesus shows that it meant more than this; that it extended to the intentions and feelings as well as to the external acts. A man who is desirous of injuring another, and is only prevented by want of opportunity, or by fear of the consequence, is criminal in the sight of God. “AS THE STARS IN MULTITUDE.”
Deut. i, 10. The Lord your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. As the stars.] i. e. those visible to the naked eye, comp. Gen. xv, 5. Although this is evidently poetic language, and not to be taken literally, yet there have been found objectors silly enough in their ignorance to say this is exaggerated beyond bounds. Let such an objector count all the stars visible to the naked eye (for neither Abraham nor Moses thought of telescopes), and in both hemispheres he will find only about 3,010; whereas the Israelites were 600,000 fighting men. Let him take Herschel’s telescope, which magnifies 35 or 36,000 times, and he may find perhaps 75,000,000 stars, the highest calculation ever made. We meet the objector even on this ground. Matthew, chap. i, says, there were 42 generations of Hebrews between Abraham and Christ. The Israelites (who have never ceased to be a distinct people), numbered 603,000 fighting men, besides women and children, at their second census, now they have so multiplied as far to exceed the number of all the fixed stars taken together. See Clarke.—Jenks. Deut. iv, 6. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. A wise and understanding people.] Almost all the nations of the earth showed that they had this opinion of the Jews, by borrowing from them the principal part of their civil code. Take away what Asia and Europe, ancient or modern, have borrowed of the Mosaic laws, and you leave behind little that can be called excellent.—Clarke. AN INFIDEL LAWYER’S VIEW OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Ex. xx, 3. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. &c. An eminent lawyer, and skeptical unbeliever, being driven by ill health from his professional pursuits, was induced by a friend to read what he had so long argued against. Coming to the ten commandments, the thought occurred to him, Can’t I add something to these, can’t I take something from them, and improve them; can’t I mend them? Being a man of vigorous intellect, and of extensive information, he set himself to examining them one by one, with the same acuteness he had often brought to his business. The further he advanced the more he became absorbed in the subject, till at last the truth burst upon him, that they were, as far as he was capable of judging, sufficient and perfect; no modern wisdom could add to, or subtract from them. Whence had Moses this consummate wisdom? He was convinced it was FROM ON HIGH, and thus summed up their excellency and sufficiency: The 1st commandment directs us to make the Creator the object of our supreme love and reverence, which are due to him and to none other, he being also our Preserver and Supreme Benefactor. The 2d forbids idolatry; the 3d profaneness; and the 4th fixes a time for religious worship. For if there be a God, he ought surely to be worshipped; since it is suitable that an outward homage should express our inward regard: and if worshipped, some time should be assigned, that all may join harmoniously, and without interruption. The 5th commandment defines the peculiar duties arising from the family relations. Injuries to our neighbor are then classified. They are divided into offences against life, chastity, property, and character. Here, in each class, the greatest offence is forbidden. Thus, the greatest injury to life is murder; to chastity, adultery; to property, theft; to character, perjury; and the greater offence must include the less of the same kind,—murder must include every injury to life, adultery every injury to purity, and so of the rest. Then the moral code is closed and perfected, by a command forbidding every improper desire in regard to our neighbor.—Abbot’s Rel. Mag.