Review and Herald, Vol. 4, No. 14.
Views and Experience in relation to Entire Consecration and the Second Advent:Page 1
Earlier text: Views and Experience in relation to Entire Consecration and the Second Advent:A few reasons why we are not under the law.
By John Norton Loughborough
“For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law but under grace.” Rom. vi, 14. Much is said by those who oppose the Sabbath of the Lord, relative to the abolition of the law of God which he spake from Sinai, and often are we met with the text before us, which doubtless the advocates of the no-Sabbath theory, suppose sustains their position. Not long since an article appeared in the Advent Harbinger, from the pen of L. P. Judson, entitled, “Forty-one reasons why we are not under the law,” in which the writer endeavors to maintain that the reason we are not under the law is that the law is abolished, and he quotes largely from the apostle Paul, to maintain, if possible, his position. I shall be obliged in my investigation of this matter to dissent from the writer referred to, although, with the Apostle, I contend that a Christian is “not under the law but under grace.” Why are not Christians under the law? is it because the law has undergone a change in the change of dispensations, or has the change taken place in us? Are the people of this dispensation so much more willing to obey God than the Jews, that it requires a law less strict to govern them than the Jews; by no means; for says Paul, “evil men shall wax worse and worse.” The position of our opponents, as already stated, is this: in the past dispensation the Jews were under the law, but now we are not under it, because it is abolished. Before passing farther, I would notice that the position of our no-Sabbath friends destroys itself; for if the law has been abolished, we could not be under it, if we wished to. When a law is repealed (or abolished) it ceases to be a law. It is not a rule of action. The definition given by Walker, is: “law—rule of action.” If this definition be correct, when a statute ceases to be a rule of action, it ceases to be a law.—And according to the position of our opponents, God’s law ceased to be a rule of action at the cross; in other words, ceased to be a law. But Paul says we are not under the law, some rule of action, the ten commandments according to their own position. But to return to the text. Paul here states a fact, and afterwards assigns his reasons for so doing. Fact—“Sin shall not have dominion over you.” Reason—“For ye are not under the law.” Then when a man is under the law, sin has dominion over him, and the implication is, if sin had dominion over them, they would be under the law.—Over whom does sin have dominion? not those who live in obedience to the law, but sinners. The next verse to our text (the 15th verse of the same chapter) is, also, destructive to the position of our no-Sabbath friends. “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” Rom. vi, 15. We inquire, what is sin? “The transgression of the law.” 1 John iii, 4. What law is sin the transgression of? The law to which we are amenable. To what law are we amenable? To the law of God. Then sin is any transgression of the law of God. But says the objector, we are amenable only to the law of Christ. To suit that theory, the text should read thus: For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not amenable to the ten commandments, (or under them,) but grace; what then, shall we transgress the law of Christ, because we are not under the ten commandments?—God forbid. But we do not feel disposed to grant such lenity.—We ask, what law is it that they are not to transgress? The very one they are not under. What law is it that they are not under? The ten commandments, as all admit. Then Paul’s argument is that we are not to transgress the law, because we have been pardoned, and thus liberated from its grasp; and if we transgress again we shall become ensnared, and brought into bondage. Paul speaks, also, in Rom. iii, of those who are under the law. “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped and all the world become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Rom. iii, 19, 20. By what law is the knowledge of sin? The very law we cannot be justified by; and that is the law that saith whatsoever it saith, to those who are under it. It speaks to sinners in all dispensations. But some would have it read, the law said; but Paul says, it saith, or, in other words, was then speaking. Then the law of which Paul spake was a rule of action, at the time he spake; and this law was the ten commandments, according to the admission, even of our enemies. Some of our friends would urge, because Paul says we cannot be justified by the law, that, therefore, we are not to keep it. But he says,—“the doers of the law shall be justified.” Rom. ii, 18. How? by doing the law? no, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.—“Therefore, we conclude, that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law.” Rom. iii, 28. We have found by these texts, who are under the law. They are those who transgress it. The lawless ones, that the law was made for. The law was made for the lawless and disobedient, [1 Tim. i, 9.] to bring them to the path of rectitude. The ultimate design of the law was, doubtless, to show men their rebellion against God. “Moreover the law entered, that the offence (or transgression) might abound.” Rom. v, 20. But why are not Christians under the law? We answer, because they are not transgressors. Although they once were, they have been delivered from that position through the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, which has been spilt to obtain their pardon, and redemption from the curse of the law. Then we conclude that the reason why we are not under the law is, that a change has taken place in us. This change is fully presented in Rom. vii. But here our opponents again claim to have an argument for the abolition of the law. The ground claimed is, that the law had dominion over the Jews till the time of Christ; that the church was bound to the law till the law died, and then they were freed from it. But we inquire, was this the argument of the Apostle?109“Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” Here Paul several years past the time when it is claimed that Christ abolished the law, and placed it where it could have dominion over no one, says, it “hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth.” He proceeds to state: “For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as her husband liveth; so then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress. . . . But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, ye are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” It is claimed that the reason why we are “become dead to the law” is, that the law has been abolished. But can this conclusion be drawn from the text itself? We think not without marring the language of the Apostle. Why is it that we are dead to the law? is it not because we have been liberated from sin, that the law has relaxed its grasp upon us, and justice has been satisfied by the atoning blood of Jesus?—We are disposed to incline to this position. The exposition of the second and third verses claimed is that the law bound the church to itself, till the time of Christ, and now we are liberated, because the law is dead. But we ask, first, if this be the case, for the similarity between the illustration, and the point illustrated? In the fact stated, which is used for an illustration, there are three things introduced. The woman, the law and the husband; and two of them are bound together by the third; and that third which binds them is the law. But in the application made by our opponents, there are but two points used, and it is claimed that the law bound the church to itself; but in place of that, two parties, aside from the law, are bound together by the law; and furthermore, the conclusion drawn by the Apostle is not, that we have been liberated from the law because the law is dead, but that we have died, and, therefore are free to be married to another, because our relation to our first husband has been changed by death. The illustration would not prove that we have been bound to the law; but that we have been bound by the law. The fact that a woman’s husband dies, does not change the law that bound her to her husband; but it does change her relation to him; for he is no longer her husband. But does it, therefore, follow that when she marries a second husband, she will have a right to marry again, while her second husband liveth? Nay, verily; the same law that bound her to her first husband, binds her to her second husband. Neither would it necessarily follow because “we have become dead to the law,” the law has undergone a change. We now inquire, what was our first husband?—and what occasioned the bondage spoken of? says Paul, in the fifth verse, “For when we were in the flesh, the motions (margin, passions) of sins, which were by the law, (or which the law makes manifest, or discovers,) did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” This shows that the time we were bound to our first husband, was when we were in the flesh, or before, “The old man was crucified with his deeds.” Says the same Apostle, speaking to believers: “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so, be that the spirit of God dwell in you.—Romans viii. 9. And according to his testimony to his Ephesian brethren, this spirit is received, after we believe in Christ. Romans vii, 6, reads as follows: “But now we are delivered from the law that being dead wherein we were held; (margin being dead to that,) that we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter;” or in other words: “Fulfill (obey) the royal law according to the scripture, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,’ James ii, 8. We have previously shown in this article that sin has dominion over a man when he is under the law; and according to this, it is sin he is held in; so if he is dead to that he was held in, he is dead to sin,” Rom. vi, 2. So, then, we conclude with Paul, that we are delivered from that to which we were “bound by the law,” “our first husband,” “sin;” and that we should be married to Jesus Christ. And instead of letting “sin reign in our mortal bodies, to obey it in the lusts thereof,” our bodies should be fit “temples for the living God,” instead of our passions being at the control of the adversary, we should have Christ formed within, the hope of glory, and bring every thought and word in subjection to his will. And instead of being under that law, which justly binds all (who transgress it) to death, we should be children of obedience, and obey in spirit, the same law of love which was “ordained unto life,” for the faithful, but is found by transgressors, to be unto death.” Instead of the old man with his deeds, we should “put on the new man which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness,” and henceforth, “present ourselves a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God,” and yield ourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and our members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Some object that it is not the law we are to serve, because it says: “serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter;” and they suppose it is not spiritual. But says Paul: “The law is spiritual, but I am carnal sold under sin.” Rom. vii. 14. We call attention to Rom. vii. 4, as given by James Macknight. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also have been put to death by the law, in the body of Christ, in order that ye may be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.” The reader will at once perceive that the reason why we have become dead to the law, as expressed in our translation, is not because the law is dead, or because the law has undergone a change, but because we have been slain by it, and our relation to sin, thereby, has been changed. We find ourselves no longer servants of sin, and proceed to join ourselves to Christ, the living vine, that we may bring forth fruit to his glory. But it is the grace of God, alone, which has placed us in this position. Instead now of being bound to sin by the law, the goodness of God constrains us to serve him; and while we are beholding the exceeding loveliness of his character, we are led to exclaim with the Apostle, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgements, and his ways past finding out!” Rom. xi, 33. Truly, we are under grace; for, “grace is reigning through righteousness,” (obedience to God,) and by it are we already saved through faith. “We have been put to death by the law in the body of Jesus Christ.” The law requires the lives of all those who transgress it, “For the wages of sin is death.” The law knows no attribute but justice and will be satisfied with nothing short of its claims. The stern decree of Jehovah has gone forth, that disobedience to his law must be met with its just due, “death.” And aside from the way Jesus has opened that we might be absolved from sin and guilt, we should perish for ever, without mercy. There is no justification by the law; but it is found alone by faith in Jesus, our mediator. We subjoin an extract from the writings of Christmas Evans, in which is beautifully illustrated the stern requirements of the law of God; and the plan of salvation which has been opened through the blood of Jesus, by which mercy has been permitted to enter the world. THE SEVENTH-DAY SABBATH NOT ABOLISHED!
By Editor
Those who teach that there is no Sabbath for the gospel dispensation, are requested to give us one plain text from the New Testament that teaches, “without note or comment,” that the seventh-day Sabbath has been abolished. When any one will do this, we will notice it in the REVIEW. THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK NOT THE SABBATH!
THOSE who teach that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, are requested to give us one text from the New Testament that teaches such a change; or the example of Christ and the Apostles, recorded in the New Testament, favoring such a change. When any one will point out such a text and such example, it shall be given in the REVIEW. ‘BRETHREN, if I were to represent to you in a figure the condition of man as a sinner, and of his recovery by the death of Christ, I should represent it somewhat in this way: Suppose a large grave-yard, surrounded by a high wall, with only one entrance, which is by a large, iron gate which is fast bolted.— Within these walls are thousands and tens of thousands of human beings, of all ages and of all classes, by one epidemic disease bending to the grave. The grave yawns to swallow them, and they must all die. There is no balm to relieve them; no physician there; they must perish. This is the condition of man as a sinner. All, all have sinned, and the soul that sinneth, it shall die. While man was in this deplorable state, Mercy, the darling attribute of Deity, came down and stood at the gate, looking at the scene, and wept over it, exclaiming, “Oh that I might enter! I would bind up their wounds, I would relieve their sorrows, I would save their souls!” When Mercy stood weeping at the gate, an embassy of angels, commissioned from the Court of Heaven to some other world, passing over, paused at the sight, and Heaven forgave that pause; and, seeing Mercy standing there, they cried, “Mercy, Mercy, can you not enter? Can you look upon this scene, and not pity? Can you pity, and not relieve?” Mercy replied, “I can see;” and in her tears she added, “I can pity, but I cannot relieve!” “Why can you not enter?” “Oh,” said Mercy, “Justice has barred the gate against me, and I cannot, must not unbar it.” At this moment Justice himself appeared, as it were to watch the gate.—The angels inquired of him, “Why will you not let Mercy in?” Justice replied, “My law is broken, and it must be honored. Die they, or Justice must!”—At this there appeared a form among the angelic band like unto the Son of God, who, addressing himself to Justice, said, “What are thy demands?” Justice replied, “My terms are stern and rigid. I must have sickness for their health; I must have ignominy for their honor; I must have death for life. Without shedding of blood there is no remission.” “Justice,” said the Son of God, “I accept thy terms. On me be this wrong, and let Mercy enter.” “When,” said Justice, “will you perform this promise?” Jesus replied, “Four thousand years hence, upon the hill of Calvary, without the gates of Jerusalem, I will perform it in my own person.” The deed was prepared and signed in the presence of the angels of God. Justice was satisfied, and Mercy entered, preaching salvation in the name of Jesus. The deed was committed to the patriarchs, by them to the kings of Israel and the prophets; by them it was preserved till Daniel’s seventy weeks were accomplished. Then, at the appointed time, Justice appeared on the hill of Calvary, and mercy presented to him the important deed.—“Where,” said Justice, “is the Son of God?” Mercy answered, “Behold him at the bottom of the hill, bearing his own cross;” and then she departed and stood aloof at the hour of trial. Jesus ascended the hill, while in his train followed his weeping Church.—Justice immediately presented him with this deed, saying, “This is the day when this bond is to be executed.” When he received it, did he tear it in pieces, and give it to the winds of heaven? No, he nailed it to the cross, exclaiming, “It is finished.”— “London Jewish Expositor.” But we ask, has all this in any way, so affected God’s law, that we are free to violate the precept which it advocates? By no means; for Paul says in one of his epistles, “I will that thou affirm constantly that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.” Titus iii. 8. The good works we are to maintain, we understand to be, the discharging of all our duties. Says the wise man, “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man.” But says the objector, Paul tells them, in Titus iii. 9, to “Avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”—Therefore, it cannot be, that the good works they were to perform, were the keeping of the commandments. It would not follow, because we were to avoid foolish questions about the law, that we were to say nothing about it. If this proves anything, it would prove that the subject was discussed and they were teaching the people in relation to the law; but were to avoid foolish questions. Often110when we go out to preach God’s truth, we are met in the same way with foolish questions, but endeavor to avoid them. Says the same Apostle, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Or as presented in the quotation from Evans, Because Jesus has died to satisfy Justice, that the gate might be unbarred for Mercy to enter; it would not follow that the wall around the whole grave-yard had been thrown down, so that suffering ones could escape or help themselves without the aid of Mercy. Nay, although Mercy is within the enclosure, Justice still watcheth, that those who will not hear Mercy cannot leave the enclosure, but must suffer the same as though Mercy had never entered. Faith in Jesus does not make void the law; for when we come to Jesus, and ask him to pardon us we must believe on him, and believe that he died for us; when we come thus to him, we must first feel our want, which is a pardon of our transgression of the law. “We establish the law,” by admitting it still to be in existence, or else we would not come to Jesus to be pardoned for our transgression of it. Stern Justice still lives, although we have satisfied its claims, not in ourselves, but by faith in the work performed by our Great High Priest the Son of God, who was made a little lower than the angels, but is now seated at the right hand of God, a Mediator for us. Heaven’s arches ring with songs of joy and praise that Justice can still be satisfied, and yet guilty man find pardon. “I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons who need no repentance.” Luke xv, 7. Rochester, N. Y., Oct., 1853. We find, by conversing with brethren, that the principal objection against our views arise from the prevailing opinion that the church is the bride. But when we ask them to harmonize the word of God with that supposition, they appeal to the words of Paul, in which he refers to the love of Christ “to the Church,” to show how men should “love their wives;” and to the subjection of the church to Christ—her head—to show the subjection of the wife to the husband. Eph. v, 22-25. To which the apostle adds: “this is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.” Now it is contended, that “Christ will not have an inanimate city, for a wife,” and as they can find something like the idea that the church is the bride, in the words of Paul—a better wife, it is thought, than a city—and since they can make out that the church is the bride, it can hardly be admitted that the marriage of the Lamb will take place before the church is glorified. It should, however, be kept in mind, that it is not our work to see what we can make out, from the Bible; but what God has spoken. Not, what can we make it mean? but, what does God mean?—And Adventists need not be informed that that meaning of any text, which may be carried through the Bible, is to be received as the true meaning; that which cannot be sustained without torture and surgery must be from the old “murderer.” One way to enable men to see any one truth is to show them the absurdities of the error which occupies or claims its place. Allowing then, that the church is called the bride of Christ, and that the Holy City is also called his bride, can there be any propriety in saying that the City is not the bride, but the Church is? Let us look at a parallel case. It is said by Christ himself, in the case of the bread at the supper, “this is my body.” Luke xxii, 19. It is said of the members of the church, “now ye are the body of Christ,” 1 Cor. xii, 27. What, now, should we say of the man who should attempt to prove that the church cannot be the body of Christ, because the bread is his body? Because the bread is his body in one sense, does it prove that the church is not his body in another sense? Again. Allowing the church is to be the bride, who are “the nations of the saved” that walk in her light? Rev. xxi, 24. If the church is the city—the tabernacle of God—who are the “men,” “with” whom the tabernacle, or church is to “be” and who are to “be his people?” Rev. xxi, 2, 3. If the church is the wife, who are they that are “called to the marriage supper of the Lamb,” as guests? Rev. xix, 9. If “Jerusalem which is above, the mother of us all,” is the church, who are the children? And how could Isaiah say of her: “this is the heritage of the servants of the Lord?” Compare Gal. iv, 26, 27, and Isaiah liv, 1—17. Can any one fail to see, that there is the same difference between the husband the wife and the children—between the Bridegroom the bride and the guests, that there is between “the Prince of the host, the sanctuary and the host—(Dan. viii, 11, 13, 14.)—between “the Heir of all” the “inheritance” and the “joint heirs?” If any one insists that a city is an unsuitable bride for Christ, we can only regret that it is necessary to correct ideas, which suppose that there can be any more “suitableness” in an animate church, than an inanimate city, as a bride for Christ. They must have received their notions from the same source from which “the holy Catholic Church” has derived hers. She speaks of herself as “the spouse of Christ,”—an indulgent mother!! &c. The bride must necessarily denote something distinct from the church; and the marriage act must denote his actual entering into union and covenant with that bride. God tells us that that bride is the holy city; and when we believe the word of God just as he has given it to us, in this case, and suppose the marriage to denote the actual reception of the throne by Christ, all is plain, all is harmonious; and we have as strait a path; as well defined a position; as we have had in any other case. To suppose any thing else to be denoted, makes all confusion. The following principles and proof texts may be of service to our brethren. 2. The necessary order of the different parts of the marriage arrangement is this: first, the coming to the marriage; second, the marriage itself; third, the marriage supper. 3. The marriage, on any supposition, cannot take place here on earth. If it is the union of Christ to the church it must take place where they meet him—“in the air.” 1. Thess. iv, 17. If it is the reception of the throne it must take place in the presence of “the Ancient of Days,”—in heaven. Daniel vii, 13, 14; Luke i, 32, 33; Rev. xi, 15. 4. As “the guests” go in “to the marriage” before a final decision is made, according to Matthew xxii, 9—14, it would seem to be impossible that the going in to the marriage can mean our being caught up to meet the Lord, as God will never change a person to immortality who will afterwards be found unfit for it. 5. The true midnight cry only carries the virgins “in to the marriage,” which evidently precedes their being changed to a state of immortality. 6. There appears to be a marked distinction between the coming of the Bridegroom to the marriage, and his coming as the King of glory; as there is also between our going in with him to the marriage, and our meeting him as the Lord returning from the wedding. Luke xii, 37; Rev. iii, 20, 21. Let not our brethren be discouraged if they find themselves in the condition of the poor widow, Luke xviii. That is the picture of what our condition is to be at the time of deliverance—“when the Son of Man cometh.” And why should we be surprised if there should be but little faith to be found at that time? While we are careful not to denounce those who do not agree with us in every particular, as being destitute of true faith in the coming of the Lord; we may be pretty sure that those who oppose us, as the enemies of the Advent doctrine generally have done, are of the same spirit. Never did we need to act independently and carefully, in our investigations of the truth, more than at the present time.—Advent Mirror, 1845. THE IMPORTANCE OF OBEDIENCE.
By S. T. Belden
The subject of obedience is one to which is attached the most importance of any that can be found in the Bible. It is the foundation of all the law and the prophets. Says Jesus: [Matt. xxii, 40;] “On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” It is a matter of course then, that all the promises of God are conditional, and can be obtained only by strict compliance with the conditions. It is not consistent that the promises of God should conflict with his own government or standard of right. Should he make promises which if fulfilled, he would be obliged to disregard or destroy his own government—the foundation of the Bible—we see that it would destroy the promise itself. Let those who profess to be looking for the blessed hope and are resting on the idea that God has abolished his law, the ten commandments, while they cannot present scripture testimony to prove their position, think of this, and be sure that they lay up for themselves a good foundation that they may be able to stand when this earth shall “reel to and fro like a drunkard; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.” Isa. xxiv, 20. It is the delight of the true child of the Lord to study the blessed Bible. He finds it a sure foundation, a prop that he can ever lean upon with safety; and a sweet heavenly peace pervades his mind as he advances in the knowledge of it: he confidently relies on it as his guide. And although he may be surrounded with darkness and error on every hand, he will have light in his dwelling. Why is it that he thus loves his Bible? I answer, It is because he is obedient to its precepts. He feels when he reads it111that it does not condemn him; therefore, he can have confidence to believe that what is promised is for him, and he has a right to expect that what he asks for through the worthiness of Jesus, he will receive, because he loves God, and keeps his commandments, and does those things that are pleasing in his sight. This is the reason why he takes so much delight in it. They also have the promise that they shall know the truth. “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” John vii, 17. Now mark! It is those who do his will that have this promise of his guidance in their investigations. Can any willing and obedient child of his, help loving to peruse its sacred pages for light and understanding, when he has such a promise connected with it? And can it also but inspire confidence in him that his labor will not be fruitless? And he can adopt the language of Job, “Neither have I gone back from the commandments of his lips: I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.” Job xxiii, 12. And more than that, he feels that there is a necessity of understanding these great truths of the Bible; for the prophet Hosea says, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge;” [Hos. iv, 6, 14;] “therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.” We see it is often repeated by the prophets to the Jewish church, that had they been obedient and hearkened to the voice of the Lord, they might have been blessed and exalted above all the nations of the earth, and their City would have remained for ever if they had kept the Sabbath. Jer. vii, 25. Read from Chap. i—xx, and see what promises were given to them if they would obey him; also, the destruction threatened if they still continued in disobedience. In chapter v, 1, he promised them that if they could find a man that executed judgment, that sought the truth, and he would pardon it. “Oh that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments; then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea.” Isa. xlviii, 18. Jeremiah lamented over the wickedness of Jerusalem as follows: “Oh that my head were waters and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people, &c.” Jer. ix, 1. As Jesus beheld Jerusalem he wept over it saying, “If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things that belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.” Luke xix, 41–44. In view of these solemn declarations, we cannot fail to see and feel the importance of walking humbly before the Lord, and of searching carefully his word that we may know what is coming on the earth and be prepared to meet it before it is too late and not be left without a shelter in the time of trouble. Let us rather fear God, and keep his commandments which is the whole duty of man. I wish to notice some more of the testimony of the Bible relative to the promise. We may go back to our first parents and inquire what was lost by disobedience. They lost the favor of God, and a right to the tree of life: the earth was cursed, and man was driven from the beautiful garden where he had been placed, to labor under the curse, and till the ground for the support of his nature till he should return to the earth again. But praise the Lord, that there was left with him a ray of hope that the earth would not always remain in this deplorable condition. A promise was there given of a second Adam in this sense, that as Adam was the first transgressor, so death passed on all his posterity. So Christ, the first, perfectly obedient, or righteous Person, should bring his own, those begotten by him to a lively hope, again to eternal life; the earth again restored to its paradisiac state, and a way for fallen man to again have a right to the tree of life, and live in the sight of a holy God. See Rom. v, 12–21. No wonder that the patriarchs and prophets looked forward to such a glorious event with such earnestness. They very well knew what had befallen our race in consequence of transgression. They also knew very well, that through this Person was promised a restitution, and why should they not “search diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you. Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Here we learn with what interest the prophets searched and inquired that they might understand relative to this salvation. And it seems that the plan of salvation was revealed to them and they testified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. And it has always been the aim of the true church to inquire and search into this valuable treasure. There have been others whom the Lord calls righteous; viz., Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, &c., and this promise has been renewed or given to them, that through their seed should come the Deliverer. So we see that these holy men of God have ever been shut up to faith in the promise of God relative to it; and to those who have been obedient, it has been revealed by his Spirit, and they have seen them afar off, and have embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. O, what a glorious thought that all these righteous [obedient] men of God will come up in the resurrection of the just to receive the promise. But lest I wander farther from the subject before me, I will notice righteous Abraham. God has never forgotten his faithful servants. He met Abraham when he was performing one certain act of obedience, and made a promise to him that he should be called the father of the faithful, and that in his seed should all the nations of the earth be blessed. And in renewing the promise to Isaac, [Gen. xxvi, 4, 5,] it is stated that it was because that Abraham obeyed his voice and kept his commandments, his statutes and his laws. Here then is why the Lord loved him and gave him the promise; it follows then, that the true seed of Abraham are the faithful and righteous ones those who keep his commandments, his statutes and his laws, the holy Sabbath not excepted, unless you can prove that it is abolished. We might trace it down through the Bible and we would find that the obedient, are the ones that have the promises verified to them. Hear what the prophet Samuel said to Saul at a certain time when he had tried to improve upon the commandment of God, and declared that he had kept it, when in fact he had transgressed it.—The Lord told him to go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they had, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass, but instead of this, Saul spared the king and the best of his sheep, and of the oxen and of the fatlings and the lambs to sacrifice unto the Lord. But Samuel said, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifices, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” 1 Sam. xv, 22. No Position!
By Uriah Smith
One would suppose, that if a paper at this late age of the world, professing to advocate the whole truth on the important subject of the end of all things at hand, should at the same time claim to hold no position, it would be truly an anomaly; but we find that this is even the case. The Ad. Watchman for Sept. 28, speaking of the “new time theory,” says: “The Watchman, as a paper, has no position on this, or any other question.” Says the prophet, “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand.” Joel ii, 1. But says Paul, [1 Cor. xiv, 8,] “If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle.” Watchman, what of the night! Oh, we have no position. Any one may tell the time of night, and you may believe who you choose: the Watchman is not responsible! Where is the honest inquirer thus left? What will become of the traveler, when those who have taken their station on the watch-tower, refuse the responsibility of watching. The anxious inquiry comes up, What of the night? and the inquirer is left with a mixed multitude of views, a perfect babel of opinions, confused and bewildered. Says Ezekiel, [xxxiii, 6,] “But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman’s hand.” It is no time now, to be without a position. It is no time to be without a trumpet that will give a certain sound, that the world may be warned of the approach of the “day of wrath, of trouble and distress, of wasteness and desolation.” It is no time for the watchmen on the walls, to lay down their responsibility, and not mark the tokens of the coming day; but we should have our loins girt with Truth, and our lamps trimmed and burning, and we like unto men that wait for their Lord, when he will return from the wedding. Rochester, Oct. 6th, 1853. God has called none into his vineyard to be idle.—He has provided work for all, and has commanded all to work with all their might.