Review and Herald, Vol. 18, No. 5. (6/25/1861)

Review and Herald

Jun 25, 1861

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 25, 1861

THE SABBATH.

By J. M. Aldrich

[This article, with one on the same subject which will appear next week, was sent to the World's Crisis, Boston, Mass., but the articles being refused a place in that paper, they are sent to this Office. The writer did not then keep the Sabbath, but we are happy to say that he now observes it.—Ed.]

BRO. GRANT: I notice lately there is some interest manifested through the Crisis on the question of the Sabbath; and as I deem it a question of importance I would esteem it a privilege to say a word on the subject, hoping that I may be able to shed some light thereon; and believing that you are not hostile to the discussion of Bible questions, I trust you will excuse my impertinence—if such it may be—if I take liberty to differ with you in regard to the Sabbath. In the last No. of the Crisis T. M. Preble asks you the following questions: "Is the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath enjoined upon Christians by the teachings of the New Testament? If not why should they keep the seventh day as mentioned in the Old Testament?" In answer to the first question you say in substance that you have not been able to find any passage in the New Testament that enjoins the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath; and therefore as answer to the second question, you know of no reason why we should keep the seventh day. To bolster up this conclusion you then attempt to prove from the Scriptures that the Sabbath of the Old Testament has been abolished; and had you succeeded in this undertaking to my satisfaction, I should agree with you in your conclusion as above stated; for certainly such conclusions would be inevitable if the Sabbath of the decalogue had been abolished. But I differ with you widely in regard to the abolition of the decalogue, and also in regard to the "teachings of the New Testament," concerning the fourth precept thereof.

Though the teachings of the New Testament in regard to the fourth, as well as other precepts of the decalogue are not of an imperative character, yet we find that Christ and the apostles did recognize the Sabbath as an existing institution; that it was according to their "manner" and "custom" to observe it religiously, by assembling together on that day in the synagogue and elsewhere for the purpose of prayer, preaching and reading the Scriptures; that certain things claimed by the Pharisees to be unlawful (i. e., against the Sabbath law) were declared by Christ to be lawful (i. e., according to the Sabbath law); also Christ must have recognized the perpetuity of the Sabbath when he foretold the destruction of Jerusalem [Matt. xxiv, 20]; for he directed his disciples to pray with respect to that event, that their flight be not in the winter, neither on the Sabbath day." Jerusalem was destroyed about forty years after the event was foretold. Why then should he tell his disciples to pray that their flight be not on the Sabbath day if the Sabbath was to be abolished and not in existence when the event should take place? Evidently Christ was of the same mind then, as when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." Matt. v, 18.

Christ also says that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Mark ii, 27. Man is here used in a general sense, and means not simply the Jews, but all men.

But we have no right to claim the non-observance of the fourth commandment on the ground that the teachings of the New Testament are not imperative on the subject unless it be clearly established that the same has been abolished; for indeed it would not be necessary that Christ or the apostles should give any command in regard to it until that original command of the Almighty which was engraved with his own finger on tables of stone, and proclaimed with his own voice amid terrific grandeur from Sinai's burning mount, had ceased to be obligatory. Deeming the original command in full force, I must therefore dissent from the conclusion that you draw from the absence of New Testament commands.

But now let us look at your arguments in favor of the abolition of the Sabbath. You quote Paul: "For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second." Heb. viii, 7. You assume that Paul, by "that first covenant" means the ten commandments, which, being faulty, were improved in the second covenant. Do you not reflect upon the wisdom and intelligence of the Almighty by assuming that the ten commandments need to be "improved?" Was not God just as capable of making a perfect moral code when he uttered his law from mount Sinai as at any subsequent period? David says, "The law of the Lord is perfect." Ps. xix, 7. "All his commandments are sure, they stand fast forever and ever and are done in truth and uprightness. . . . He hath commanded his covenant forever." Ps. cxi, 7-9. The primary meaning of covenant is a mutual contract, or agreement between two or more persons to do, or not do some act or thing. The ten commandments are called a covenant—God's covenant—which has not this primary signification; for it is composed wholly of commandments issued by God alone, and hence contains no mutual promises. In discussing the question of covenants, we are obliged to make this distinction. By "that first covenant" Paul refers to what is termed the Horeb covenant, or that mutual agreement made between God, on the one part, and Israel on the other part, as recorded in Ex. xix, 5, 8. Here God promises on his part to make Israel a peculiar treasure unto him above all people, a kingdom of priests, an holy nation, &c., on condition that Israel should obey his voice, and keep his covenant (i. e., the ten commandments); Israel, on their part, promised the obedience requisite to complete the covenant, saying, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." Here, then, is the covenant to which Paul alludes. It was a mutual agreement, the conditions of which were the keeping of God's covenant, or the ten commandments. Israel did not perform faithfully their part of the agreement; they did not obey God's voice; they broke his covenant; hence "a better covenant" became necessary. "That first covenant" having become faulty through disobedience, we have therefore the "second" or "better covenant" which is "established upon better promises," having Christ as its mediator. Heb. viii, 6. "That first covenant" was written by Moses in a book which was called the "book of the covenant," and by him was dedicated with blood [Ex. xxiv, 4-8; Heb. ix, 18-20]; but God's covenant was written on tables of stone, and no blood was sprinkled thereon; the one was

that which was made at Horeb and which Moses says was not made "with our fathers, but with us, who are all of us here alive this day" [Deut. v, 2, 3]: the other was that which God commanded three days after the ratification of the former [Ex. xix, 11, 16], and which "our fathers" were careful to observe during the patriarchal age. Gen. xxvi, 5. Hence, God's covenant of ten commandments, and the Horeb covenant, or "that first covenant" of which Paul speaks are not identical. God's law or covenant remains the same, unchanged and unabolished, the transgression of which Paul says is sin, and "the wages of sin, death."

What you say therefore in regard to the allegory of the bond woman will not apply to God's covenant or law of ten commandments, but rather to "that first covenant" which is Agar, and which "gendereth to bondage." But James in chap. i, 25; ii, 12, in speaking of God's law, the ten commandments, calls it "the law of liberty," and "the perfect law of liberty;" and David speaking with reference to the same law, says, "I will walk at liberty; for I seek thy precepts." Ps. cxix, 45. Hence the ten commandments cannot be the one of the "two covenants" which gendereth to bondage.

We will now pass to notice what you offer as "further and positive evidence" that the covenant of ten commandments is "done away." You quote Ex. xxxiv, 27–33, which relates the account of Moses' bringing the "tables of testimony" down from the mount, &c., and also Paul's comment thereon [2 Cor. iii, 7–13], saying, "But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away, how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious." You assume that that which was "written and engraven on stones" was that which was "to be done away;" but I think your assumption cannot be sustained. It was the ministration that "was glorious," and it was this "glory" that was to be done away." The ministration of a law, and the law itself are quite different things. Ministration signifies service performed by a minister; hence we may clearly understand what "was to be done away." The "ministration of death written and engraven in stones," must, of course, mean the ministration of the ten commandments, for they only were "written and engraven in stones;" but the ministration of the ten commandments cannot mean the ten commandments themselves any more than the ministration of the Spirit can mean the Spirit itself. It may be asked, Why was the term "death" substituted for the ten commandments? Perhaps it may be sufficient to say such was the effect of the Mosaic ministry: death being the penalty for violation of God's law; and the ministration thereof being contrasted with Christ's ministry, or the ministration of the Spirit, which (verse 6) giveth life. The term "death" may with much propriety be thus used.

You quote verse 11: "For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," and conclude therefrom that "some part of what was written and engraven in stones is done away and a portion remaineth." I suppose you mean that the fourth commandment "is done away," and that the other nine remain. I cannot imagine, however, what kind of reasoning you will pursue to sustain such a proposition; you promise, however, to give more light on this part of the subject in your next article.

Again: We may determine clearly what was abolished by looking carefully at verse 13: "And not as Moses which put a vail over his face that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abolished." Now that which was hid by the vail was that which was abolished. But what was hid by the vail? Certainly not the ten commandments; for Moses had them in his hand. Ex. xxxiv, 29. But the vail was over his face. Why? Because the "skin of his face shone," or because of the "glory of his countenance," for which reason his ministration was styled "glorious." It was, then, this "glorious" ministration which the Apostle calls the "ministration of death," that was hid by the vail, and "which glory" he says "was to be done away."

Somerset N. Y. Feb. 10, 1861.

THE BITTER CUP.

By Laura C. Hutchins

LORD, I cried, in humble faith, Cleanse me by thy blood and death; Purify and make me clean, Let thy Spirit dwell within.

Be my sins put far away, Make me stand in the dread day; Righteousness as linen fair, Be my spotless, blest attire.

Canst thou bear the burden up? Tasting the baptismal cup? Canst thou bear the world's dread scorn? Wear within thy side the thorn?

Lonely tread the rugged way? Thus the Saviour seemed to say. Then I prayed, oh, strengthen me, Yea, I can, with aid from thee.

Take, O, take me by thy hand, Be my still abiding friend; Go with me the thorny way, Never, never, let me stray.

Then he sent the bitter cup, Called on me to drink it up; Bitter, bitter, yet 'twas meet, And behind there lingered sweet.

Friendly smiles were turned to scorn, And I felt the piercing thorn, Hardest of the lot I share,— Yet he gives me grace to bear.

Darkness oft surrounds my way, Snares to lead my feet astray; Strugglings sore, and fierce, and long, Stifle oft the rising song.

When my deep unworthiness, Fills my spirits with distress, Then do I my longings stay, On the Life, the Truth, the Way.

Oft amid this sad surprise, Comforting doth hope arise; Those who feel the chast'ning rod, Sons beloved are of God.

Patient, then, I'll labor on, Till the mists of time are gone; Joyful tread the narrow way, Till it ends in perfect day.

LAURA C. HUTCHINS.

Pier Cove, Mich.

NOAH—HIS AGE AND OURS.

By Cumming

(Concluded.)

THE associations of the antediluvians were all essentially depraved. “The sons of God married the daughters of men,” an expression which denotes that the pious mingled with the depraved, without discrimination and without distinction. The Apostle lays down what is duty always—that they that marry are to marry in the Lord. The antediluvians thought that that was good enough for the transcendentalist, but not for practical and every day life. And many think now that it may be very beautiful for a higher dispensation, but that we must take other, and more sublunary, even mercenary, elements into our estimate now. And again, “whether we eat or drink, we are to do all to the glory of God,” is the christian maxim, but that was not the maxim then. It was thought good enough for monks, and nuns and hermits, but not for the business men of this world. Christianity ought to be the cement of every association, Exhaust it from a nation, and it will fall to pieces; let marriage be separated from christianity as its basis, and what will it be? Just what it has been among the Socialists—bargain, a piece of convenience, and to be broken as soon as one party is dissatisfied with the other; and held as ceasing to be seen in heaven, it soon comes to be broken upon earth.

There was in the antediluvian world total disbelief of the testimony of Noah as to the coming judgments that should burst upon the earth. When Noah predicted, yet a hundred and twenty days the flood should come, how did they receive it? Just as men will receive those who prophesy the coming of Christ at the close of this dispensation. “Knowing this first,” says Peter, confirmatory of the passage we are now commenting upon, “that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished; but the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some men count slackness, but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless, we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness.”

Those that lived in the days of Noah despised Noah’s prophecy of a coming flood. Their conclusion was, There is not water enough in the basin of the ocean to rise to the great height on which it would be requisite it should rise in order to destroy the world. But just as scientific men had decided that Noah’s prophecy was the mere crotchet of an old man who had lost his mind, the fountains of the great deep burst, the windows of heaven were opened, and the earth that then was, perished. To argue, therefore, that the laws of nature prevent the fulfillment of God’s word, is to assert that the law is greater than the Lawgiver, and the thing created greater than the Creator himself. Those who perished in that great and awful judgment had an offer of escape. The old and venerable preacher of righteousness stood upon the steps of the ark he had built by the prescriptions of his God, and told them that every one that would believe God’s testimony by his lips, and come into that ark, should be saved from the deluge that would soon sweep the earth and depopulate it. They were, in the language of scripture, disobedient then. “As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.” When you are told of the awful baptism, not of flood, but of fire, and when you are invited to escape, not by the ark of a temporal deliverance, but by Christ the great Deliverer, many thousands will despise the prophecy, deride the prophet, and turn aside, one to his farm and another to his merchandise, and care for none of these things. Nevertheless it shall be true, as stated by an Apostle in the epistle to the Thessalonians, where he tells us that “Christ shall be revealed from heaven taking vengeance in flaming fire on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe.”

We have it recorded in the antediluvian days that the Spirit ceased to strive with man any more. When the Holy Spirit ceases to bless the preaching of the Gospel, it fails to have effect. When he ceases to imprint upon the heart the truths that are addressed to the ear, all preaching and all hearing is vain. And just before the close—before the lightning cloud shall come, in which Christ shall be seen as in heaven with power and great glory, God’s Holy Spirit will cease to strive; that day of grace will be finished, the day of judgment will have begun—cut it down, it only cumbers the ground that is now to be blessed and sanctified with His presence, and become the bright dwelling-place of all that believe forever and ever. To show that we have not exaggerated in the least, I will read the summary of all that shall be in the last days from 2 Tim. iii: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce-breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.” Such is the picture that will be a sign of the times in the days preceding the coming of the Son of man.

Christianity is not to be a progressive development from what it is now to its millennial glory. The idea of many excellent Christians—excellent in all that constitutes the vitality of the truth, but I think deceived and mistaken in this—is that by the aid of missions, by the distribution of the Bible, by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit of God, this present dispensation shall have its piety so deepened that the millennium shall be its coronal, a millennium the product of elements that are now in action; and not a new age and a new dispensation altogether. Now, if I understand the Bible, it says that the last days of this dispensation shall be worse than the first—that when the Son of man cometh shall he find faith on the earth?—that as it was in the days of Noah, just before the judgment of water came, so shall it be in our days, just before the judgment of fire comes; men living without God, marrying and giving in marriage, eating, drinking, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers

of God. Judging from the Bible the millennium belongs to a distinct dispensation. I do not believe that it is the complement of the present age, but the commencement of a new one. This dispensation is the dispensation of the Spirit, where the Holy Spirit is electing a people out of this world to be a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people; the next dispensation is when Christ—the King, the true Shekinah, the glory of God—shall personally be revealed, shall personally reign, and all shall be righteous, none depraved, the lion lie down with the lamb, and there shall be no more tears, nor death, nor weeping, nor sorrow, nor crying; the millennium, the beautiful morning dawn of the everlasting heaven that spreads over all the universe, and earth undergo a re-Genesis, just as the body undergoes a resurrection, and be the heaven of God's people, more beautiful than Paradise, and the first home of man, when he came from the hands of his Creator.

We look, therefore, for matters to get worse as the end approaches. And whilst there are more of the people of God than there have been, and more in our own land than in any land upon earth, yet the vast majority of Christendom answers too terribly to the portrait given by the Apostle. Many Christians feel it difficult to entertain the idea that this world is to be the abode of the saints in the future age. But why should you suppose we are to live in some etherealized atmosphere, intangible and invisible? Adam and Eve held communion with God in Eden, and is it impossible that we shall be made so pure, morally so perfect, and the earth our dwelling-place so cleansed of every impure element, that it shall be the loveliest orb in the universe, because the prodigal one restored to its Creator's presence, to its Father's bosom; while all the sister orbs of creation sing for joy, 'Let us rejoice, for this our sister orb was lost, and is now found; was dead and is now made alive?'

But if we are—and I believe we are now—rapidly approaching the close of this dispensation, our first inquiry is, Are we Christians?—are our hearts changed?—are we sprinkled with atoning blood? In other words, is religion anything to us, and are we anything to it? The religion of our Bible is not something within its boards, to be read when we open it, and to be forgotten when we put it in our library. But if I understand it, the religion of this book is to go into every nook and corner of the human heart, to penetrate every by-way of private life, every broadway of public life,—to regenerate men, influence and make them wiser, happier, holier, and more like God. Has it done so? What better are you for the fact that this book was written? Would you be just as you are now, if you had never heard that Christ was crucified? Would you have been just at this moment as you are and have been, if there were no such thing as religion in the world? You may estimate the influence religion has had upon you, and the connection you have had with it, by this:—How much has it done for you? What has it made me that I could not have been made without it? What hopes has it kindled in my heart that I could not have without it? What blessed prospects has it opened up? How far has it lifted my heart above the world, and taught me while in the world not to be of it? If this book, this religion, this Christ crucified, be your trust, your hope, your peace, the anchor of your soul, sure and steadfast, then, whether Christ takes you to him, or becomes to you, 'Blessed are ye, enter into the joy of your Lord,' will be your glad and welcome summons.—Cumming.

The Journey's End.

We have read of the caravans of pilgrims, who after months of weary travel, approach the Holy City. They have been drenched by storms, burned by blazing suns, pinched with hunger, and choked with the dust of the desert. Their shoes are worn out, their garments soiled and tattered, their feet blistered, and their tottering limbs can hardly sustain their steps. Through days of suffering, and nights of sleeplessness, and constantly assailed by merciless foes, they have toiled along, until now they approach the end of their pilgrimage.

The sun, breaking through the clouds of a lurid day, is just sinking behind the hills of Lebanon. The pilgrims ascend an eminence, and lo, Jerusalem is before them! Its turrets, towers, pinnacles, and domes all ablaze in golden splendor, reflecting the rays of the setting sun. A scene of almost supernatural enthusiasm ensues.

"Jerusalem, Jerusalem!" is shouted from hot and blistered lips. "Jerusalem, Jerusalem!" is reëchoed through the long lines of the rear.—The lame, the fainting, the dying, are animated with new life, as they rush forward to catch a glimpse of that sacred city where the Saviour bled and died.

Tears gush from all eyes. Some overwhelmed

with joyous emotion, prostrate themselves upon the ground, and breathe a silent prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving. Some throw their arms into the air, and shout wildly in the outbursting of their rapture, "Hallelujah!" All past fatigues, perils, sufferings, are forgotten. The pilgrimage is ended, their goal is gained.

But O, when the pilgrim of earth, weary of the long, painful, perilous journey, arrives within sight of the celestial city,—a sight so brilliant that no mortal eye can look upon it,—as he gazes upon the splendor of the metropolis of God's empire, and listens to its choirs, and knows that in that city the Saviour has a mansion prepared for him, with robe and harp and crown, and that he there shall repose in peace forever, can language tell his joy? The imagination sinks exhausted in the vain attempt to compass such blessedness.

Practical Prayer.

In the vicinity of B——, lived a poor but industrious man, depending for support upon his daily labor. His wife fell sick, and not being able to hire a nurse, he was obliged to confine himself to the sick bed and family. His means of support being cut off, he soon found himself in need. Having a wealthy neighbor near, he determined to go and ask for two bushels of wheat, with a promise to pay as soon as his wife became so much better that he could leave her and return to his work. Accordingly, he took his bag, went to his neighbor's, and arrived while the family was at morning prayers.

As he sat on the door stone he heard the man pray very earnestly that God would clothe the naked, feed the hungry, relieve the needy, and comfort all that mourn. The prayer concluded, he stepped in and made known his business, promising to pay from the avails of his first labors. The farmer was so sorry that he could not accommodate him, but he had promised to lend a large sum of money, and he presumed neighbor A—— would let him have it.

With a tearful eye and a sad heart, the poor man turned away. As soon as he left the house, the farmer's little son stepped up and said—

"Father, did you not pray that God would clothe the naked, feed the hungry, relieve the distressed, and comfort mourners?"

"Yes; why?"

"Because, father, if I had your wheat I would answer that prayer."

It is needless to add that the christian father called back his suffering neighbor, and gave him as much as he needed.

Now, christian readers, do you answer your own prayers?—N. Y. Evangelist.

Old Isaac.

AMONG the pleasant recollections of my childhood, very vivid and very precious is that of a visit at my father's house from Dr. David Nelson (now so widely known as the author of "Cause and Cure of Infidelity"), one of those holy men of later times, of whom, emphatically, it might be said, "He walked with God."

He had come to the Eastern States for the purpose of raising funds for the Quincy Institute, Illinois, of which he was the founder, and was to present his cause at our church the next Sabbath. He was very simple in his dress, and in his habits, and well do I remember how he looked as he walked in at our back door, just at dark, one Saturday evening, in a broad-brimmed hat, and long drab surtout, his only baggage a little black carpet-bag. He was tall, slender, and commanding in appearance; his first look, perhaps, a little stern to a child, though his character was most lovable, his smile very sunny, and his stories a never-failing source of amusement and instruction to old and young.

Although himself a slaveholder for many years, he could not feel that slavery was right, and when the colonization scheme was started, he entered heartily into it, hoping it would do away with the evil entirely; but soon satisfied it would never accomplish that for this country, he turned his attention to the duty of "immediate emancipation;" and after long and prayerful consideration of the subject, he consulted his wife about the matter, and they decided to set their negroes free at once.

So, calling them together, he told them his convictions of the sin of slavery, and that he had decided to give them free papers. Their joy was unbounded, and he was overwhelmed with their vociferous exclamations of "tank you, massa! tank you massa!"

"Old Isaac," as he was called, was a very stupid, careless, indolent fellow, who seldom did anything right, even when he was told. If sent to the barn to feed the horse, he was sure to leave the measure where the horse would kick it over, and everything he undertook seemed to go wrong. So Dr. Nelson and his wife conscientiously concluded it would not be right to set Isaac adrift, for he never could take care of himself, and would be in danger of starving.

Soon after, the Doctor began to reason with his neighbors on the sin of slaveholding, and the duty of emancipation, appealing to his own example as evidence of his sincerity. They replied he had not liberated all, as Isaac was still a slave.

Dr. Nelson said that it was very true, and that for conscientious reasons he did not think it would be right to turn off such a stupid fellow, and he retained him merely out of pity for him.

"That's just the case with our niggers," they replied. "They cannot take care of themselves, so we keep them for their own good!"

Dr. Nelson was in a quandary. He saw he must liberate Isaac, at all events, if he would have any influence with others in the matter. So he went to him, as he sat in the kitchen one day, with the same leaden look upon his face, seeming more asleep than awake. "Isaac," said Dr. N.

"Yes massa," drawled Isaac.

"I've been thinking of giving you free papers." (Isaac looked up rather wonderingly.) "But I'm afraid if I do you will suffer." (Isaac opened his eyes wider than before.) "I don't think you can take care of yourself; I have no idea you can." (Isaac looked anxious.) "But I've made up my mind to set you free." ("Oh, tank you, tank you, massa!") "And Isaac if you ever get hungry, just remember there is enough to eat in my kitchen, and come and help yourself."

Isaac no sooner realized that his master was in earnest than his face lighted up, and he burst out, "Oh, tank you, tank you, massa; freedom is de sweetest ting in de wide world, massa!"

He took his papers and left, and for some months Dr. Nelson heard nothing of him. But one day, as he was traveling, he saw some one approaching on horseback. As he drew near, the "ivory" began to shine, the eyes rolled about in rather an unusual manner, and who should the stranger be but "Old Isaac!" Not Isaac the slave, but Isaac the freeman,—in a new suit of clothes, and with a face no longer stupid, but full of the consciousness and importance and happiness of his new life. He was quite overjoyed at meeting his old massa.

"And how do you like freedom, Isaac?"

"Oh, massa, freedom sweetest ting in de wide world! sweetest ting in de world, massa!"

"But what have you been doing, Isaac?"

"Oh, me bin to work; me got forty dollars in me pocket; me own dis brack pony; tell you what 'tis, freedom is de sweetest ting in de world, massa!"—And Dr. Nelson said he never afterwards doubted that any slaves, with the motives of freedom to inspire them to work, could "take care of themselves."

PERSONALITY OF GOD.

(Concluded)

"Let us make man," said Jehovah to Jesus, "in our image, after our likeness." Gen. i, 26. Jesus was the express image of the Father's person. "Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high." Heb. i, 3. There on the Father's throne, is our personal Jesus, beside our personal God.

Jesus arose from the dead with a physical form. "He is not here," said the angel; "for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee. There shall ye see him. Lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy, and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail! And they came and held him by the feet, and they worshiped him." Matt. xxviii, 6–9.

"Behold my hands and my feet," said Jesus to those who stood in doubt of his resurrection, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honey-comb, and he took it, and did eat before them." Luke xxiv, 29–43.

After Jesus addressed his disciples on the mount of Olivet, he was taken up from them, and a cloud received him out of their sight. "And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold two men stood by them in white apparel, which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Acts i, 9–11.

Mark says, "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God." Chap. xvi, 19.

When inspired testimony is as plain and pointed on any important subject as language can be, we choose to give the language of inspiration; hence the quotations above. They prove,

1. That Christ arose from the dead with a physical form.

2. That he, to demonstrate the fact to his wondering and still doubting disciples, showed them his hands and his feet, and ate before them.

3. That with this form he ascended up to heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

But those who deny the personality of God, assert that he is as much in every place as in any one place. In harmony with this assertion is the oft-repeated declaration that heaven is everywhere. We inquire, then, What was the ascension of Jesus Christ? He was taken up to heaven. He went to his Father. If heaven be everywhere, and God everywhere, then Christ's ascension up to heaven, at the Father's right hand, simply means that he went everywhere! He was only taken up where the cloud hid him from the gaze of his disciples, and then evaporated and went everywhere! So that instead of the lovely Jesus, so beautifully described in both Testaments, we have only a sort of essence dispersed through the entire universe. And in harmony with this rarified theology, Christ's second advent, or his return, would be the condensation of this essence to some locality, say the mount of Olivet!

Again, Bible readers have believed that Enoch and Elijah were really taken up to God in heaven. But if God and heaven be as much in every place as in any one place, this is all a mistake. They were not translated. And all that is said about the "chariot of fire" and "horses of fire," and the attending whirlwind to take Elijah up into heaven, was a useless parade. They only evaporated, and a misty vapor passed through the entire universe. This is all of Enoch and Elijah that the mind can possibly grasp, admitting that God and heaven are no more in any one place than in every place.

But it is said of Elijah that he "went up by a whirlwind into heaven." 2 Kings ii, 11. And of Enoch it is said, that he "walked with God, and was not, for God took him." Gen. v, 24.

The language of scripture on this subject is pointed and beautiful, and stands out in strong contrast with that foggy system of interpretation which denies the personality of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ. See Gen. i, 26, 27; ix, 6; Ex. xxiv, 9–11; xxxiii, 20–23; Dan. vii, 9, 13, 14; Heb. i, 1–3; John v, 37; Mark xvi, 19; Luke xxiv, 38–43; John vii, 33; xiii, 36; xiv, 1–3, 12; xvi, 16, 28; xx, 17; Acts i, 9–11; vii, 56. Read also the description of the Son of God as seen by John more than sixty years after his ascension to his Father.

Continue reading: WORK TRIED BY FIRE