Review and Herald, Vol. 22, No. 1. (6/2/1863)

Review and Herald

Jun 2, 1863

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 2, 1863

Reason not Against an Atonement.

By John Harvey Kellogg

THE opposers of the Bible and of Bible truth have often declared that Christianity is opposed to reason, and that Nature presents to us a revelation more beautiful, more harmonious, and more important, than anything contained in the Bible. Especially has the great truth of the atonement been made the subject of opposition both by professed reasoning and ridicule. The object of this argument is to show that reason is not opposed to the idea of the atonement, but rather leads to it; that a co-incidence of strict justice and mercy demands it; and that a written revelation is but the supply of an acknowledged want; that the gift of such a revelation is a conformity to the plainest, simplest principles of government—principles universally recognized. And hence, consistency requires that such a revelation be universally received.

That Nature makes to us a better revelation than the Bible, I, of course, deny. The Bible and Nature never come in conflict; but the Bible leads into a field of truth where Nature can make no attempt to follow. We attach no blame to Nature because it does not perform the office of a written revelation. It was not designed for such a purpose. When we have learned all that we can learn from Nature, we find beyond that, a plain necessity for a written revelation. I invite the devotees of Nature to an examination of this point.

The present is a mixed state, of good and evil. Confined in our views to the present state, and to observation, or to mere reason without a written revelation, it is not possible to vindicate the justice and benevolence of the controlling power, whether that power be called God or Nature. Virtue is often trampled in the dust, and perishes in its representatives. Vice is exalted on high; triumphs over justice and right; and its very grave is decked with flowers, and honored with a monument. In the operations of Nature there is no discrimination made, without which there can be no conformity to justice. True, we see many exhibitions of benevolence, but we see also many things which cannot be reconciled with it. The righteous and the wicked, the just and the unjust, the innocent and the guilty, the aged and the little child, alike share the bounties of providence, and together fall by the pestilence, or sink beneath some sweeping destruction. These facts have troubled the minds of philosophers, and caused the short-sighted philanthropist to be faint of heart.

Reflecting on these things, some have (singularly enough) denied the existence of a God, or Supreme intelligent Being. Such ascribe everything to Nature, whose laws are fixed, inexorable, and indiscriminating. Having arrived at this conclusion, they seem to have relieved themselves of all further trouble in the matter, and (more wondrous still) proceed to lavish encomiums on blind Nature; awarding to her as much praise, as if she never tortured an innocent man, or suffered the guilty to escape. As before remarked, we find no fault with Nature, but we find fault with the unreasonable position of her devotees. The laws of Nature answer well their purpose, but this class of philosophers endeavor to make them answer a purpose for which they never were designed. We think just reasoning will remove their false props.

In the first place I inquire, what is meant by the phrase Laws of Nature? These words are very flippantly used in these days; and I have often thought that many who use them spend but little time in considering their import. There can be only two senses in which the expression can be used. 1. As meaning the laws which Nature has made for the regulation of her various parts or elements. And this is the sense in which it is commonly used by the opposers of the Bible. But against this I object that Nature never made any laws—she never knew enough to make a law. Did Nature deliberate? did she counsel? did she plan? did she have a knowledge of the future before her, and possess wisdom to judge what was suitable, and to devise the means adapted to the end? And if she made the laws she must have existed before she made them; how then were her operations regulated? Is there a man living who will claim so much for Nature? Not one. But if not, all must yield at once that Nature never made a law, and allow that the expression must properly be used (2) as meaning the law which a Supreme Being has made for the government of Nature: the same Infinite One that made Nature and subjected her to the operation of those laws. It is strange, and somewhat amusing, to hear men reject a belief in a Supreme Being as unreasonable and absurd, and then proceed to clothe Nature with all the wisdom and power, and all the attributes that such a Being must necessarily possess!

In the next place I assert that the Laws of Nature are imperfect or incomplete. Not imperfect if considered only in regard to their real object; but altogether imperfect as regards the claims of those who hold them to be all in all. They present no standard of right; and are therefore no fit model by which to frame human conduct. As lovers of the most expansive benevolence, we may strive to imitate Nature when she spreads abroad her bounties; her precious fruits and golden grain. But again she withholds these, and famine is the dire result. Shall we imitate Nature in the desolations of the whirlwind, the earthquake, or the pestilence? Shall we, reckless of consequences, spread indiscriminate ruin and destruction around us, involving alike the innocent and the guilty, the gray-headed and the prattling child? All answer, No. But each hand that is raised to check such a mad career practically acknowledges that Nature, who is so blindly worshipped by many, presents to us an example utterly unworthy of our imitation.

Why is it that the Laws of Nature do not satisfy the aspirations of man? Why do we not accept them as our standard of action? It is because they are destitute of morality. We cannot trace one moral element in their framework or execution. He who studies them intelligently, must be convinced that they are designed solely for a natural system; not for a moral system. Hence, they have no penalties, but only consequences; and these consequences are uniform. So that the operations of Nature present an unbroken series of causes and effects, the results being the same, whether issuing upon an animate or inanimate object, making no distinctions of moral good and evil.

In the foregoing question I referred to a truth which I now affirm, namely, that man has aspirations rising above the operations of Nature; that he does not accept the Laws of Nature as a judicial system. In other words, there is implanted in man a sense of justice, or convictions of right, of which he finds no counterpart in Nature. These convictions are on a moral basis. This sense of justice is erected in the human mind as a tribunal, a

judgment seat, whereat we determine the nature and desert of actions. But, mark this truth: before this tribunal we never arraign the operations of Nature; but we always do the actions of intelligent agents. This remark is true of all men; and it shows that all men, whatever their theories may be, do in fact, and in practice, make a proper distinction between moral and natural laws. This distinction will now claim our notice.

The prime distinction between moral and natural law is this: the first has respect to intention—the other has not. Fire will burn, and water will drown us, whether we fall into them accidentally, or rush into them madly. The little child, who is yet unconscious of any intention for good or evil, suffers as keenly and as certainly for putting its hand in the fire, as the man of mature mind who presumptuously does the same thing. But should the man willfully and maliciously set fire to his neighbor's house; and the child, playfully and without intention of wrong, do the same thing, all would blame the first, but not the other. And then should a judge, in the administration of law, visit the same penalty upon the man and the child, all would readily detest such a perversion of justice. Here we should find the decision unanimous in favor of placing a different estimate upon the actions of the two individuals, although the results of the actions were precisely the same. Thus we not only find men acting upon the difference between moral and natural laws, but we find them also with great unanimity referring moral actions to the standard of intention.

We have but one more step to take in this process of reasoning. It is this. When the claims of a moral and natural law come in conflict, as they often do in this mixed state of good and evil, men uniformly give preference to the moral. And often are they false to their own theories to be true to this fact. We sometimes meet with men who deny these distinctions entirely; who claim that there is no moral law aside from the laws of Nature; yet they act in conformity with the propositions herein set forth; with this last as well as the others. For instance: we find one making the denial referred to: his house is on fire; his child is sleeping in the midst of destruction. To rush in and save its life at the hazard of being severely burned is the first impulse of your moral nature. But should you let it perish, and in justification plead his own theory, that the only moral laws were the laws of Nature, that these were inexorable, and that to rush into the flames would be a violation of law for which you would be immediately and severely punished; I doubt not his very soul would loathe you as a monster of selfishness. Here, in his own mind, he makes all the distinction that I have claimed, and places the moral duty of doing good to your fellow being far above mere conformity to the Laws of Nature.

J. H. W.

Let this Cup Pass from me.

Let this cup pass, my Father! I am sinking In the deep waters which surround my soul, And bitter grows the draught which I am drinking, And higher rise the waves which round me roll.

Life hath not laid her hand upon me lightly; I have known sorrow, disappointment, pain; Have seen hope clouded when it burned most brightly, And false love fade, and falser friendship wane.

But now fresh chains about my heart are linking, And to my lips is pressed a fuller cup, And from the draught my shuddering soul is shrinking; Father, I cannot, cannot drink it up.

What have I said? Will not thy grace sustain me? Is thine arm shortened that it cannot save? Powerless, indeed, if thou, my God, disdain me, I can do all things with the help I crave.

Haste thee to help me, that on thee depending, I may have strength to say, "Thy will be done." If this cup may not pass, thine angel sending, Aid me as thou of old didst aid thy Son.

And thou, my Saviour, once our weakness sharing, Tempted in all things, yet untouched by sin, Hear my wild cry; leave not my soul despairing; Help me the cross to bear, the crown to win. —Lyra Domestica.

The Sabbath.

By James White

A GENTLEMAN thus reasons on the Sabbath in the Cincinnati Presbyterian:

"All men need rest for their bodies; and it would be a difficult matter to prove that a seventh portion of our time is too much to restore, by its repose, the exhausted energies of the animal system. But were there no day of rest set apart for cessation from labor, many would be deprived of that periodical relaxation from their regular routine of duty, which is so necessary to health. The same thing may be affirmed of those beasts of draught and burden, by whose labor the toil of man is so much relieved.

Man is an intellectual being, and needs knowledge, especially a knowledge of himself, of God, and of his relations to God. To acquire this knowledge, some portion of time is necessary; but without a Sabbath many would be deprived of the opportunity of acquiring it, and consequently would remain in ignorance of their highest duties. By affording this opportunity to every one who chooses to embrace it, the Sabbath meets man's highest intellectual wants.

Man possesses also conscience and will, and is influenced by motives. He is placed in this world to prepare for a higher and better state of existence. To apply spiritual truths to his conscience and make them motives to influence his will, he must have time to withdraw his mind from secular employments, to fix it upon those truths, and place himself under the influence of things that are unseen and eternal. Nothing is so favorable to this, as the quiet of a well-spent Sabbath, when the serenity, peace and solemnity of the heavenly world seem to invest all things around. The very air seems to breathe of heaven: the eye seems to pierce deeper into the blue expanse above us: the sun seems clothed with fresh glory; and when the stars of evening rise, they seem to shine with additional lustre. This may be all imagination: doubtless it is: but it is the imagination of one who has been conversing with God. It is not the air, the heavens, the sun and the stars, that are changed; the change is in the mind, and it sees all things beautiful. A day so well adapted to those elevated contemplations, that makes all things glorious, must be admirably fitted for the culture of man's spiritual nature.

We may conclude from these observations that the law of the Sabbath has its foundation in our physical, intellectual and moral constitution; and consequently that its proper observance is productive of our highest benefit. When we keep the Sabbath as it ought to be kept, we are merely acting in obedience to a law, the final end of which is to promote our physical, intellectual and moral well-being; and a violation of which is a violation of that well-being."

We cut this out, because it coincides precisely with what we said on the subject. The following statement of Dr. Farre, of England, made before a committee of the British Parliament, is new to us, not in substance, but as a fact:

"As a day of rest, said Dr. Farre, I view it, (the Sabbath) as a day compensation for the restorative power of the body under continued labor and excitement. A physician always has respect to the preservation of the restorative power; because, if once this is lost, his healing office is at an end. A physician is anxious to preserve the balance of circulation, as necessary to the restorative power of the body. The ordinary exertions of man run down* the circulation every day of his life; and the first general law of nature, by which God prevents man from destroying himself, is the alternating of day and night, that repose may succeed action. But, although the night apparently equalizes the circulation, yet it does not sufficiently restore its balance for the attainment of a long life. Hence, one day in seven, by the bounty of Providence, is thrown in as a day of compensation, to perfect by its repose, the animal system. * * *

I consider, therefore, that in the beautiful provision of Providence for the preservation of human life, the Sabbatical appointment is not, as has sometimes been theologically viewed, simply a precept partaking of the nature of a political institution, but that it is to be numbered among the natural duties, and the premature destruction of it is a suicidal act. This is said simply as a physician, and without reference at all to the theological question; but if you consider further the proper effect of real religion, namely, peace of mind, confiding trust in God, and good will to men, you will perceive, in this source of renewed vigor to the mind, and through the mind to the body, an additional spring of life imparted from this higher use of the Sabbath as a holy rest. Were I to pursue this part of the question, I should be touching on the duties committed to the clergy: but this I will say—that researches in physiology, by the analogy of the working of Providence in nature, will show that the Divine commandment is not to be considered as an arbitrary enactment, but as an appointment necessary to men."

Is there Probation during the Cleansing of the Sanctuary?

By Editor

BRO. WHITE : Will you answer through the Review the following question which some of our anti-vision, no-law opponents bring up to show our position on the Sanctuary incorrect.

QUESTION. If there was no chance under the old dispensation for any person to be pardoned after the high priest entered the most holy place, to make an atonement for the people, how can forgiveness be extended to persons in this dispensation, after Christ has entered the most holy place to make the real atonement?

M. B. SMITH.

ANSWER. In reply to the above question we give the following extract from an article written by Bro. J. N. Andrews on this subject, and published in Review vol. vii, No. 9:

"But human probation must close when our Lord enters the holiest. Who said so? It is not in the type, nor is the antitype thus explained in the New Testament. If it be said that the work in the holiest was not the offering of blood for particular individuals, but for all the people, we answer that the other offerings out of which so much is now being made were precisely of the same character. They were not offered by individuals, but like the daily morning and evening sacrifices were offered in behalf of the whole people. So that there is just as much mercy applied in the sin offering in the holiest as in the other offerings on that day. If it be said that the work in the holiest was to cleanse the Sanctuary, we answer, that this is but a part of the truth. It was also for the sins of the people. The priest just as much made atonement for the sins of the people on that day, as he did for his own sins. Read carefully Lev. xvii; Heb. ix, 7. And this two-fold work of the high priest seems fitly to typify the two-fold work of our Lord in the most holy place. For the sins of the whole church for 6000 years may be disposed of as individual cases, and all the while that the great work is being accomplished, the blood of Jesus still may avail for us in the presence of God. This would be in accordance with the two-fold character of the type.

But it will be asked if the offering of the high priest in the holiest could avail for a sin committed while he was there before God. On this point the Bible is silent. But no argument in favor of this new theory can be raised here. For as far as we know in the whole work of the year the transgression preceded the offering. That is, this was at least as much the case in one apartment as the other. How then is it with our Lord? He shed his blood before entering the tabernacle in heaven at all. And that blood once shed avails for sins committed before or after his death. So that a moment's reflection will show that this objection bears equally against forgiveness being found in either apartment.

Finally, great stress is laid on Lev. xvii, 3-5 to prove that the only place for forgiveness is the first apartment. If the reader will examine verses 1-7 he will see that the great design of this statute was to prevent the people from sacrificing in the fields to devils. This chapter in no way contradicts the testimony of the

preceding chapter, that the high priest with the blood of sin offering did make atonement in the holiest because of the transgression of the people in all their sins. The chapter has manifestly no reference to the subject for which it is quoted. But let us look at the matter. What is the antitype of all the ancient sacrifices? We answer, the one offering of the Son of God. This like those sacrifices was not in the tabernacle but in the court of the tabernacle. Our Lord was slain on Calvary by sinners, even as sinners slew the offerings in the court of the tabernacle. But we have now no such thing to do. Our Lord died once for all. If others wish to crucify the Son of God afresh, they alone must bear the responsibility.

In conclusion we quote the New Testament to show that the blood of Jesus avails for us in both the holy places of the heavenly tabernacle. Heb. x, 19, &c. Or as rendered by Macknight: "Well then, brethren having boldness in the entrance of the holy places, by the blood of Jesus," &c. Let either of these translations be correct, the words are a complete refutation of the doctrine that probation closes with our Lord's entrance within the second vail: Thank God, we have boldness to enter there by the blood of Jesus.

Harmonizing the Scriptures.

By M. B. Smith

ALL Protestants profess to believe that the Bible as a whole is the book of God; that it was written by men who "spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." This being true, we must come to the conclusion that it teaches one harmonious chain of truth, and that each writer must write in harmony with all the rest.

How is it, then, that there is such a vast difference in the faith and practice of those who take this book for their guide? Can the fault be in the Bible? Certainly not; for if the Bible was written by men who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, 2 Pet. i, 21, then all who have spoken in this manner have spoken harmoniously; for it is not really the words of man, but the word of God; and our Saviour said in his prayer to the Father, "Thy word is truth," John xvii, 17, and truth must be harmonious. Again, Solomon says, "Every word of God is pure." Now taking it for granted that the Bible is the word of God, it must be pure, truthful, and consequently harmonious.

At the present day we find a multitude of sects, all professing to be guided by this book, and yet their teachings all differing and contradictory. Now however good the intentions of many in these sects may be, we must come to the conclusion that they have a great deal of error. If these errors were of but little consequence, if they did not strike at truths that were of vital importance, we should say that it was of but little use for us to spend much time or effort to counteract them. All Protestants who do not believe in Universalism believe that this doctrine has a very bad tendency, and that this doctrine is sustained only by perverting the Scriptures. I am fully persuaded that this doctrine has no real foundation in the Bible, and although Universalists can bring a host of scriptures which they suppose teach universal salvation yet I come to the conclusion that they do not teach such a doctrine,

1. From the fact that there is nothing positive about these texts teaching thus, and

2. That there are a host of other texts that are entirely at variance with this doctrine.

Now Universalists do not try to prove universal salvation upon any other grounds only that the Bible teaches it, and yet we find upon a thorough examination that there is no such doctrine taught in the Bible. Why is it, then, that they make such a great mistake, i. e., to suppose that the Bible teaches that all men will have eternal life, when it really teaches that the majority never will have it? I have satisfied my own mind how it is that Universalists have made such a fatal mistake, and have come to such an erroneous conclusion. It is simply this: they do not try to sustain this doctrine upon a harmonious view of the Scriptures,

but by taking a few isolated passages, here and there, without looking at the general teaching of the Scriptures, and harmonizing the whole. Universalists never take the scripture that says that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned," to prove their position; or the one that says that Christ has "become the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him," or that the wicked "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power," and a multitude of other passages that might be named. Nor can their position and those scriptures ever be reconciled.

This way of using the Scriptures has always been practiced from the time of our Saviour's mission to the earth until the present. It was this error that led the wicked Jews to crucify Christ; and although they had the scriptures which told them all about our Saviour's first coming, yet they sought to build up their own pre-conceived notions upon some isolated passages without harmonizing the whole, and were thus blinded, and consequently led to reject and crucify him.

We have spoken quite lengthily of the Universalists, because there are a great many that will acknowledge that this is the course they take in trying to prove universal salvation. And now we wish to make a more general application of the subject under consideration; for while the orthodox churches in general will be willing to admit that we are correct in applying this to the Universalists, they undoubtedly are unwilling to admit that they are in a great measure guilty of the same thing, and that many of their doctrines are based upon the same sandy foundation.

There are a great many at the present day who take the position that the law of God, the ten commandments, is abolished, and that we are not required to render obedience to that law in the gospel dispensation. They select a few passages that speak of the "law being our school-master to bring us to Christ," "not under the law, but under grace," "by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified," &c., &c., and from these they come to the conclusion that the law of God is abolished. Now if these persons who teach thus would look at the general teaching of the Scriptures, and would seek to harmonize this doctrine with them, they would find that it could not be done; for the same apostle who wrote many of the texts that they quote to prove the abolition of the law, also teaches that the law is spiritual, holy, and good, and that sin is the transgression of the law, which could not be if the law had been abolished long before he wrote this. They seek to sustain their doctrine by a class of scriptures that are less plain than other scriptures that plainly teach the opposite, and thus fulfill 2 Pet. iii, 16, where he speaks of some who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction.

Those who teach that the dead are conscious take the same course; for while the Scriptures plainly teach that the dead know not anything, and that when they die their thoughts perish, they will select a class of scriptures that are more or less obscure and try to prove that when a person dies (the body, I mean, for they teach that the person proper does not die at all) he is more conscious, if possible, than ever, and that then he is permitted to enjoy the realities of the eternal world.

Almost all the false doctrines taught by those who profess to take the Scriptures for their guide are sought to be sustained in this manner of treating the Scriptures; and in thus doing they bring a reproach upon the cause of God, cause infidelity to increase, and dishonor God and his word.

O, when will those who profess to take God's word for their guide cease to put light for darkness and darkness for light; good for evil and evil for good? Alas, we have no reason to hope that it will ever be, but that on the other hand it will ever be that very many of the professed friends of Christianity will be its worst enemies.

M. B. SMITH.

Marion, Iowa.

Hope Sprouting Through Despair

Many a man, by throwing himself to the ground in despair, crushes the flowers of hope that were ready to spring up and gladden his pathway.

Letter to the Young.

By S. E. L.

“SEEING then that all these things shall be dissolved what manner of persons ought we to be in all holy conversation and godliness?” 2 Pet. iii, 11.

DEAR YOUTHFUL FRIENDS: Are we not living in the most solemn and important period of this world’s history? In times truly perilous on account of the great power of the enemy and the numberless snares which he lays for our inexperienced feet. And while we profess to be numbered with God’s peculiar people, and expect his covering to be drawn over us in the day of his wrath. O do we realize what he requires of us?

Surely we must awake now and fully consecrate ourselves to the Lord, or we shall be shaken out. We who are not encumbered with houses and lands are not exempt from sacrifice.

O let us sweeten the bitter cup which is given to purify and cleanse us, with patience and resignation and let it have its designed effect upon our hearts; not by dwelling upon our trials thinking them hard and unnecessary, but by considering them “our light afflictions” which, if rightly borne, will “work for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.”

When I have in some degree realized the sore conflicts and trying scenes of the future I have felt to shrink back and earnestly desire that it might be my lot to sleep in Jesus.

O for more faith, and a willingness to suffer for the sake of Christ, to be brought into straight places and with humble reliance on God to patiently wait for deliverance.

To deny myself of the so called pleasure of the world its fashions mirth and pride has never seemed hard to me, but rather they have looked disgusting. But there is one thing which though it may be right in itself, I feel has had too large a place in my heart and affections. It is a love for earthly learning and a desire to employ myself in teaching. This desire from childhood has been very strong in me. Circumstances not permitting I have tried to check this desire but I think it has hindered from fully submitting myself to the Lord as I ought. I feel to say,

“Perish every fond ambition All I’ve sought or hoped or known.”

Dear young brethren and sisters, let us delight in the cross bearing way. May we but be followers of that dear Saviour who died to purchase our salvation. O let us not be discouraged though we find repeatedly that our strength is nothing but weakness. It is in Jesus’ name that we hope for victory. How sweet to feel that he careth for us.

I have been much edified while reading the exhortations to the young through the Review. How thankful ought we to be for this medium through which we who are scattered and alone may hear of the prosperity of the cause, be instructed and encouraged by our more experienced Brn. and sisters and also through which we may ourselves exhort one another and so much the more as we see the day approaching. My heart responds to the exhortation in a late Review to appreciate and confide in our instructors in the Lord. Especially favored are those who frequently hear their admonitions as they hold forth the straitness of the way.

Dear messengers of heavenly truth And servants of the Lord, May their instructions guide our youth, While setting forth his word.

May we with gratitude receive Each admonition given, Behind, our errors gladly leave, And so prepare for heaven.

O may we never think too straight The testimony borne, But from our hearts may pride and hate And idols all be torn.

And when probation’s hours are fled, If then our hearts are pure By Israel’s God we shall be led, And rest in him secure.

New Haven, Oswego Co. N. Y.

S. E. L.

God's Two Thrones

God has two thrones; one in the highest heavens, the other in the lowest hearts.

Volume XXII.

By Editor

ANOTHER volume of the Review and Herald is completed, and this week's issue is the first number of volume XXII. Again we look back to the first volume and number of this sheet, when we commenced its publication without experience in the work of publishing, without means, and with only two or three hundred subscribers, and they of the poor of this world, and contrast the condition of the Review then with its present prospects, with no small degree of pleasure.

The Review has the same motto it then had, and its work has ever been the same. It has ever had the same tide of popular errors and prejudice to press against from without, and the same unsanctified influences to meet from a certain portion of its professed friends. But its course has been straight forward, carrying out its first design to keep its columns free from the discussion of those questions which have no bearing upon the present truth. The following is from Vol. I, No. 1:

"The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald is designed to be strictly confined to those important truths that belong to the present time. We hope to be able to send you this enlarged size of the paper quite often, containing a simple and clear exposition of those great and sanctifying truths embraced in the message of the third angel, viz: the 'commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.' It is truly lamentable to see Second Advent papers, that once advocated the pure, naked cutting truth, applicable to the time, now devoted to the discussion of questions foreign from the present truth, which cannot possibly benefit the dear saints that are perishing for spiritual food. Among other charges given to Timothy by the Apostle Paul is the following,—'But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.' This we intend to do. And with much pleasure do we look forward to the predicted period, when the sheep, that have been scattered on the mountains of Israel since a cry at midnight, shall be gathered into the unity of the faith, the rubbish blown away, and the precious jewels all brought into the clear light of the third angel's message."

Many who have run well for a season have turned aside in some particular from the path, and become dissatisfied with the truth as they first learned it. And because the Review would not turn to suit them, they have charged it with departing from the truth. Their case may be illustrated by the drunken man who thought all sober men around him were intoxicated, and himself sober.

These men have changed and changed. At one time they have praised the Review, and then have cursed it. Some of them turn a complete religious somerset annually or oftener, and rejoice in the great advancements they make, leaving, as they suppose, the Review far behind. But the Review has ever had its specific work, and that work it will pursue. In regard to the second advent, two resurrections, state of the dead, destruction of the wicked, perpetuity of the royal law, and of spiritual gifts, and the past great Advent movement, it has had but one main position.

The Review has never held that it was necessary to make a general chowder of truth and error in its limited columns, in order better to bring out truth. It has aimed to be a clean, straight-forward advocate of truth. Some oppose, and say, "Let truth and error have the field together." Error has ever had the field, and, compared with truth, its batteries are a hundred to one. The teachers of error are many, firm, vigilant, and ever on the side of error. Should the lone advocate of truth divide its strength under such circumstances, and with one hand help sustain the flag of error? Never! never!

The patriarchs and prophets were exclusively devoted to the cause of truth. Christ was on the side of truth. His apostles never divided their strength, but were rigidly devoted to the truth. It was designed that Christians should carry the torch of truth amid the moral darkness of this world, and never suffer its pure, light to be dimmed by dabbling with error.

May God speed the Review on its mission, and may it be in this respect a one-sided paper, ever on the side of truth.

Continue reading: The Association