Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 7, 1857
FIGHTING AGAINST GOD.
By D. Bosworth
ED. REVIEW AND HERALD, DEAR SIR: My attention was called last eve to an article in your paper of Feb. 19th, entitled, "Fighting against God," the latter part of which was devoted to reviewing an answer to a question proposed to me through the Advent Herald of Jan. 17th. The writer does not notice that the article referred to was simply a word of explanation in reference to a tract I had published on the Sabbath question, and I would (if possible) have the charity to believe he had not seen the tract, for he assumes that I occupy a position which I expressly disclaim, and contend against in my tract, viz., That any portion of the ten commandments have been abrogated, but rather that all are binding. Again, if the writer had quoted enough of the article referred to, to have fairly represented me, in respect, even to that, I should have submitted to the judgment of your readers without noticing him. But he has not done so. But by garbled extracts, leaving out an illustration (by which I show that two different days may be called the Lord's Sabbaths, and for widely dissimilar reasons,) by denying that a certain form of expression is in the Bible, thus conveying the idea that I affirm it, and rest at least a portion of my argument upon it,—he presents me as occupying a lame position, and (to my mind) helps by special pleading, to lead those already blinded, into denser, deeper darkness. Whereas the position I occupy (if rightly represented) I believe to be founded on the rock of eternal truth. But to the article, "We will now notice the effort of another writer in the same No. of the Herald to creep around the law of God." Now, Mr. Editor, did that writer know what he was battling, when he perpetrated that sneer? Had he seen the tract which drew out the question and answer in the Herald? If so, he knew that I contended for the whole of the moral law without any abrogation or revision. If not, why did he raise that man of straw, and when he had felled the effigy to earth weep over me as one who was
— "laboring hard to lose eternal life."
It may be said he supposed you thought the law abrogated. But why did he suppose? "I have taught openly . . . and in secret have I said nothing."
Creep around forsooth. I have come up and put my neck to the yoke, as I understand it, and as I expect to be judged by it. And now let the sneering manner in which he has introduced my remarks be witness between me and him.
Again: quoting my remark, "it being generally conceded that the true Sabbath was lost during the sojourn in Egypt, if it had been observed before," he says, "is not conceded by any advocate of the Sabbath that I know of." Now what does the assertion, that "God worked miracles to point out the Sabbath-day, and to enable the children of Israel to keep the true Sabbath-day," which has been iterated again and again by various writers in your paper, and which I have heard repeated and re-repeated by Sabbatarians, amount to, if they do not "concede that the Sabbath has been lost." But whatever they may mean, I think it may be safely said, that those who have been careful readers and observers, know the statement to be true.
Again: he says "the seventh from the first of falling manna." This last day is nowhere named in the Bible. If none had desired to evade God's law, it would never have been dug up? I would simply say, I read the 16th chap. of Exodus, I see one day employed by divine direction, in traveling from Elim to the wilderness of Sin, six days following manna falls—the seventh is named as the Sabbath. And as I do not find the Lord causing the camp to move again on the Sabbath during the sojourn in the wilderness, I suppose that journey could not have been performed on the Sabbath-day. For God without a reason assigned, would not have commanded man to do what he soon after forbade his doing, on pain of death. And as the six intervening days manna rained on Israel, and its cessation made known the Rest-day God would have them observe, let Him who judgeth all hearts decide whether I went about to "dig up" something, or whether I drew a perfectly natural conclusion. And the man whose heart is so dark as to see nothing but dishonesty or evasion in a brother under circumstances so simple, must at least lack all that charity that "thinketh no evil." But enough, I proceed no further with the subject, and shall promise this writer never to notice him again, unless he can so convey his ideas as not to leave the impression, that a brother differing against him must be
— "laboring hard to lose eternal life."
But in conclusion, I again call on Sabbatarians to answer to the limitation of the Sabbath. It ran parallel, and only parallel with the priesthood, [compare Ex. xxxi, 13, 16, with xl, 15,] the priesthood having ceased, the Sabbath must have passed away. And now we either have another day marked, or since the death of the Aaronic priesthood, no Sabbath is binding. But as I believe the whole law is binding, i. e., the moral law, I look for another day. Accordingly before the closing of that dispensation I hear the prophet saying, [Ps. cxviii,] The stone which the builders refused, is become the head stone of the corner. This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes. This is THE DAY which the LORD hath made, we will be glad, and rejoice in it.
And now, Mr. Editor, I would say in conclusion, my desire is so to learn of the great Teacher, that whether your corresponding Editor shall accuse me of "creeping around," "evading God's law," "digging up excuses," &c., &c., he whom I serve may never so charge me.
Yours looking for the Sabbath that remains.
D. BOSWORTH.
Bristol, Vt., Apr. 17th, 1857.
Reply
By R. F. C.
REPLY.—I had no previous knowledge of Mr. Bosworth, and consequently was not wrestling with flesh and blood, in the notice I took of his article in the Herald. To the charge of unfairness in quoting from him, I plead, Not guilty. I quoted a large share of his article, and that connectedly; and would be glad if every reader of the Review could see the whole of it. I have not seen the tract he speaks of, but I am not at all surprised that he admits that all the ten commandments are binding. What I mean by creeping around a law, is to profess to keep it, and still evade and violate it. In case of a prohibitory liquor law, the man that sells a cracker for six-pence and gives away a drink of liquor, is no less an enemy to the law, than the man that openly violates it. So the man that professes to keep and teach the law of God entire, and yet labors to subvert it, is, in fact, the worst enemy of the law, and consequently, of Him who gave it. The light on the change of the law by the Man of Sin, shines too clearly for the plea of ignorance to avail. The sins of those in past times, who were ignorant, and really thought they were obeying God, while they were keeping the commandment of the beast, will doubtless be blotted out, but now God commands all men everywhere to keep his Sabbath.
God is now sending forth a special warning against the worship of the beast, declaring in the most positive terms, that if "any man" worship him, he shall drink of the unmixed wrath of God. None will escape the wrath, who turn a deaf ear to the warning. It can benefit no man to try to soften this message. The truth is to be spoken in love, but the truth must be spoken. It can do a sinner no good to flatter him that he can be saved in his sins. Sin is the transgression of the law. And to say that we cannot understand the law, is to charge our sins upon the Law-giver. B. professes to have put his "neck to the yoke" of the law of God, as he understands it. The figure is familiar with me, for I have used oxen. But in case I had put the yoke upon one ox, and the other should come up and put his neck to the yoke as he understood it, with his head in the opposite direction to his fellow, I should certainly require him to turn about and put his neck to the yoke as I understood it. This puts me in mind of Tyndale's translation of Phil. ii, 2. It reads something like this: Fulfill ye my joye, that ye all drawe one waye. But professed observers of the law of God draw opposite ways. The fault is not in the law.
I confess I used some homely expressions in my article, but I presume I was understood. Yet I am willing to take them back. The reader is at liberty to substitute evades, eludes, or avoids by artifice, for "creeps around;" and for "dug up," he may read, created, invented, or discovered. But the charge of sneering I repel; I was serious and in earnest in what I said. And I have reason to be serious; for I verily believe that those who are, under the sound of the Third Angel's Message, opposing the Lord's Sabbath, are laboring hard to lose eternal life. I judge no man; the Lord is our Judge. But I have a right, nay, I am in duty bound, to believe that God will fulfill his threatening against those who choose the commandments of the beast in preference to his own.
I do not concede that the true Sabbath was ever lost to the whole human race since the creation of the world. There is no reason to believe it. As wicked as the world now is, and as willingly as they would lose a day, so that Sunday might become the seventh day of the week, they cannot do it. God established the cycle of seven days at the creation, Noah repeatedly observed it, and Laban and Jacob were not ignorant of it. Neither were the Israelites2when they came out of Egypt, which is proved by the sixteenth of Exodus. In remarking upon this chapter, B. says, "I see one day employed by divine direction, in traveling from Elim to the wilderness of Sin." Very well. "Six days following manna falls." Hold, sir! you do not read that there. We are not informed how many days the manna fell before the Sabbath; hence there is no evidence that the said journey was performed on the Sabbath. The day now called Friday is known in heaven's vocabulary only as "the sixth day." It was so numbered and marked at the creation. And that the sixth day here is the sixth day of the week is certain, because the next day was the Sabbath, which is proved by the language of the fourth commandment, to be the very day on which God rested at creation. So the journey to the wilderness of Sin, might have been performed on the first, second, or third day of the week; and the first fall of manna might have been on the second, third, or fourth day. It was the sixth day of the week, and not the sixth on which manna had fallen, that the people gathered a double portion. No direction had been given to the people to gather a double portion on that day; therefore their doing so proves that they had a previous knowledge of the Sabbath. Moses had been informed that this would take place, but had not communicated it to the people. A difficulty now arose. They had made preparation for the Sabbath, and now they recollected that Moses had been wroth with them that laid up manna over night. In this dilemma the rulers came and laid the case before Moses, to ascertain whether they had done right or wrong. He approved of what they had done, as being agreeable to the word of the Lord. To-morrow, said he, is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord. How could to-morrow—a day in the future—be the holy Sabbath unto the Lord? God had, at the creation, hallowed, blest and sanctified the day on which he had rested, and it had come in its regular order ever since. If the day had not been rested upon and made holy before, how could it be the Holy Rest before it had arrived?
On the supposition that God gave Israel, at this time, a "special day," how shall we account for the fact, that he reproved those that went out to gather manna on the seventh day, with, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? They had violated it but once; and though Moses had said, To-morrow is the Sabbath, he had not forbidden their gathering food on that day.
"One fact that seems to have been generally overlooked, deserves, at least, a passing notice. God gave the manna to the people, to prove them, whether they would walk in his law or no. Hence, they were left without any direction to provide for the seventh day. But this they proceeded to do voluntarily on the sixth day. Thus their regard for his law was made manifest. But when some of them went out to gather the manna on the seventh day the pointed rebuke of Jehovah was uttered, though they had not by express precept been forbidden so to do. Thus God, by placing them where they could act freely, proved them and let each manifest what was in his heart."
Such was the language of the Review in 1853, and I am not aware that any writer in this paper has contradicted it, by admitting the necessity of a miracle "to enable the children of Israel to keep the true Sabbath-day." It may have been said, in reply to the plea that time had been lost, that God there pointed out the day by miracles. But to admit that the Israelites were ignorant of the true day, is contrary to the whole record. To them God honored his law which they already knew, and showed them its sacredness, by miracles.
But I am again called upon "to answer to the limitation of the Sabbath." I did not speak directly to this point, in my former article, though called upon to do so, or to "cease to fight against God." The children of Israel were required to "observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant;" and the priesthood of Aaron was to be "an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations." Now if the similarity of language used in reference to the Sabbath and the priesthood, proves that the former runs parallel, and only parallel with the latter, we might introduce similar expressions to prove that the everlasting God is limited, or that he is a God of the Jews, and not of the Gentiles also. Gen. xvii, 7. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. B. will not admit that this text limits God to the Jews and the Jewish dispensation. Other passages prove the reverse. True; and other passages prove that the sons of the stranger may not only join themselves to the Lord, but that they may take hold of his covenant, and keep his Sabbath. Isa. lvi.
It is true, then, that "the priesthood having ceased, the Sabbath must have passed away?" The Sabbath must have passed away??? Do you not "expressly disclaim" in your tract, "that any portion of the ten commandments have been abrogated," but rather contend that "all are binding?" If the Sabbath has passed away, is not the fourth commandment abolished? The fourth commandment is binding, but the Sabbath has passed away. "And now we either have another day marked, or, since the death of the Aaronic priesthood, no Sabbath is binding." What confusion! The ten commandments are all binding; but the Sabbath is certainly passed away, consequently we must have another day, or else no Sabbath is binding! That is, if I understand it rightly, although B. knows that all the ten commandments are binding, yet if he cannot find evidence for the first day, but is forced to give it up, rather than keep the Lord's Sabbath, he will change his position, and say there is none.
But listen! He hears the prophet say, This is the day the Lord hath made. That certainly must mean the first day? But I would ask, when did the Lord make the first day of the week? Before he made the seventh. But the prophet uses the perfect tense which conveys an allusion to the present. The day was but just made when Christ became the head of the corner. That is, the day of salvation, or gospel day, is referred to.
Listen again. The Lord says by the same prophet, I will not alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. The ten commandments certainly went out of his lips. I hear another prophet say that the little horn "shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws!" There is something definite about this. And any one can see that it relates directly to the law of God—that unchangeable moral law, which B. professes to contend for "without any abrogation or revision." It would seem that the unrevised fourth commandment has slipped over upon another day, like some great landslide which carries trees and houses standing upon it, and moves so gently that the inhabitants are not aware of any change, but turns completely about in the descent, so that ever after the sun rises in the west. If the law of God stands upon such a sandy foundation, who knows but that the first commandment now requires us to have no other God but the Pope of Rome? The two are not more distinct, than the seventh day upon which God rested, and the first day on which he commenced his work.
"O Fourth Command! what trouble hast thou been,
Source of vexation to the sons of man!
How have they tugged, and toiled, with various plans,
To break thy power, and shirk thy just demands!
Have chafed and fretted to secure their aim,
And render null and void thy obvious claim!
Vast circuits they through logic's fields have run,
And found themselves at last where they began!
Still thy requirements hold, that we must rest
Upon the seventh day, which God has blest,
His fixed decrees he ne'er will disarrange;
For God can never lie, and never change."
Poor human nature, O how fallen! To justify itself in transgression, it can charge the all-wise and unchangeable Jehovah with follies and enormities that a human legislator would be ashamed to be guilty of; mock and insult him with its inventions to evade his plainly revealed law; and yet fondly hope for salvation through him who bore its transgressions of that law in his own body on the tree, while crucifying him afresh, and putting him to open shame! O my soul! art thou a man? and is this old leaven still in thee? Have mercy upon me, O God! Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean. Create in me a clean heart, and renew a right spirit within me. Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy Holy Spirit from me. For thou desirest truth in the inward parts.
THE INVITATION.
COME, ye sinners, poor and wretched,
Weak and wounded, sick and sore;
Jesus ready stands to save you,
Full of mercy, joined with power.
He is able,
He is willing; doubt no more.
O ye needy, come and welcome,
God's free bounty glorify;
True belief, and true repentance,
Every grace that brings us nigh,
Without money,
Come to Jesus Christ and buy.
Let not conscience make you linger,
Nor of fitness fondly dream;
All the fitness he requireth,
Is to feel your need of him;
This he gives you,
'Tis the Spirit's rising beam.
Come ye weary, heavy laden,
Lost and ruined by the fall;
If you tarry till you're better,
You will never come at all.
Not the righteous,
Sinners, Jesus came to call.
View him prostrate in the garden:
On the ground your Saviour lies:
On the bloody tree behold him;
Hear him cry before he dies,
"It is finished!"
Sinner, will not this suffice?
Lo the dear Saviour has ascended,
Pleads the merits of his blood;
Venture on him, venture wholly,
Let no other trust intrude;
None but Jesus
Can do helpless sinners good.
The Prayerless Home.
"I HAVE a good offer for my farm," said Mr. Earl to his wife; "I think I shall sell it."
"Why do you wish to sell it?" said Mrs. Earl.
"The land is so stony and partly worn out. I can go into a new country where land is cheap and fertile, and realize a much larger return for the same amount of labor."
"If we go into a new country, there will be no schools for our children."
"Our children are not old enough, it is most likely schools will be established wherever we go."
"We may also be deprived of the privilege of attending the house of God."
"We can take our Bibles with us, and can read them on the Sabbath, if we should happen to settle at a distance from a place of worship."
"It will be far better for us to remain here, where we can educate our children, and bring them up under the sound of the gospel."
"I must do what I think is required by the interests of my family."
"Pray remember that property is not the only thing needed by our children."
A few days after this conversation the bargain was concluded, and the farm became the property of Mr. Hale. Mr. Earl was to put him in possession of it early in the Spring.
Mr. Earl was descended from one of the early Puritan settlers of Massachusetts. His ancestors for many generations had been devout members in the church of Christ. He was the first alien from the commonwealth of Israel. His mother was an amiable, but not a pious woman, and some thought it was owing to her that he had not profited by the instruction of his pious father, and had turned a deaf ear to the gospel which he had heard from his infancy. He loved the world, and in order to secure a large portion of its goods he was willing to leave the home of his childhood, and the graves of his fathers, and to take up his abode on the border of civilization.
His wife was one who preferred Jerusalem as her chief joy. The old time-worn house of God, with its high, square pews, and huge sounding board, were as beautiful to her as the most faultless specimen of architecture to the connoisseur. She desired that her children might grow up under the influence of the truths which were proclaimed in that house. Her chief desire with respect to them was, that they might become rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom.3
In the Spring she was obliged to bid farewell to her native village. After a wearisome journey she found herself and her family in what was then a wilderness, in the western part of New York. The gospel was not preached in the vicinity, nor was even the log school-house erected. For a time Mr. E. observed the Sabbath, so far as resting from labor was concerned. He even spent some time in reading the Bible, but he did not pray. In consequence, that blessed book was gradually laid aside.
The climate, and perhaps the labors incident to a life in the wilderness, caused Mrs. Earl to fall into a decline. When, after a lingering illness, she bade her husband farewell, she charged him to send her children to her native home, that they might be taught, in the school-house and the church, truths which could make them wise unto salvation. Mr. Earl complied in part with his wife's request. He sent his daughter Julia, who was now nine years of age, and her youngest brother. The oldest one he retained to assist him in his labors.
It was six years before Julia returned to her father. She had spent that time among the pious friends of her departed mother. She found the home of her childhood greatly changed. A neat village surrounded the tasteful dwelling now occupied by her father. The spire of the village church rose aloft, and the school-house was not far distant. She rejoiced to return to her home, though she was to meet its chief charm no more. A check was soon given to her joy. When she sat down to her evening meal, the blessing of God was not invoked. It was with difficulty that she could eat. When the hour for retiring came she was still more unhappy, as the family separated without prayer.
Mr. Earl soon perceived that his daughter did not feel at home in his house. It made him sad at heart, for he had looked forward to her return with the hope that she would restore, in part at least, the loss he had experienced. He said to her one day,
"Julia, you do not seem to feel as much at home as I could wish."
After some hesitation, she replied, "I do not feel safe here."
"Do not feel safe?" said he in astonishment.
"I am afraid to live under a roof where there is no prayer."
The remark went to the father's heart. He thought of all the mercies he had received, the protection he had experienced, unasked. He continued to think of his ways until his soul fainted within him. He looked at his oldest son, a Sabbath-breaker, and ignorant of God, and could not conceal the truth that it was owing to the act of removing him in childhood from the means of grace, and exposing him to influences that, in all probability, would prove his ruin.
In a few days he asked Julia to read the Scriptures and pray in the family. It was with joy that she heard the request, but with great difficulty that she complied with it. It was not till she was reminded of the joy it would give to her mother, could she be a witness of it, that she consented to make the attempt. In a few weeks, on a Sabbath morning, the father himself took the Bible, and having read a portion, knelt down, and with tears besought God to teach his stammering lips how to pray. Light, peace and safety took up their abode in a dwelling now no longer prayerless.—Canada Christian Advocate.
SELECTIONS.
By Fletcher
Seriousness.
NOTHING is so contrary to godliness as levity. Seriousness consists in the matter of what is spoken, in the manner of speaking, in dignity of behaviour, and in weighty, not trifling, actions.
Jesting and raillery, lightness of behaviour, useless occupations, joy, without trembling, and awe of God, an affectation of vivacity and sprightliness, are all contrary to the Spirit of God.
Levity is contrary to contrition and self-knowledge—to watching and prayer—frequently to charity and common sense. In short, it is destructive of all devotion, in our hearts, and in those of others, by unfitting the company for receiving any good.
Seriousness is useful to prevent the foregoing evils, to keep grace, to recommend piety, and a sense of God's presence, to leave room for the Spirit of God to work, and to check levity and sin in others.
And have we not motives sufficient to seriousness? Are we not walking over enchanted ground, in sight of the grave, and pursued every moment by the enemy of all righteousness?
All who walk with God are serious, taking their Lord for their example, and walking by scripture precepts and warnings.
"But are we to renounce all mirth, and be dull and melancholy?" Answer. Seriousness and solid happiness are inseparable.
"Is there not a time for all things?" Answer. There is no time for sin and folly.—Fletcher.
How to Write for a Newspaper.
As a general rule, short pieces are best liked. A gentleman in a bank once told us, when we asked him to subscribe for a certain "Quarterly Review," "Read a 'Review'! why, I never read anything longer than a telegraphic dispatch! But I will take it and send it to my brother, who is a minister in the country." The public like a short article when it is a condensation.
This introduces a second idea. An article to be printed should absolutely have something in it. If professed argument, it should be conclusive; if pathetic, it should moisten the eyes; if an anecdote, it should have a sharp point; if philosophy, it should go to the primitive rock; if practical, it should go like an arrow to its work; if spiritual, it should awe the soul that reads it.
—Am. Presbyterian.
Afflictions.
WHOEVER considers the manifold calamities to which mankind are exposed in the present state, must feel some emotion of sorrow. Sin has introduced great misery and universal disorder into the world. No person, however mean and obscure, or eminent and exalted, can stand invulnerable against the arrows of adversity. It is, however, the peculiar privilege of a good man, that though, alike with others, he partakes of the sufferings of humanity, yet he sees a wise hand directing every event, and rendering all subservient to a grand and glorious end. He desires to learn the noble lessons of patience and submission, while his heart glows with gratitude to Him to whom he is indebted for every comfort he enjoys, and without whose permission he knows no evil can transpire.
Ebenezer Adams, a celebrated Quaker of Philadelphia, on visiting a lady of rank, whom he found, six months after the death of her husband, sitting on a sofa covered with black cloth, and in all the dignity of woe, approached her with great solemnity, and gently taking her by the hand, thus accosted her: "So, friend, I see that thou hast not yet forgiven God Almighty." This seasonable reproof had such an effect upon the person to whom it was addressed, that she immediately had all her trappings of grief destroyed, and went about her necessary business and avocations. "A word spoken in due season, how good is it?"
Afflictions, though not blessings in themselves, yet when sanctified are productive of great good to them who are exercised thereby. Even Demetrius, a heathen, could say, "That nothing could be more unhappy than a man who had never known affliction." And one who was not a heathen has left it on record, That it was good for him to be afflicted. Let us not therefore sink into despondency under a view of approaching difficulties, nor suffer our imaginations to dwell with horror on supposed future events. "The evils and afflictions of this life, indeed, appear like rocks and precipices, rugged and barren, at a distance; but at our nearer approach we shall find little fruitful spots, and refreshing springs, mixed with the harshness and deformities of nature."
A minister was recovering of a dangerous illness, when one of his friends addressed him thus: "Sir, though God seems to be bringing you up from the gates of death, yet it will be a long time before you will sufficiently retrieve your strength, and regain vigor enough of mind to preach as usual." The good man answered, "You are mistaken, my friend; for this six weeks' illness has taught me more divinity than all my past studies and all my ten years' ministry put together."
It is related of one, who, under great severity, had fled from the worst of masters to the best, (I mean, he had sought rest in the bosom of Jesus Christ, the common friend of the weary and the heavy laden,) that he was so impressed with a sense of the benefit he had derived from his afflictions, that lying on his death-bed and seeing his master stand by, he eagerly caught the hands of his oppressor, and kissing them, said, "These hands have brought me to heaven." Thus many have had reason to bless God for afflictions, as being the instruments in his hand of promoting the welfare of their souls!
It is said of Dr. W., that from his most early infancy to his dying day he scarcely ever knew what health was; yet we are told that he looked upon this affliction as the greatest blessing of his life. And the reason he assigned for it was, that, being naturally of a warm temper and an ambitious disposition, these visitations of divine Providence weaned his affections from the world, and brought every passion into subjection to the divine will.—Relig. Assoc.
The Sabbath is from God.
By Thomas Alexander
SOME men speak as if the Sabbath were merely a human institution—as if man gave it to man—What man gave it? by what authority? and when? Who were the good men who gave a boon so great to their fellows; and why has history lost their names? If it could be proved that man made himself, then would there be some likelihood of his having also made the Sabbath, and much else besides; for there is abundant corroborative evidence that He who made man, also made man's world, and man's Sabbath.
When we are told that in the beginning God rested on the seventh day, and blessed it, and set it apart, and when we find traces of it in the oldest historical records of the world down to the giving of the Law on Sinai; when we can trace it from that day down to this; when we find voices from the works, answering to the voices from the word of God, and all corresponding to our every day experience; and when, in the face of all this evidence, we are met by nothing but vague assertions and rambling statements, we cannot resist the conclusion that the Sabbath is from God.
The Sabbath was made for man as a Sabbath; not as a day of labor, but as a day of rest. So soon as it ceases to be Sabbath, it ceases to be—turned to any other purpose than that for which He that made it designed it, it is no longer made by him for man; it is no longer fit for man nor good for man.
The law written on the two tables of stone is also written in our natures. In the keeping it, as individuals, and so as families, and as a nation, there is great reward. God not only blessed the day, but he blesses them that hallow it. Let each of us, therefore, as he would see God in peace, keep holy the Sabbath day, according to the commandment. This we can do in any assembly other than "the great congregation." It is not by going in great crowds to hear sounds, and see sights, that we can hallow the Sabbath day. It is not thus we can worship the "God of nature" and bring him glory. And when God gets no glory, man gets no good. Our true good and God's highest glory are one.—Chelsea Tracts. "The Sabbath," by Thomas Alexander.
The last Word.
The victor in an argument can afford to dispense with "the last word." Many an angry controversy would be speedily terminated if each party would cease as soon as he is conscious of having beaten his opponent. It will help to reconcile a man to his suspension, to bear in mind that the public will not remember who had the last word; but they will remember who had the best of the argument. The truth makes the impression, and he who states it the most clearly, leaving it to do its own work, has the victory in his own hands, and can afford to let the enemy fire as many guns as he pleases to cover his retreat in smoke.
Bible
BIBLE.—The Bible is a window in this prison of hope, through which we look into eternity.
Geometry.
GEOMETRY is a beautiful science, but its very nature confines it to magnitudes. No man can thereby prove that Victoria is queen, that Virgil wrote the Aeneid, that air and water are compound substances, that a murder was committed, or a battle fought. So you cannot prove the Bible true or untrue. You can prove nothing on the subject of a revelation by the exact sciences.—Plumer.
Prophecy Proves God’s Presence
If he who prophesies, expressly disclaims all honor as due to himself, and ascribes his prophecies to the teachings of God, and if they prove true, it is evident that God is with such a man.—Ib.
Counsels, Comforts, and Cautions.
Be not surprised if your carnal nature should lead you to admire error; it is its natural tendency.
Study to be quiet, except when duty calls upon you to speak.
Always have a word with God, before you enter into conversation with men.