Earlier text: SYSTEMATIC BENEVOLENCEAre We Awake.
By Albert M. Weeks
ASLEEP in sin! Is it true? The siren song of a good time coming is heard on every hand, the tendency of which is to lull into carnal security those that need a voice of thunder to spare not in showing them their sins. There are sinners in the church. The voice of the watchman should be heard at all times, preaching the word, reproving, rebuking, exhorting with all long-suffering and doctrine. If the name is on the class book, the person is spoken of as having “got salvation.” By their fruits ye shall know them. There are sinners in Zion. Sensible people see this, and by it are kept out of the ranks of Christianity. The stumbling-blocks shall be consumed with the wicked. Yesterday I was introduced to a noble appearing gentleman. Every word and act indicated that he was a Christian. A few questions, however, revealed the fact that he was a non-professor. Another person gave evidence of being of the lowest of society; coarse and vulgar in his language, his acts manifesting perfect unrestraint. I learn that he is a member of the Methodist church! Sad state of things. Many godly souls in the ranks of this and other denominations, are lamenting the condition of the church. Evil men are waxing worse and worse. Iniquity abounds. Are we awake to the fact? We are living in a time when it is a matter of prophecy that because iniquity abounds the love of many waxes cold. How many of us will be saved because we have endured unto the end. We are not awake. If we were, we would tremble in view of our danger. Satan has come down in great wrath as he nears his end. His energies are aroused to the utmost to bring to destruction as many as possible. By a simple trust in the power of God to keep us, and a faithful obedience to all his precepts we are safe. Some are falling out by the way, going to destruction. Shall we follow their example? There is danger here. Many that are first shall be last. Never give up. We are to near our reward. The nations are angry, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, has arrived. And “this generation shall not pass till all be fulfilled.” Don’t give up. But instead, look up, lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh. Yours in hope of eternal life, Present Truth.
By Ivory Colcord
TRUTH stands opposed to two nearly allied and closely connected opposites; viz., error and falsehood. In a strict technical sense an error is a falsehood, and a falsehood, an aggravated error; and both are diametrically the opposite of truth; while, between the two, in an accommodated, i. e., the common, latterly accepted, sense, there is quite a wide difference. A falsehood is an open violation of veracious principles; an intended mis-statement; but as held in our day, an error is a creature of spontaneous growth, without cause or parentage; one of nature’s mistakes, and though consequences of a serious nature result from a tenaciously held, and widely diffused, untruth, no responsibility dare attach to him, through whose influence scores are wrecked, because conscience dictates no necessary change, and through stupid indifference and blinding prejudice no error nor trace of an injudicious course can be discovered. Thus is the wise prompting of an uneducated conscience smothered, becomes unreliable, a blind guide, a flattering enemy, and fatally dangerous in its dictation, because truth does not enter into and form the basis of its education. It is of vital importance that we should in all things, both of minor and of greater importance, study closely all the surroundings, analyze critically all the parts, and, this done, we should at once cast aside error, and with David proceed to display our banner “because of the truth.” Ours is a day of great dearth; a day in which Isaiah’s language seems to be fulfilling; when “None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth.” There is a “conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. Yea, truth faileth; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey.” It is notorious of this age, and but the slightest use of the perceptive organs will prove the fact, that all that is necessary to become the world’s prey, a target for depraved humanity is to depart from evil, renounce error, and pick up the fragments of truth that have “fallen in the street.” There are few who “plead for truth.” Something pleasing is desirable. “None call for justice;” consequently it “standeth afar off.” And why? Because “truth faileth.” Then is it not worthy of an effort to “Buy the truth,” when we can find the genuine article “and sell it not?” All truth is important and has its benefits. Some truths take their place in history and serve as examples to guide our acts as we pass along through life. As examples of this class of truths we might cite many; but a few will do as well. It is truth that Abraham was commanded to sacrifice his son as an offering. This truth was not recorded and given to us that we should learn to sacrifice our children as did the Ammonites to Moloch; but that we by means of this historic narrative might learn a substantial lesson in faith, confidence, and obedience. Abraham had faith that the command was from the highest authority. He was confident that all would be right in the end and his son Isaac was willingly obedient. The biography of Job is given us that we may learn the great lesson of patience. From the lives of queens Vashti and Esther, our good wives may learn the evil consequences which arise from disregarding the lesson which Paul directly teaches and which might be studied with profit just now when the doctrine of female supremacy is so lavishly dealt out from rostrum and fireside. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira is but a matter of history, yet it teaches that those who disregard the truth must expect to suffer the consequences. Then we have prophetic truth which is our landmark by the way. It is the traveler’s guide-board. It points out our course, and defines our present position in the world’s history. Aside from this, John’s prophetic description of the great and final battle contains nothing of very great moment to us of 1873. But there is a truth with which all of us are especially connected, and in which we are interested to a greater degree than in any other. It is what Peter terms “the present truth.” It is not difficult to find people who scout the idea of a present truth; they say that all truth, both historic and prophetic, is as much present truth as is that of any passing event; that what was true a thousand years ago is still truth—truth at the present time—therefore, present truth. But their reasoning is evidently illogical; for that fact only is present truth which will allow of the present tense in its narration. Instance: One hundred years ago it was proper to say, Geo. Washington is commander-in-chief of the American army. That can not be truthfully said to-day; therefore it is not present truth. In time to come it may perhaps be said, The national debt is paid. That can not be said now; therefore it is not present truth, though it may now be a truth for a future day. But the reason that objection is offered to this distinction of truths is quite apparent. Present truth calls for action now. Present events must be taken up and acted upon while passing, or they are gone forever. While, if we are permitted to arrange truths promiscuously, without regard to time, they can be applied to our day when such an arrangement is convenient, and hustled into the past or future at pleasure, if not desirable. When the promise of the “seed time and harvest” is mentioned, they believe that is a promise to us; but, if perchance the prophecy of Joel, concerning the canker-worm and caterpillar is believed to belong to us also, they emphatically object to such insane interpretations of prophecy. And why? Simply because their likes and dislikes must be humored, if the force of all truth is destroyed in consequence. If people would but let good reason and sound judgments reign in these matters, as they do in their daily vocations, they would take up the truths that demand attention now, the present truths, act upon them with a will, and not cling to them forever because they love all that is connected with their fulfillment, but drop them gently into the lap of history and be promptly ready to accept of prophecy as it becomes present truth, heartily believing and indorsing it as such, then truth would not fail from the land, neither would it “fall in the streets.” And if it were in their hearts “to plead for truth,” they would also “call for justice,” and as a legitimate result, equity would enter and constitute a leading and noble feature of our lives. IVORY COLCORD. “Him that comes unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” I stood outside the gate,
A poor wayfaring child;
Within my heart there beat
A tempest loud and wild.
A fear oppressed my soul,
That I might be too late;
And oh! I trembled sore,
And prayed, outside the gate. “Mercy!” I loudly cried;
“Oh! give me rest from sin!”
“I will,” a voice replied,
And Mercy let me in.
She bound my bleeding wounds;
She soothed my aching head;
She eased my burdened soul,
And bore the load instead. In Mercy’s guise, I knew
The Saviour long abused;
Who often sought my heart,
And wept when I refused.
Oh! what a blest return
For ignorance and sin!
I stood outside the gate,
And Jesus let me in! “LAY ASIDE EVERY WEIGHT.”—As applied to Christians, it means that they should remove all which would obstruct progress in the Christian course. It is not the same thing in all persons. In one, it may be pride; in another, vanity; in another, worldliness; in another, a violent and ungovernable temper; in another, a heavy laden, insensible heart; in another, some improper and unholy attachment. Some persons would make much more progress if they would disencumber themselves of the heavy weight of gold which they are endeavoring to carry with them. Even a feather or a ring may become such a weight that they never will make much progress toward the prize.—Barnes. In replying to the Sabbath Recorder, on future punishment, in REVIEW No. 9, we quoted 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12, and remarked, “This is the perdition of ungodly men, and the hell in which we believe.” To this the Recorder of Feb. 27, replies:— “The quotations in the Review and Herald from 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12, declare the miserable earthly end of the wicked, living at the time of the destruction of the world by fire, but prove nothing concerning the nature of their future punishment. The form of reasoning followed by the Review and Herald entirely cuts off the idea of future punishment, as it also does a judgment after death. It also denies the resurrection of the wicked; for it would be most unreasonable to suppose that they would be raised and judged again after they had received their full doom. According, then, to this reasoning, the world of human beings destroyed by the flood, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, and all who have suffered death by a direct judgment of God, are blotted out forever! Why not, then, all who die of drunkenness and debauchery, or even of cancer, small-pox, or consumption! Let there, then, be no double dealing here, but at once throw off the mask, and plainly say, that to the wicked, to all who die on account of their sins, there is no hereafter.” Never having been guilty of double dealing, as we complacently believe, we do not apprehend that we shall incur any guilt in that respect on the question before us; and not being in possession of a mask, we are unable to comply with the Recorder’s request to throw it off. We do think, however, that we can offer a few words of explanation, which will enable that paper to understand our position which it now very evidently misapprehends. If we believed that 2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12, described simply the “miserable earthly end of the wicked,” as the Recorder holds, and if we believed that any infliction of temporal death ever did or could constitute the full doom of the wicked, then we should stand demolished by its ponderous blows; but as it is, it strikes at a phantom of its own creation, and has hit us only in imagination. So far from denying the resurrection, our view makes it necessary. There shall be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust, the Scriptures declare: an event very unnecessary in the cases of either the righteous or the wicked, if death leaves us more alive than it finds us. But the resurrection of these two classes is not at the same time. Rev. 20:1-5 places a thousand years between them. The righteous are raised at the second coming of Christ. 1 Thess. 4:16. The living wicked are then destroyed. 2 Thess. 1:7, 8; 2:8; Rev. 19:21, &c. But this is not their final destruction or perdition, of which Peter speaks. And why not? If death is the penalty for sin, were not the antediluvians, the Sodomites, &c., destroyed for their sins? and will not the wicked be destroyed for their wickedness at the second coming of Christ? and why is not this the last of them? Answer. Because since death has passed upon all the race as the result of Adam’s sin, this death is not, and cannot be, under any circumstances, inflicted upon us as the penalty for our own personal transgressions. But every one, as is consistent and just, is to give account for his own deeds, and by them is to be judged. According to his own works is to be his eternal destiny. If his sins are unrepented of, and unforgiven, he will find that, as in the beginning, death is still the wages of sin; and beyond that scene, there is to the transgressor no hereafter. There is no way that the wicked can give account of themselves to God, unless they are raised from the dead; hence their resurrection is a necessity for this very purpose. Some seem to find great injustice in the idea that the wicked should ever be raised, if literal death is the penalty for sin. This is to us simply astonishing. Far sooner should we expect them to become perplexed and bewildered over the simple proposition that two and two make four. The two deaths that the sinner dies are very clearly brought to view by the prophet Ezekiel: “When a righteous man turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die.” Eze. 18:26. Here a person turns from righteousness to sin, and in that iniquity dies. Then something else follows: For that iniquity he is to die. Having died in it, he is afterward to die for it. How can this be? By being raised to give account of his deeds to God, and then, as he had died once on account of Adam’s sin, dying at last for his own. And John, speaking of these deaths in their numerical order, calls this, as it literally is, the second death. Rev. 20:14, 15. Were not, then, the special judgments which God has brought upon the wicked from time to time, punishments for their sins? They were manifestations of God’s anger against sin in this respect, and to just this degree; that God thereby declared that he could no longer suffer them to go on in their guilty career. It was simply a cutting short of their life; but their death, in itself considered, was not a punishment for their sins, inasmuch as they would have suffered death, sooner or later, in the natural course of events, had no such judgment intervened. A thousand years after the resurrection of the righteous, the wicked are raised, and judged according to the things written in the books. Fire then comes down from God out of Heaven to execute upon them the sentence written. Then the earth and the elements, which do not melt with fervent heat at the second coming of Christ, melt, become gasified, or “flee away” before the burning presence of Him who sits upon the great white throne. Rev. 20:9, 11. This is the burning day to which Peter refers (2 Pet. 3:7, 10-12), and Malachi (Mal. 4:1); and here we repeat what we trust will now be better understood than it seems thus far to have been, that this is the perdition of ungodly men and the hell in which we believe; not simply the earthly end of the wicked, but their final punishment at the end of the thousand years; for here all the wicked are raised, and here, and here only, they answer for the deeds done by themselves in this mortal life, and receive the punishment which their crimes deserve. Will the candid reader now say that our mode of reasoning “entirely cuts off the idea of future punishment”? or “a judgment after death”? or “the resurrection of the wicked”? No. We have a place for all these things. And with the view here set forth, there is, in our eyes at least, consistency and harmony throughout; we can give every event the order and time which the Scriptures assign it, and describe it in the very phraseology which they have seen fit to employ in revealing to us these fearful scenes. EDITOR REVIEW: Were Belshazzar, Nabonnedus, and Labynetus, one and the same person, as we understand from Rollin? Or, was Belshazzar the son of Nabonnedus, as Sir Henry Rawlinson testifies? Admitting Rawlinson’s testimony to be true, how shall we harmonize it with your Thoughts on Daniel? And does it not seem from Daniel’s account that Belshazzar was the only king or ruler at that time? The testimony of Rawlinson to which I refer is found in Smith’s Bible Dictionary, under the head of Belshazzar, published in 1871. Yours in Christian love,
W. W. Sharp. ANSWER. The most satisfactory account, with which we have ever met, of the succession of kings in the Babylonish Empire, from Nebuchadnezzar down to the overthrow of that empire, is found in Prideaux’s Connection, Vol. i, pp. 132, 133, and on the authority of that, the succession is given in Thoughts on Daniel, p. 40, as follows: 1. Nebuchadnezzar. 2. Evilmerodach, Nebuchadnezzar’s son. 3. Neriglissar, husband of Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter. 4. Laborosoarchod, Neriglissar’s son. 5. Belshazzar, Evilmerodach’s son, and direct grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. We transcribe the following paragraphs from Prideaux on this point. Having given an account of Laborosoarchod, he says:— “After him succeeded Nabonadius, and reigned seventeen years. Berosus calls him Nabonnedus; Megasthenes, Nabonnidochus; Herodotus, Labynetus; and Josephus, Naboandelus, who, he saith, is the same with Belshazzar. And there is as great a difference among writers what he was, as well as what he was called. Some will have him to be of the royal blood of Nebuchadnezzar, and others, no way at all related to him. And some say he was a Babylonian, and others, that he was of the seed of the Medes. And of those who allow him to have been of the royal family of Nebuchadnezzar, some will have it that he was his son, and others, that he was his grandson.” “For the clearing of this matter, these following particulars are to be taken notice of: First, That he is on all hands agreed to have been the last of the Babylonish kings. Secondly, That therefore he must have been the same who in Scripture is called Belshazzar; for, immediately after the death of Belshazzar, the kingdom was given to the Medes and Persians. Dan. 5: 28, 30, 31. Thirdly, That he was of the seed of Nebuchadnezzar; for he is called his son; and Nebuchadnezzar is said to be his father, in several places of the same fifth chapter of Daniel; and in the second book of Chronicles (chap. 36: 20), it is said that Nebuchadnezzar and his children, or offspring, reigned at Babylon till the kingdom of Persia. Fourthly, That the nations of the East were to serve Nebuchadnezzar, and his son, and his son’s son, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah (chap. 27: 7); and therefore he must have had a son, and a son’s son, successors to him in the throne of Babylon. Fifthly, That as Evilmerodach was his son, so none but Belshazzar, of all the kings that reigned after him at Babylon, could be his son’s son; for Neriglissar was only his daughter’s husband, and Laborosoarchod was the son of Neriglissar; and therefore neither of them was either son, or son’s son, to Nebuchadnezzar. Sixthly, That this last king of Babylon is said by Herodotus to be son to the great queen Nitocris; and therefore she must have been the wife of a king of Babylon to make her so; and he could have been none other than Evilmerodach; for by that king of Babylon, only, could she have a son that was son’s son to Nebuchadnezzar.” “And therefore putting all this together, it appears that this Nabonadius, the last king of Babylon, was the same with him that in Scripture is called Belshazzar; and that he was the son of Evilmerodach, by Nitocris his queen, and so son’s son to Nebuchadnezzar. And that whereas he is called the son of Nebuchadnezzar in the fifth chapter of Daniel, and Nebuchadnezzar is there called his father, this is to be understood in the large sense, wherein any ancestor upward is often called father, and any descendant downward, son, according to the usual style of Scripture.” NAMES OF THE DAYS OF THE WEEK.
THE present names of the days of the week, as is well known, are of heathen origin, being dedicated to the divinities which were adored by pagans in ancient times. According to Gibbon, this dates back to the remotest period of which we have any authentic secular history, even to the time when the traditions of the creation and the deluge were fresh in the minds of the people. In his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” vol. v., p. 96, he says:— “In a remote period of antiquity, Sabianism was diffused over Asia by the science of the Chaldeans, and the arms of the Assyrians. From the observations of two thousand years, the priests and astronomers of Babylon deduced the eternal laws of nature and providence. They adored the seven gods, or angels, who directed the course of the seven planets, and shed their irresistible influence on the earth. The attributes of the seven planets, with the seven signs of the zodiac, and the twenty-four constellations of the northern and southern hemisphere, were represented by images and talismans; the seven days of the week were dedicated to their respective deities: the Sabians prayed thrice each day; and the temple of the moon at Haran was the term of their pilgrimage. But the flexible genius of their faith was ready either to teach or to learn: in the tradition of the creation, the deluge, and the patriarchs, they held a singular agreement with their Jewish captives; they appealed to the secret books of Adam, Seth, and Enoch; and a slight infusion of the gospel has transformed the last remnant of the polytheists into the Christians of St. John, in the territory of Bassora.” It is an important fact to remember that the name of God is found in the first table of the law, which constitutes his signature to that incomparable document, and shows to his creatures his title of royalty, and the source of his authority and power. An examination of the first four commandments, reveals the fact that his distinctive title is found alone in the fourth commandment, which enjoins his Sabbath. This truth has an important bearing on such prophecies as Rev. 7: 2, and 14: 1. Hence it is a matter of interest to learn that the first table was looked upon as containing the name of God. Gibbon thus speaks:— “It is the boast of the Jewish apologists, that, while the learned nations of antiquity were deluded by the fables of polytheism, their simple ancestors of Palestine preserved the knowledge and worship of the true God. . . . Each page of the Pentateuch and the Prophets is an evidence of his power: the unity of his name is inscribed on the first table of the law; and his sanctuary was never defiled by any visible image of the invisible essence.”—Id. p. 104. FRIDAY THE MAHOMETAN SABBATH.
It has been well observed that the true Sabbath, the seventh day, has been crucified between the papal sabbath, or the first day of the week, and the Mahometan sabbath, or Friday, even as the Lord of the Sabbath was crucified on Calvary between two thieves. That Friday was the Mahometan sabbath, Gibbon thus testifies:— “Among the theists, who reject the use of images, it has been found necessary to restrain the wanderings of the fancy, by directing the eye and the thought toward a kebla, or visible point of the horizon. The prophet was at first inclined to gratify the Jews by the choice of Jerusalem; but he soon returned to a more natural partiality; and five times every day the eyes of the nations at Astracan, at Fez, at Delhi, are devoutly turned to the holy temple at Mecca. Yet every spot for the service of God is equally pure: the Mahometans indifferently pray in their chamber or in the street. As a distinction from the Jews and Christians, the Friday in each week is set apart for the useful institution of public worship: the people is assembled in the mosch; and the imam, some respectable elder, ascends the pulpit, to begin the prayer, and pronounce the sermon.”—Id. p. 114. The Word of God Defamed.
By R. F. Cottrell
The confusion of sectarianism is defamation against the word of God. That word is not so dark as not to point out clearly the path of duty. The great apostasy came as foretold, and the word of God was hidden from the people; but the reformation has followed, and the word is in the hands of all who desire it. And now there is no excuse for remaining in ignorance and neglecting to do the duties so plainly enjoined in that word. But as light advances, men professing godliness prefer to follow their erroneous traditions instead of walking in the light. If any advance in the work of reforming their errors, they must leave others behind. These persuade themselves that their errors are equally good as the truth, if sincerely held, and they know that they came honestly by them; and they come to the conclusion, as some have expressed it, that if they are lost from preferring error to truth they will be honestly lost. The Christian world are divided into a great number of sects. All have some errors and some truth. Many have a sense that the Christian church should be united—that the disciples of Christ should be one. But seeing no good prospect that any will give up their errors for the sake of union, they propose to unite as they are, retaining all their errors, thus making no difference between error and truth. The idea of such a union being necessary, detracts from the word of God as a rule of faith and practice. As much as to say that the path of duty is so imperfectly defined in the Bible that a compromise of truth and error is necessary for the union of believers in it as a revelation from God. And it is esteemed a virtue for one to be so liberal as to receive and fellowship all denominations without regard to truth or error; making the revealed truth of God of less importance than the opinions of those who differ with that word. Professed Christians pride themselves on such liberality, forgetting that it degrades the word of God to accommodate the customs and traditions of men. We believe in being courteous to all of every sect. But we cannot degrade the word of the Most High to exalt the traditions and opinions of men. Let God be true, though all men are proved to be liars. Errorists seem to be conscious of the weakness of their position, and they will frequently admit the truth, only claiming that their deviations are harmless and just as good as the truth. For example, they will admit that immersion is true and valid baptism; but claim that sprinkling will answer the demand just as well. They are perfectly willing you should hold and obey the truth, if you will only admit that their error is just as good. Now there is a special effort being made to unite the different sects; and it is to be done upon free, democratic principles. Majorities rule; therefore the majority would have the control in such a union. But the Bible being true, the majority are in error; and so error will bear the sway and vote down the truth. The proposal for a compromising union is a proposal to degrade the word of God and exalt the doctrines and commandments of men that make void that word. R. F. COTTRELL. God's Purposes and the Use of Means
By Spurgeon
We must never fall into the delusion that the purposes of God set aside the use of means. I have heard thoughtless or captious talkers say, “If God works out his purposes, then there is no need for preaching, or any other means.” Ah, simpleton that thou art, if we teach you that God works out his purposes by means, how mad must you be to charge us with thinking lightly of the means!—Spurgeon.