Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 23, No. 20.

BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION

Review and Herald

Apr 12, 1864

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 12, 1864

BOTH SIDES OF THE SABBATH QUESTION.

By Uriah Smith

Review of T. M. Preble.

(Continued.)
"‘MINISTRATION OF DEATH WRITTEN AND ENGRAVEN IN STONES’—‘DONE AWAY.’—Can there be any law without a penalty? If, then, the penalty be changed, then is the law abrogated, or ‘done away.’ But those who contend for the seventh-day Sabbath, are obliged to take the position, that the moral law, as contained in the decalogue, or ‘ten commandments,’ which was written on tables of stone, is now in full force.
"Death was the penalty for violating the law of the Sabbath. As we read:
“‘Six days may work be done, but in the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; whosoever doeth any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” Ex. xxxi, 16. And again: ‘Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord; whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day.’ Ex. xxxv, 2, 3.
"Is this penalty now in force? No one dare say it is. If they do, then let them go without FIRE! (?) on the Sabbath, or else let them be put to ‘DEATH’ on Sunday, the first day of the week! If, then, the penalty is ‘done away,’ or abrogated, then the law is also ‘done away,’ or abrogated, which required the penalty. But those who contend for observing the Sabbath according to ‘the letter’ of the law, advocate ‘death,’ even until now. If they ask, why? I answer, ‘The letter killeth.’ Shall we advocate ‘life?’ or ‘death?’ Life, certainly, says the advocate for the seventh-day Sabbath. Then be consistent, and yield to the ‘able ministers of the New Testament,’ and follow the spirit, and not the letter; ‘for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,’ as the apostle says: ‘God hath made us able ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away; how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious.’ 2 Cor. iii, 6–11.
"What distraction and ‘division’ those are guilty of who ‘preach another gospel,’ as those certainly do who advocate the following of the ‘letter’ as ‘written and engraven on stones,’ instead of advocating the following of the ‘spirit.’ ‘For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech,’ (2 Cor. iii, 11, 12,) and say with the apostle:
“‘But there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Gal. i, 7, 9.
"And why will not men take heed, and follow the ‘spirit’ instead of the ‘letter?’ For if any one follow the ‘letter,’ he will surely ‘be ACCURSED,’ for the ‘LETTER KILLETH!’ And the apostle would even denounce ‘an angel from heaven’ with a curse, if he should ‘preach another gospel!’ My ‘great plainness of speech’ must be continued so as to say: ‘Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned, and avoid them.’ Rom. xvi, 17.
"Did the apostle ever advocate the ‘doctrine’ of ‘the seventh-day Sabbath?’ Never. Then those who do advocate it, do so ‘contrary to the doctrine’ which the apostle preached; and, therefore, if man, or ‘an angel from heaven,’ ‘cause divisions’ contrary to the apostle’s ‘doctrine,’ let them ‘be accursed!’ Thus saith the Scriptures."
REPLY.—The law and the ministration of the law, are two things. Paul, in 2 Cor. iii, is simply contrasting the two ministrations, the former, or Mosaic, and the present, or ministration of the Spirit. And a change of ministration in no wise affects the existence of the law. The fact, therefore, that we are now living under the ministration of the Spirit, has no bearing on the question of the abolition or doing away of the law, further than this: It shows that some law must be still in existence. Without a law there can be no ministration. If there is a ministration, there must be something to be ministered. What law it is of which we now have the ministration of the Spirit, we shall presently show.
"Can there be any law without a penalty?" asks Eld. P., with as much apparent triumph as though that had something to do with the subject. We advocate no law that has no penalty. Death ever was and is the penalty of the violation of the law of God. And hence, we do well to decide carefully, lest by rejecting the Sabbath, we trample upon a portion of that law, and thus incur its penalty; for the apostle James, speaking of the ten commandments, says, that he who offends in one point is guilty of all.
Elder P. is careful to single out the Sabbath commandment, as one to which the penalty of death was formerly attached. This seems to be a peculiarity with the opponents of the Sabbath. We wish it had not so much the appearance of a design to mislead the uninformed. Why do they pass over the other commandments of the decalogue? for these all had the penalty of death attached to them equally with the Sabbath. Why endeavor to raise an argument against the Sabbath, on account of its penalty, as though that penalty was peculiar to the Sabbath, while at the same time it was common to all the other commandments? For proof that the penalty of death was attached to all the rest of the decalogue, see the following scriptures:—Deut. xiii, 6–10; Lev. xxiv, 11–14; Deut. xxi, 18–21; Ex. xxi, 12; Deut. xxii, 24; Josh. vii, 10–26. Yet Elder P. has every commandment, except the fourth, binding in this dispensation without the death penalty. We might turn upon him his own question, "Can there be any law without a penalty?" How does he have these commandments still binding? When he will tell us, we will tell him how we have the Sabbath commandment still in force; for they all rest upon exactly the same basis.
A word now in relation to the penalty, though it is not essential to a refutation of his argument. The penalty of death, to be inflicted by the magistrate under the former dispensation, was attached to the ten commandments as a part of the civil code of the Hebrew nation. The ten commandments were first proclaimed by the voice of God from Sinai, engraved with his own finger on tables of stone, and deposited in the ark in the most holy place of the sanctuary. As such, they constituted a distinct law. Ex. xxiv, 12; Deut. xxxiii, 2. They were especially "God's law," which all mankind, as subject to the government of God, were bound to obey, and for a violation of which they were answerable at his bar alone. These commands were also incorporated into the civil code of the Jews; and as such, penalties were attached to be inflicted by the magistrate. This penalty doubtless represented the final retribution of the ungodly. When the Jewish polity ceased, these civil penalties, as a part thereof, also ceased. But the real penalty of the law, to be inflicted by the great Lawgiver, has not been set aside. When a man, under the former dispensation, broke the Sabbath, or any other commandment, and was stoned for it, he was punished as an offender against the national constitution, into which these laws were, for the time being, incorporated. But this must not be confounded with the penalty of the law, as it existed independent of that Jewish system. To illustrate: The crime of murder is in some States, at the present time, punishable with death, according to the civil law; but though the criminal may suffer the penalty of this law, he is still answerable for the crime of murder at the bar of God.
There are three gross absurdities which attach themselves to this position of our opponents, that death under the old dispensation was the full penalty of the law of God. 1. It makes God commit into the hands of man, the full penalty of his law, or the punishment of offences committed against himself! 2. When a person wasstoned, he paid the penalty of the law, and in the resurrection, he will be raised, of course, to salvation, for the law has no more claims upon him, he having paid the penalty. 3. If a person, under that dispensation, could elude the vigilance of the laws, and, though he had committed crime, was not detected, in the resurrection he also will be raised to salvation; for no law will be found to demand his punishment. And thus the sinner might offend against God, and yet, if he could escape the short-sighted and uncertain vigilance of man, go free! Was God ever thus slack and loose in his system of government? Let these alone believe it, whose position compels them to that absurdity. Here we detect Fallacy No. 7, in Eld. P.'s reasoning, as he confounds the penalty attached to the commandments as a part of the civil code of the Jews, with the penalty which will be inflicted on their violation, as the moral law of God.
But Eld. P., like all other Anti-Sabbatarians, finds it impossible to pass over this subject without saying something about fires. It is very easy to throw out an objection, and leave it to work its own confusion in the mind of the reader, without attempting to show its direct bearing upon the subject. We shall only reply to this hint thus thrown out respecting the prohibition of fires upon the Sabbath, that it was simply a local and temporary statute. It was not even binding on the Jews after they entered the promised land, but only while they sojourned in the wilderness. Much less have we anything to do with it. See History of the Sabbath, pp. 67–71.
Eld. P. continues: "If any one follow the letter he will surely 'be ACCURSED,' for the 'LETTER KILLETH.'" According to his vocabulary, the "letter" is the law with the Sabbath in it, and the "spirit" is the law with the Sabbath left out, or with Sunday in its place. For the law that Eld. P. now has binding, is exactly identical with the decalogue of the Old Testament, except that another day has absorbed the sacredness and clothed itself with the obligations of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Hence it is the Sabbath that kills, the Sabbath is the "curse," the Sabbath is the offending member in the old law. This must be so; for if the new is superior to the old, its superiority must consist in those points wherein it differs from the old; and the old must also be faulty in just those particulars; but all the difference there is, as we have seen, is, that the seventh day of the old is set aside, and the first day put in its place. Hence, we repeat, and let it be continually borne in mind, that the Sabbath alone is the object of all the denunciations bestowed upon the law of God. Let the reader bear in mind, while reading the remarks of Eld. P. from this time on, that it is the Sabbath that kills, and it is the Sabbath that is the curse. "If any one follow the letter," says he, "he will surely be accursed." It is now time to refer the reader back to Way-mark No. 2, in which he argued that distinction of days was a matter of perfect indifference; but now it seems it has come to be quite a serious matter; for thereby we become subject to death, and destined to be accursed. And this we will set down as Way-mark No. 3. Paul's language was quoted: "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," and, "He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord." Nevertheless, it now seems that though the day is regarded to the Lord, he who does it will be accursed and subject to death. Was Paul willing that every man should be persuaded in his own mind whether to be accursed or not? Was he thus indifferent to the welfare of his readers? And has Eld. P. so soon forgotten his own position?
He continues, "Did the apostle ever advocate the doctrine of the seventh-day Sabbath? Never. Then those who do advocate it, do so contrary to the doctrine which the apostle preached." Eld. P. has announced his purpose to prove that the first day of the week should now be observed. And to anticipate a little, we will ask, Did the apostle ever advocate the doctrine of the first-day Sabbath? Never. Then they who do advocate it, do so "contrary to the doctrine" which the apostle preached; and let such "be accursed." Thus saith Eld. P.'s own version of the Scriptures.
Preble.—"MIDDLE WALL OF PARTITION BROKEN DOWN!—Are christians, under the gospel dispensation, required to go back to the law by which the 'commonwealth of Israel' were once to be governed? Or are they to come forward; and thus, by reason of Christ, who 'is our peace,' he 'made both one?' Or, in other words, was 'the middle wall of partition' broken down, 'that the Gentiles might go in where the Jews had been! (?) or were the Jews to come out where the Gentiles were?' May all give audience, and let the apostle Paul once more speak;
"Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit." Eph. ii, 11–22.
"Yes! thank the Lord Jesus, 'we are builded together for an habitation of God THROUGH THE SPIRIT,' (verse 22,) and not through the 'letter,' or the law. For 'the law worketh wrath,' or 'death,' but the 'Spirit' worketh 'peace,' or 'life.' And thus we greatly rejoice that Christ Jesus hath 'abolished' in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, SO MAKING PEACE." Eph. ii, 15.
"In my next I promise to treat upon the subject of the 'Moral Law'!"
REPLY.—In the above extract Eld. P. has so fully answered his own argument, that but very little is left for us to do. To his somewhat ludicrous question, "Was the middle wall of partition broken down that the Gentiles might go in where the Jews had been! (?) or were the Jews to come out where the Gentiles were?" a sufficient reply is found in the scripture he has quoted from Eph. ii, 11–22. Eld. P. would evidently design to convey the impression, however, that the partition wall was broken down that the Jews might come out where the Gentiles were! If so, let us see what they came to. What condition were the Gentiles in, and what blessings and promises did they inherit, when the Jews were permitted, according to this new view, to come out and be partakers with them? The first chapter of Romans describes their condition in all its beauty! It represents them as guilty of every abominable thing that the heart of man, aided by the inspiration of the Devil, could conceive. And the very scripture which Eld. P. has quoted declares them to be without Christ, without hope, and without God in the world. Was the middle wall of partition broken down that the Jews might come out and be partakers with them in these things, that they also might have no hope, and might be without God in the world? Glorious object (?!) But our limits forbid us to dwell upon it further. The truth is, the apostle represents just the reverse of this. We have "given audience" with unfeigned delight to the apostle's words; and Eld. P.'s italics are no less gratifying. They are exactly the same as we should have used, were we given to italicising. The apostle sets the matter forth in this clear light: The Gentiles were without Christ, and were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise; they were afar off; but the middle wall of partition that kept them far off, and separated them from the commonwealth of Israel, was broken down, and hence, (what? the Jews were removed afar off to be with the Gentiles? No; but) the Gentiles were "made nigh" by the blood of Christ; they were through Christ admitted into the commonwealth of Israel, so that Paul could say to such of them as turned to Christ, "Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." And why was the way laid open to the Gentiles to join themselves to the commonwealth of Israel? Because Israel had been made the possessors of all the treasures of truth, and the promises of salvation. "To them," says Paul,
Rom. ix, 4, pertained "the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants." Both the covenants, the old and the new, were made with Israel. Such a thing as a covenant with the Gentiles is never heard of in all the Bible; and the only way a Gentile can become a partaker in the new covenant, is to be made a member of the "commonwealth of Israel." The apostle goes on to say, that to them also pertain the service of God, and the promises. All the promises of future blessedness are ours only as we become "fellow citizens with the saints;" and the Saviour declares that salvation itself is of the Jews; John iv, 22; and if we would become heirs of the promises, or according to the promise, we must be Christ's and so Abraham's seed. Gal. iii, 29.
The quotation Eld. P. has given us from Eph. ii, 11–22, is so much to our purpose that we request the reader to give it a second perusal. In connection with it, read also verse 6 of chapter iii, where Paul, in speaking of the mystery of the gospel, says, "That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise, in Christ by the gospel."
Paul further illustrates this subject by his representation of the tame and wild olive trees, in Rom. xi. The tame olive tree represents the house of Israel; the wild olive tree the Gentiles. Through unbelief, or their rejection of Christ, some of the members of the household of Israel, or branches of the same olive, were broken off; and the Gentiles were simply grafted in to supply their place. Did the Gentiles thus become the root, trunk and branches of a new tree? No; but simply branches of the same old olive tree, or members of the commonwealth of Israel.
Many speak and act as though all with which the Jews had ever anything to do, was only worthy of the bitterest contempt. But they have reason rather to thank God that such a people as the Jews ever lived, chosen at first because found faithful when all others had turned to idolatry, to preserve a knowledge of the living God, and of his truth in the earth, and to be the instruments through which the blessings of the gospel should be bestowed upon us. Among the advantages which we receive through them, Paul enumerates also "the giving of the law." Through them the moral law is transmitted to us, and we therewith receive the Sabbath—not the Sabbath of the Jews, but of Him who is the God of the Gentiles also. U. S.

No Cross, No Crown.

No cross, no crown! no toil, no gain, No pleasure but is mixed with pain— Welcome, thrice welcome, then a mingled cup, The crown o'ertops the cross when lifted up.
No cross, no crown! no labor, no renown, No sunshine without cloud, no smile without a frown; Life's labors and life's sorrows are the cross we have to bear— Thank God the crown's in Heaven we shall forever wear.
No cross, no crown! ah yes, but e'en the Holy Had help to Calvary; so on the road to glory, We too have One to help us, and we need not halt or faint, For with our fears and weakness, he is very well acquaint.
No cross, no crown! then help me, Lord Self to deny, and lean upon thy Word; All that both heart and flesh desire, I yield to do whate'er thou dost require.
No cross, no crown! then hail, all hail, Whate'er the Master bids, nor shall Earth's sorrows or earth's glittering toys Lure my fond eyes from heavenly joys.
No cross, no crown! then let what will betide, Drive the nails into our hands, and the spear into our side, Let men cast us out as evil, and our very name despise, All hail, all hail, the cross! for the crown's before our eyes.

Character of Spiritualism.

Nothing can be more damaging to the claims of Spiritualism than the character of its revelations. Indeed, it is difficult to treat this subject with gravity. Here are ten thousands of people professing to hold intercourse with the inhabitants of another world. They possess the faculty of summoning the spirits of departed men of ancient as well as modern times, and the highest class mediums can converse with these spirits, and convey their utterances to the public. It is no more than reasonable to expect that with such a facility of intercourse as has thus been opened up, we should by this time have learned something respecting the other world; or at least, assuming that such communications may be forbidden—that the spirits may not be permitted, like the ghost in Hamlet, to unfold the secrets of their prison-house—we should have expected to receive some sentiments worthy of the reputation of the illustrious men who have been of late so frequently deprived of their celestial repose. The utter absence of dignity, of novelty, of consistency in the ten thousand answers which have been rapped out from the spirits, is, to say the least, not calculated to enhance the credit of the witnesses. The internal evidence is all against them. There is only one point in which the spirits generally agree, namely, that the other world closely resembles our own; yet even this statement is not supported by the character of the communications received, which exhibit an amount of imbecility, bad grammar, and inanity, very different from the vigorous, common-sense talk of the average of people in their daily life. How is it that the three million mediums in the Northern States have not been able to get a scrap of information from the spirits respectingthe plans of the Confederate commanders? How is it that not one of them discovered the whereabouts of Gen. Lee, or of Stonewall Jackson, and prevented their pouncing on the Northerners unawares? How is it that not a single secret crime has been brought to light, or offender brought to justice? How is it that the spirits are so destitute of moral courage as invariably to coincide with the religious and political opinions of the parties who seek their intercourse; so that when a Universalist inquires as to the condition of the departed, he receives for answer that all are happy, and that "the burning gulf, with all its horrible imagery, exists only in the traditions of men, and in the fitful wanderings of a distracted brain;" while Calvinist mediums "receive much injury to their health from the infernal stenches and effluvia," and are "sickened and disgusted by a detestable taste of mixed sulphur, soot and salt, and felt continual burning as from poisoned arrows and the stings of scorpions?" How is it that the spirits, when attempting physical feats, can do nothing better than raise a table to an angle of forty-five degrees, or cause chairs to fall over, or lift up Mr. Home's coat-tails as he floats near the ceiling, or make the joints of arm-chairs crack at their masters, or execute a half illegible scrawl upon a piece of paper? Can any noble or elevated feature be pointed out which tends to relieve these ghostly confabulations of their inherent incredibility, or to show that the internal evidence is not hopelessly against them?
It is astonishing how little respect Spiritualists have for spirits. Mr. Howitt believes that the improvisatori of Italy are all mediums; "they are but the flutes and trumpets through which spiritual poets pour the music and eloquence of other spheres for the occasion." If so, the only conclusion to which we can come is that the terrestrial poets are beyond comparison better than the spiritual, and that any decently educated musician can beat the flutists and trumpeters of the unseen spheres at extempore melody. Indeed, in whatever department their powers are tried, their inferiority to us corporeal beings becomes evident. As Mr. Howitt refers to this objection again and again, he can not be supposed to be indifferent to it; and in truth he ill conceals a little vexation at his friends, the spirits, for not behaving with more dignity. He assures us, however, that they could do a great deal better if they would, and that the reason why their communications are not more worthy of themselves is that the present age is not in a condition to profit by anything higher. "Men sunk in their spiritual condition to the earth, must have manifestations of the earth first, to awake them. For this reason the much-despised and ridiculed physical manifestations have come first, as the only ones" (the italics are Mr. Howitt's) "adapted to the degraded physical status of men, many of them imagining themselves peculiarly enlightened and refined."
This degraded type of mankind, we are elsewhere informed, is represented by such petrified men as Faraday and Brewster, who have no more faith than a stone, and whose scientific atheism clings to them like a death-pall, and renders them "as utterly disqualified for psychological research as a blind man for physical research." The reason, then, why the revelations of Spiritualism up to the present time have not taken a higher type than the climbing of tables on to ottomans, is not because the spirits are incapable of any thing loftier, but because such babes as the Faradays and Murchisons of our age can at present only have milk administered to them. This explanation is offered in all seriousness and good faith on the part of our author. He does not appear to have reflected how different is such conduct from that of the divine founder of Christianity, with whom he is most anxious to ally the cause of Spiritualism; who, appearing to a generation equally debased, we may presume, with our own, did not think fit to convince them by tricks and empty truisms, but uttered doctrines which as far outshine the wisdom of existing Paganism as his miracles outshone the feats of ancient or modern necromancy.—London Quarterly.

The Bible.

By Rev. E. E. Adams

Oh, friends, if there is one great thing in this world, it is the Bible of God; great in origin, great in thought, great in promise, great in beauty, great in purpose, great in power, great in its results! It hangs as by a golden cord from the throne of the Highest, and all Heaven’s light, life, love and sweetness come down into it for us. It hangs there like a celestial harp; the daughters of sorrow tune it, and awake a strain of consolation. The hand of joy strikes it, and feels a diviner note of gladness. The sinner comes to it, and it discourses to him of repentance and salvation. The saint bends an ear to it, and it talks to him of an Intercessor, and immortal kingdom. The dying man lays his trembling hand on it, and there steals thence into his soul the promise, “This mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and death shall be swallowed up in victory.”
Where is promise, where is philosophy, where is song like this? Magnify the Word of God!—Rev. E. E. Adams.

“God Leads Me Like a Tired Child.”

“I have been very happy and peaceful since I came home: foot, and hand, and thought have been busy, but away down in the depths of my being, aside from all this, my soul has sat calm and still alone with God. God leads me like a tired child. Don’t think I am losing my wits, getting out of myself, but it seems as if he told me so plainly just what to do, and just what not to do, in all my little daily ways. It is real to me, I follow it.”
I opened again the letter laid by among my treasures and read those sweet words in witness of God’s fatherly love and care for one of his young, trustful disciples.
This is not fiction; not a picture set up above our heads as old saints with their holy faces look down upon us; or a leaf from those Christian biographies whose heroes, reckoned most favored of divine manifestation, seem to stand apart from our common-place every-day lives. It is the simple testimony of one who walks as we do in a little sphere, tells us we do in a round of little duties, struggles as we do in matters of little purpose, with none to witness the tear for failure, and none to record the song of success.
Most lives are made up of very small things, too little to be observed outside the immediate circle of doing. But there is often as much real heroism, as much true martyrdom in a life of trifles as in those great experiences which write a page of history, or paint a glory round the likeness of a saint. And God leads us, his little unknown ones, just as much as the saintly worthies we look up to and dare not try to reach.
It is refreshing when at our own level—one whose little joys have brought sunshine to our heart, and whose little burdens we have helped to bear—one with whom we have prayed and taken counsel concerning the relations of our little life to God, utters in heart confidence and peace, “God leads me like a tired child.” We are so glad when one of all who grope and yearn, restless and unsatisfied, can say, “My soul has sat calm and still.” And when in our little perplexities—not always little to us, since they test the very nerve and fibre of our being—we find that we cannot direct our steps, and cry out for help, it is so sweet to hear another, walking in the same paths, declare, “It seems as if He told me so plainly just what to do, and what not to do in all my little daily ways.” We know there is no voice addressing the outward ear, no infallibility of human judgment coming of religious trust, but when in our heart’s need, we cast all upon our Saviour, we may go forth from the closet with a most sweet assurance of being led aright. The peace, the assurance is away down—below reason, or distrust, or fear—in the depths of our being.
We are often like tired children, and would, oh, so gladly, be led by the hand. Mothers who take up the little ones with soothing words and healing kisses, are as tired and weak as they. God offers such his strength to lean upon, his bosom for sympathy, his communion for rest. For young men and maidens unlearned in self-knowledge, and unskilled in self-guidance, there is a Saviour’s proffered hand. And to the weary toilers, more in number and degree than we can name, working often through unrequited tears and pains, there is help in the unseen Friend stronger than the right arm, surer than the practiced eye.
Some one tells me: “But this help you speak of, this guidance is so intangible—if I could only see the good—if I could realize by any sense a strong and loving presence: if I could ever believe when I speak that I shall receive an answer.”
Ah, friend, you are not near enough; Christ has no promises for those who do not reach out and take His hand. Those who have felt its clasp are certain of its power. We have risen in the morning unfit in mind or body for the duties of the day: our Father knows the weakness, and we tell Him of our need, we ask for His sake strength and skill, and feel to say, Thy will be done in me to-day. At night we look back upon what we have endured or accomplished, or the unexpected aid we have received with wonder and thankfulness. Or, we are tried and ask for patience: and our souls are kept in calmness, which means His peace. Or, we wait in painful suspense tidings that may bring sorrow, we are prepared by some diversion of thought or feeling, and are sustained under the saddest mourning. Above all comforts we believe in God—we confide to Him our little simple affairs; in that thought we put off our most painful responsibilities, and feel that in submitting to Him all, there is peace.
This is not for emergencies only—for special seasons of trial and need, but as the young, trusting disciple said, “For all our little daily ways.” The leading of the unseen Spirit was real to her, she followed the guidance, and that is why she sat calm and still.
A heart so peaceful cannot be lonely; if alone, it is with God. It cannot be afraid, for His presence is its shield, and if in its human relations it feels pain and sorrow, it is in Him exceeding joyful still.
What we most need is Christ in our daily experience—in the example and testimony of common lives: not Christ alone in the far off glory of the heavens, in the history of world-worshipped saints and martyrs, or altogether in the record of devoted ministers and missionaries. But we want Him where men sow and reap, where they labor in the factory, the mine, the counting-house, the camp, or the court-room, where the women guide the house, and sit by the cradle; where they toil with the needle, the pen, or the text-book; where they entertain society, or wear life away at the bed of sickness. And we want the witness of such as walk with Christ, that His guidance lightens care, and sweetens pleasure, and brings to pain a divine consolation. Their little testimony ingeniously, perhaps unconsciously, given, is not in vain; we feel its influence, and are drawn Christ-ward by its sweet attraction. We thank those we love when they tell our weary hearts, “He leads me like a tired child.”—Advocate.

Taking Luncheons

Taking Luncheons.—Of all luncheons, the worst are those taken a short time previous to the hour of rest in the evening. It is the sure way to produce restlessness and sleeplessness at night, and dullness and headache in the morning. It is, indeed, the very worst time in the twenty-four hours for taking food. It is the original cause of those late suppers, which are indulged in by many of the wealthy and luxurious, and which are pre-eminent in the list of indulgences that shorten life. "Cardan observes, that he had conversed with many persons, who had lived to be a hundred years of age, and they all declare to him, that they had made it a rule to eat little at night. It is like loading your horse with a heavy additional burden, after he has been toiling all day, and is weakened by fatigue; or like filling up the mill hopper when the water is nearly run out. People may tell us that they cannot sleep without this luncheon, or supper, just before bed time; but they may rest assured, that a persevering indulgence in it, will ere long bring on that sleep which knows no waking.—Ex.

Self-Examination and Religious Discipline

Censure no man; detract no man; praise no man before his face; traduce no man behind his back. Boast not thyself abroad, nor flatter thyself at home: if any thing cross thee, accuse thyself; if any one extol thee, humble thyself. Honor those that instruct thee, and be thankful to those that reprehend thee. Let all thy desires be subjected to reason, and let thy reason be corrected by religion. Weigh thyself by thy own balances, and trust not the voice of wild opinion; observe thyself as thy greatest enemy, so shall thou become thy greatest friend.
Continue reading: Correspondents