p. 90 | Review and Herald, Vol. 44, No. 12. (9/8/1874)

Review and Herald

Sep 8, 1874

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Sep 8, 1874

THE SUNDAY LAW.

C. H. RICHARDS of Madison, Wis., having spoken in behalf of the enforcement of Sunday observance by law, Zina Gilbert, Seventh-day Baptist of Utica, Wis., makes the following candid and able reply, which we copy from the Madison, Wis., State Journal:—

Editors of the State Journal:

GENTLEMEN:—There having appeared in your weekly issue of September 23, an abstract of two discourses delivered by Rev. C. H. RICHARDS, on the Sunday question, and editorially commended to public favor, we accordingly have given the document a careful reading, and while we find many thoughts and suggestions that are highly commendable and worthy of consideration we also find other points and statements that we regard as especially open to criticism, and we believe many of these are in direct and open conflict with the true teachings of the Bible and proceeding from the very high source: they do, we think, if left unchallenged to work out their legitimate consequences, will be likely to do much harm to the cause of truth and religious freedom in our land. And as it is evident that the object sought by the delivery and publication of these discourses was to coerce, in the name of Christianity, an unwilling conformity to what we most firmly believe to be an unscriptural practice, and as the columns of the State Journal have been open to the publication of these discourses, and editorially commended to public favor, it can be no more than justice and truth, and a decent respect to those who are sought to be coerced to keep a day that is nowhere in the Bible recognized as the Sabbath, that we be allowed a fair hearing through the same medium that has given publicity to these discourses.

Let it be distinctly understood, however, that in what has here been said, we by no means design to assail the personal character or the Christian integrity of the author of these discourses, whose acquaintance we have neither had the honor nor the pleasure of making; but who, we rejoice to learn, is in good repute as a very fair-minded, talented, Christian gentleman. It is the errors he has pressed upon public attention in these discourses, and these alone, that we assail. Let it be further understood that, in thus pressing our claim to be heard through the columns of the State Journal, it is not that we would offensively intrude our unpopular views upon the unwilling attention of other people. But the facts are these: The question of enforcing the Sunday laws has again become revived; and further, it is most firmly believed by many, who are well qualified to judge, that there is no question within the whole range of Bible theology that is less understood, and about which theories so diverse, multitudinous, and conflicting are entertained by the people at large, as in regard to this Sabbath question. The question is indeed so confused and so little understood that hardly two men who keep the first day of the week can be found whose theories at all agree in regard to it. For these reasons it cannot be doubted that the best interests of this Sabbath reform movement demand that a thorough investigation and discussion of this whole question be had through all the channels of communication in the land, with a view to unify and harmonize public opinion on the basis of Bible truth. We therefore hope and expect that the columns of both the daily and weekly issue of the State Journal will be open for the insertion of this brief article.

The first point in these discourses, to which we desire to call attention, is this: After wading through several paragraphs, in which the author makes the effort to produce the impression that the fourth commandment of the decalogue, as a positive enactment, is not now obligatory, while its interior meaning is still in force—this explicit statement occurs: “It is true that they who refer to the fourth commandment, as retaining its statutory force still, and who base the obligation of Sabbath observance on this as positive law are mistaken. Their error has done much to confuse and embitter this controversy.”

We here remark that in this extract the author gives unmistakable evidence that he claims that the fourth commandment is not binding, as positive law, upon the subjects of Christ’s kingdom; and he also here attempts to fasten the blame for the great confusion and difficulty in which this question is now involved upon those men who strictly adhere both to the letter and spirit of this commandment! And right here we take issue with him. And we charge back the blame for all this trouble upon those who discard the letter of the commandment, while they claim to retain its spirit; a thing that cannot be done! And we also claim that in taking this position, the gentleman has placed himself in direct conflict with the teachings of Christ, as found in Matt. 5:17-19, which is a part of his adorable sermon on the mount; and which, so to speak, was his inaugural address; in which he defined and laid down the great fundamental and immutable principles, in statutory form, which were to govern all the subjects of the kingdom he was then and there setting up in this world. The text reads thus: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.”

We may here remark, that there can be no shade of doubt that the commandments mentioned in verse 19, which are enforced upon all men, under the terrible penalty of being called the least in the kingdom of Heaven, are the several precepts of the decalogue, including the fourth with all the others. This being the case, and this language being that of the King of Zion, while laying down in statutory form the great and immutable principles that were to govern all of his subjects, there can be no such thing as misunderstanding its import. For no combination of words drawn from the whole vocabulary of human language can express a thought more clear and plain than is here expressed; that each and every precept of the decalogue—not excepting the fourth—was incorporated with, and formed a component part of, the great system of immutable rules and laws that was to govern all the subjects of his kingdom. This, being the fact, demonstrates to positive certainty that the position put forth by the author of these discourses that the fourth commandment in its statutory form is not obligatory upon us, is in positive and absolute antagonism to the teachings of the great Redeemer of men, as found in Matt. 5:17-19.

Having thus firmly established this fact by the testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ, from whose authority there can be no appeal, and shown the fourth commandment in its statutory form to be absolutely obligatory upon all, we are now prepared to introduce another authority in corroboration of what we have already educed, that is of no less importance than that of the author of these discourses himself! And we quote as follows:—

“If we turn to the Bible, we are struck with the probable great antiquity of this observance. We find time marked by weeks, as far back as human records run, and there are strong indications that from the very dawn of human life, good men marked off the weeks by some such signal-day as we observe. It seems probable that the Jews kept a Sabbath long before this law was given them. If it was God’s will that the Sabbath should be kept for centuries before the Jewish nation was born, it affords strong presumption that he wants it kept always. The position of the fourth commandment in the decalogue indicates the same thing. All the other commandments are the expression of great, universal moral principles, always and everywhere obligatory. The fact that the Sabbath law is joined with them, is a strong indication that it is no ceremonial observance, no mere national peculiarity, but that its interior meaning and obligation are for all men.”

We may justly claim that notwithstanding all the gentleman has said, both before and after, to the contrary, we now have his frank admission that evidence is to be found in the word of God that the Sabbath was known and observed as far back as the history of man extends. We also have his frank admission that the fact that the Sabbath law has its position in a code where all the other commands are the expression of great universal moral principles, always and everywhere obligatory, indicates that this institution is no ceremonial observance, or national peculiarity, but that its interior meaning and obligation are for all men. Now these admissions are most indisputable truths. And if the interior meaning and obligation of the Sabbath law are for all men, then the exterior meaning and obligation of the command, as expressed in legal form, must also be. This is so from the fact that its interior meaning and obligation cannot be enforced, after the external enactment is ignored. An attempt to enforce the interior meaning and obligation of a law, after the external letter, in its statutory form had been abolished, would be like an attempt to make a tub hold water with the bottom taken entirely out; the idea is simply preposterous, and the effort here made by our author to produce the impression that the fourth commandment in its statutory form is abolished, while its interior meaning and obligation remain in force, places the divine Creator in the ridiculous light of a human legislative body, repealing a law they intend shall remain in full force and virtue, and obligatory upon all!

Now, if all good men, like our author, who has been misled by the force of circumstances, and too great outside popular pressure upon their mental organism, while their religious views were in a formative state, to accept as gospel truth such unscriptural, illogical and absurd vagaries as this idea of abolishing the outward letter of a law, and yet retain its interior meaning and obligation, could but be induced to look these absurdities square in the face, and thus see how supremely ridiculous such things may appear, when tested by the light of Bible truth; and sound logic—nothing more could be needed to lead them to renounce the error and accept the truth. But as we were saying, we now have not only the positive testimony of the Saviour of men, that the Sabbath law is universally obligatory, but also the frank admission of our author, substantially to the same effect. Hence we may regard it as settled by generous compromise, that the fourth commandment, in its exterior legal form, is still obligatory on all men. Again we quote:—

“When we say, then, that the State ought to have a law obliging men to abstain from their usual occupations one day each week, and arresting, so far as possible, all the various industries of the country, it is not that Christians may enforce their religious day on the whole nation. In itself Sunday is no more sacred than any other day. . . . Again, if the fourth commandment is binding on us as positive law, we are bound to keep it as it reads. God is not guilty of the absurdity of some modern lawyers who hold that government may pass laws to ornament the statute book, but not to be executed. We must keep the seventh day instead of the first. If this is still positive law, the Jews and Seventh-day Baptists are the only ones that keep it properly.”

Now, if the Rev. Mr. Richards is what he professes to be, an honest and true Christian man, and ready to conform to the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, wherever that authority is plainly expressed—what can there be to hinder him from abandoning this anti-Christian, pagan Sunday, that is no more sacred than any other day, and accept the Sabbath law as it reads, and keep the seventh day? If he and all of his co-laborers in this movement to enforce the observance of Sunday on other people, would do this—preaching and enforcing the obligation to keep the Sabbath on the naked authority of God’s immutable law, as expressed in the fourth commandment of the decalogue, and recognized by the Lord Jesus Christ as a necessary and component part of the written law of his kingdom—our word for it, they would make more real progress in the direction of true Sabbath reform, in one year, than in a whole century expended in efforts to enforce upon an unwilling people, by civil legislation, the observance of a day that every attentive student of the word of God well knows is not the true Sabbath of the Bible. Whether the gentleman shall follow the course suggested above or not, the all-important question in the case seems to be this:—

Can there be any possible way by which he can justify himself in these efforts to

enforce upon an unwilling community the observance of Sunday, a day he acknowledges to be no more sacred than any other day, when, in doing this, he gives sanction to the desecration, to secular purposes, of a day rendered supremely sacred by the consecrating act of the infinite Jehovah, by which he set it apart to a religious use, at the very beginning of man’s existence, as seen in Gen. 2:2, 3, and also enjoins its observance in the sacred decalogue, a code in which all the other precepts are the expression of great universal moral principles, always and everywhere obligatory, and which code has been expressly recognized and enforced by the divine Redeemer, the King of kings, and Lord of lords as an essential part of the great system of rules and laws that are to govern all the subjects of his kingdom?

Again we ask: Can the gentleman justify himself as before the judgment-seat of Christ, in laboring to enforce upon an unwilling people the religious observance of a weekly day he acknowledges to be no more sacred than any other day, when doing this necessarily involves the desecration to secular purposes of a day rendered sublimely sacred as the seventh day has been, and its observance made universally obligatory, as shown above? If there is any way by which the gentleman can justify himself in doing this, and if he will show us through the columns of the State Journal, or any other medium, how this can be done, the opportunity to learn so important and intricate a lesson as this must be, will be embraced by us with the greatest pleasure. But, on the other hand, if there is no way by which he can do this, then in the name of the great Redeemer, the Judge of all the earth, we most solemnly protest against any further attempt to enforce the Sunday laws on an unwilling people, by that gentleman, or any of his co-laborers in this dangerous work!

The next question that forces itself upon our consideration is this: In case that it is so positively certain that the Bible requires the seventh and last day of the week to be kept, instead of the first—as is here claimed that it does—how is it that so large a percentage of the Protestant church who claim to take the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice, and among whom there are so many good and pious Christian people, keep the Sunday, instead of the Bible Sabbath? And we solve this problem in this way: We declare that the fact is patent that in the mighty contest for the ascendancy in the church, at the time of the great apostasy, between the converts to the Christian faith from Judaism, and those from paganism; the latter, by their great numerical advantages over the former, were enabled to inaugurate as the successful rival of God’s true Sabbath, their favorite weekly festival, called by Constantine in his famous edict, “The venerable day of the Sun.” And, aided by the “rack” and the “fagot,” the papal authorities were enabled to keep the Sunday festival in the ascendancy over the Bible Sabbath, down to the time of the Reformation. And amid the multiplicity of papal errors to be corrected by the great German reformers, this Sunday innovation was overlooked. And hence this error was allowed to come into the Protestant church; and through the instrumentality of superstition, intolerance, and bigotry, those exercising censorship over the pulpit and the public press, have succeeded in suppressing from public view almost everything written or spoken in the interest of God’s true Sabbath. Hence the great want of a correct understanding in regard to this Sabbath question. To such an extent indeed is this lack of understanding that comparatively few of those who keep the Sunday have ever had their attention called to the fact that they were not observing the true seventh day, as required by the fourth commandment. And when they are reminded of the fact that they are not, men of ordinary minds find it extremely difficult, if, indeed, possible, to conceive the thought that they, themselves, can, by any possibility, be wrong in a practice they and their ancestors had been accustomed to follow since time out of mind.

They read the Sabbath law, and there learn that Jehovah, after creating the world in six days, rested on the seventh; that he organized the weekly cycle on this basis; requiring men to imitate his example—doing up their secular business on the six first days of the cycle, and keeping Sabbath on the seventh. They see they are not doing this; but being unable to conceive the thought that they and their fathers could, by any possibility, be keeping the wrong day—look in every possible direction but the right one for a solution of the difficulty. Each man who dares think for himself, gets up a theory of his own; hence the multiplicity of theories extant on this question; and the leaders, as in the case of the author of these discourses, persist in urging the observance of the Sunday. Thus the fact is accounted for that so large a percentage of the Protestant church now keep the first day of the week, notwithstanding the Bible requires the seventh to be observed. And it now seems fully evident that all that is necessary to set this matter right, and bring the Protestant church into harmony with the teachings of Bible truth on this question, is for all who are interested in this Sabbath reform movement to encourage in every way they can a full, free, and dispassionate discussion of this whole question in all of its phases, always exercising the spirit and temper of the gospel of Christ; and do this through all the avenues of communication at their command; at the same time laying aside all prejudice, and fully resolving to embrace and reduce to practice the naked Bible truth, whenever that truth may be satisfactorily ascertained.

We have been watching with most profound interest, the recent movement for securing the Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, in which is involved the better observance of the weekly Sabbath. We have fondly hoped that this movement would furnish the occasion for bringing this Sabbath question to the surface, where it could receive that attention by the people at large that its great importance demands. If this shall be the case, the movement referred to may be justly regarded as a God-send, that every lover of Bible truth will have cause to be thankful for, so long as life remains. But, on the other hand, if bigotry and intolerance shall bear sway, as regards this particular question (which, by the way, when practically considered, is second to none in point of importance within the whole range of Bible theology, except that of salvation from sin, through the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ), and its free discussion in the pulpit, and through the public press, shall be suppressed for fear of disturbing the quiet of some good easy souls who are vainly supposing they are doing acceptable service to the divine Creator while ignorantly acting in direct opposition to his plain command; if, in this latter half of the nineteenth century, when all Christendom is stirred from center to circumference on the question of reforms in the church—if bigotry and intolerance is to be the rule as touching this question, then the inquiry may well be raised in regard to the direction to which Protestantism is tending; whether it be upwards, toward a more glorious harmony with the great Father of all, or downward to inevitable perdition and ruin.

What we have said thus far has been in mere protest against the enforcement of Sunday as a religious day, upon people who do not choose to accept it as such. To do this would clearly be an infringement of article one of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, and also of section 18 of the Declaration of Rights in the organic law of our common-wealth, and hence a thing the Legislature has no right to do. The curtailment or prohibition of the liquor traffic is another and entirely different question to deal with. This is a matter that relates to the secular interests of the State, and to that alone. It has no religious feature whatever about it, and hence is entirely within the legitimate jurisdiction of the civil compact, and, of course, is a proper subject for civil legislation.

Now, if the friends of the temperance cause will divorce the Sunday question from that of the temperance, and agree upon and adopt some equitable measure—whether that measure shall be the Graham liquor law, a prohibitory law, or any other equitable measure that they can devise and be united on—they may rest assured that there is no class of citizens within the State who will co-operate more readily, or work more efficiently, to advance such a measure, than the little band of Sabbath-keepers who take God at his word, and his word as it reads, and keep the day he set apart for the Sabbath at the beginning, enforced its observance in the decalogue, recognized and enforced by the great Messiah at his coming, observed by him and his inspired apostles through their day, and never brought into disrepute until the pagan Sunday festival was made its successful rival in the church by the ‘man of sin,’ at the time of the great apostasy!

But while this little band may always be relied on to co-operate with all good people in every good work, they feel themselves compelled, by fidelity to God and to his truth, to stand up manfully against all encroachments upon God’s divinely appointed Sabbath, whenever and wherever opportunity to do so is offered them.

Now, Messrs. Editors, in view of the great probability that our Legislature, at its coming session, will be called upon to deal with this Sunday question, the present seems to be one peculiarly appropriate for a thorough discussion of this whole Sunday-Sabbath question; and if the columns of your excellent, and hitherto very liberally-conducted, journal, can be opened for this purpose, we have the fullest confidence that we can show to the entire satisfaction of every unprejudiced reader the immutability, full perpetuity, and universal applicability, of God’s holy Sabbath law, as found in the fourth commandment of the decalogue; and that this law still requires the seventh, and last, day of the week, instead of the first, to be kept as the Sabbath, and hence that the practice of keeping the Sunday is downright disobedience to God. In view of these considerations, it really seems to us that the peculiar attitude this question has now assumed before this commonwealth imperatively demands that this shall be done.

BEYOND

Beyond life's toils and cares, Its hopes and joys, its weariness and sorrow, Its sleepless nights, its days of smiles and tears, Will be a long sweet life, unmarked by years, One bright, unending morrow!

Beyond time's troubled stream, Beyond the chilling waves of death's dark river, Beyond life's lowering clouds and fitful gleams, Its dark realities and brighter dreams, A beautiful forever.

No aching hearts are there, No tear-dimmed eye, no form by sickness wasted, No cheek grown pale through penury or care, No spirits crushed beneath the woes they bear, No sighs for bliss untasted.

No sad farewell is heard, No lonely wail for loving ones departed, No dark remorse is there o'er memories stirred, No smile of scorn, no harsh or cruel word To grieve the broken-hearted.

No long, dark night is there, No light from sun or silvery moon is given, But Christ, the Lamb of God, all bright and fair, Illumes the city with effulgence rare, The glorious light of Heaven!

No mortal eye hath seen The glories of that land beyond the river, Its crystal lakes, its fields of living green, Its fadeless flowers and the unchanging sheen, Around the throne forever.

Ear hath not heard the song Of rapturous praise within that shining portal; No heart of man hath dreamed what joys belong To that redeemed and happy blood-washed throng, All glorious and immortal.

The Temptation of Christ.

By Ellen G. White

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

(Continued.)*

Satan comes to man with his temptations as an angel of light, as he came to Christ. He has been working to bring man into a condition of physical and moral weakness, that he may overcome him with his temptations, and then triumph over his ruin. And he has been successful in tempting man to indulge appetite, regardless of the result. He well knows that it is impossible for man to discharge his obligations to God, and to his fellow-men, while he impairs the faculties God has given him. The brain is the capital of the body. If the perceptive faculties become benumbed through intemperance of any kind, eternal things are not discerned.

God gives no permission to man to violate the laws of his being. But man, through yielding to Satan’s temptations to indulge intemperance, brings the higher faculties in subjection to the animal appetites and passions. When these gain the ascendancy, man, who was created a little lower than the angels, with faculties susceptible of the highest cultivation, surrenders to be controlled by Satan. And he gains easy access to those who are in bondage to appetite. Through intemperance, some sacrifice one-half, and others two-thirds, of their physical, mental, and moral powers, and become playthings for the enemy. Those who would have clear minds to discern Satan’s devices, must have their physical appetites under the control of reason and conscience. The moral and vigorous action of the higher powers of the mind are essential to the perfection of Christian character. And the strength or the weakness of the mind has very much to do with our usefulness in this world, and with our final salvation. The ignorance that has prevailed in regard to God’s law in our physical nature is deplorable. Intemperance of any kind is a violation of the laws of our being. Imbecility is prevailing to a fearful extent. Sin is made attractive by the covering of light which Satan throws over it, and he is well pleased when he can hold the Christian world in their daily habits under the tyranny of custom, like the heathen, and allow appetite to govern them.

If men and women of intelligence have their moral powers benumbed through intemperance of any kind, they are, in many of their habits, elevated but little above the heathen. Satan is constantly drawing the people from saving light, to custom and fashion, irrespective of physical, mental, and moral health. The great enemy knows that if appetite and passion predominate, health of body and strength of intellect are sacrificed upon the altar of self-gratification, and man is brought to speedy ruin. If enlightened intellect holds the reins, controlling the animal propensities, keeping them in subjection to the moral powers, Satan well knows that his power to overcome with his temptations is very small.

In our day people talk of the dark ages, and boast of progress. But with this progress wickedness and crime do not decrease. We deplore the absence of natural simplicity, and the increase of artificial display. Health, strength, beauty, and long life, which were common in the so-called “dark ages,” are rare now. Nearly everything desirable is sacrificed to meet the demands of fashionable life.

A large share of the Christian world have no right to call themselves Christians. Their habits, their extravagance, and general treatment of their own bodies, are in violation of physical law, and contrary to the Bible standard. They are working out for themselves, in their course of life, physical suffering, mental and moral feebleness.

Through his devices, Satan has, in many respects, made domestic life one of care and complicated burdens, in order to meet the demands of fashion. His purpose in doing this is to keep minds occupied so fully with the things of this life that they can give but little attention to their highest interest. Intemperance in eating and in dressing has so engrossed the minds of the Christian world that they do not take time to become intelligent in regard to the laws of their being, that they may obey them. To profess the name of Christ is of but little account, if the life does not correspond with the will of God, revealed in his word.

In the wilderness of temptation Christ overcame on man’s behalf on the point of appetite. His example of self-denial, and self-control, when suffering the gnawing pangs of hunger, is a rebuke to the Christian world for their dissipation and gluttony. There is at this time nine times as much money expended for the gratification of appetite, and to indulge foolish and hurtful lusts, as there is given to advance the gospel of Christ. Were Peter upon the earth now, he would exhort the professed followers of Christ to abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul. And Paul would call upon the churches in general to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. And Christ would drive from the temple those who are defiled by the use of tobacco, polluting the sanctuary of God by their tobacco-poisoned breaths. He would say to these worshipers, as he did to the Jews, “My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.” We would say to such, your unholy offerings of ejected quids of tobacco defile the temple, and are abhorred of God. Your worship is not acceptable, for your bodies which should be the temple for the Holy Ghost are defiled. You also rob the treasury of God of thousands of dollars through the indulgence of unnatural appetite.

If we would see the standard of virtue and godliness exalted, as Christians, we have a work devolving upon us individually to control appetite, the indulgence of which counteracts the force of truth, and weakens moral power to resist and overcome temptation. As Christ’s followers we should, in eating and drinking, act from principle. When we obey the injunction of the apostle, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God,” thousands of dollars which are now sacrificed upon the altar of hurtful lust will flow into the Lord’s treasury, multiplying publications in different languages to be scattered like the leaves of autumn. Missions will be established in other nations, and then will the followers of Christ be indeed the light of the world.

The adversary of souls is working in these last days with greater power than ever before to accomplish the ruin of man through the indulgence of appetite and passions. And many who are held by Satan under the power of slavish appetite are the professed followers of Christ. They profess to worship God, while appetite is their god. Their unnatural desires for these indulgences are not controlled by reason or judgment. Those who are slaves to tobacco will see their families suffering for the conveniences of life, and for necessary food, yet they have not the power of will to forego their tobacco. The clamors of appetite prevail over natural affection. Appetite, which they have in common with the brute, controls them. The cause of Christianity, and even humanity, would not in any case be met, if dependent upon those in the habitual use of tobacco and

liquor. If they had means to use only in one direction, the treasury of God would not be replenished, but they would have their tobacco and liquor. The tobacco idolater will not deny his appetite for the cause of God.

It is impossible for these to realize the binding claims and holiness of the law of God. The brain and nerves are deadened by the use of this narcotic. They cannot value the atonement or appreciate the worth of immortal life. The indulgence of fleshly lusts wars against the soul. The apostle in the most impressive manner addresses Christians, “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God.” If the body is saturated with liquor and the defilement of tobacco, it is not holy and acceptable to God. Satan knows that it cannot be, and for this reason he brings his temptations to bear upon men upon the point of appetite, that he may bring them into bondage to this propensity and thus work their ruin.

The Jewish sacrifices were all examined with careful scrutiny to see if any blemish was upon them, or if they were tainted with disease. The least defect or impurity was sufficient reason for the priests to reject them. The offering must be sound and valuable. The apostle has in view the requirements of God upon the Jews in their offerings when he in the most earnest manner appeals to his brethren to present their bodies a living sacrifice. Not a diseased, decaying offering, but a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable unto God.

How many come to the house of God in feebleness, and how many come defiled by the indulgence of their own appetite! Those who have degraded themselves by wrong habits, when they assemble for the worship of God, give forth such emanations from their diseased bodies as to be disgusting to those around them. And how offensive must this be to a pure and holy God.

A large proportion of all the infirmities that afflict the human family are the results of their own wrong habits, because of their willing ignorance, or of their disregard of the light which God has given in relation to the laws of their being. It is not possible for us to glorify God while living in violation of the law of life. The heart cannot possibly maintain consecration to God while the lustful appetite is indulged. A diseased body and disordered intellect, because of continual indulgence in hurtful lust, make sanctification of the body and spirit impossible. The apostle understood the importance of the healthful conditions of the body for the successful perfection of Christian character. He says, “I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” He mentions the fruit of the Spirit, among which is temperance. “And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.”

Men and women indulge appetite at the expense of health and the enfeebling of the intellect, so that they cannot appreciate the plan of salvation. What appreciation can such have of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, and the victory he gained upon the point of appetite. It is impossible for them to have exalted views of God, and to realize the claims of his law. The professed followers of Christ are forgetful of the great sacrifice made by him on their account. The Majesty of Heaven, in order to bring salvation within their reach was smitten, bruised, and afflicted. He became a man of sorrow and acquainted with grief. In the wilderness of temptation he resisted Satan, although the tempter was clothed with the livery of Heaven. Christ, although brought to great physical suffering, refused to yield on a single point, notwithstanding the most flattering inducements were presented to bribe and influence him to yield his integrity. All this honor, all this riches and glory, said the deceiver, will I give thee if thou wilt only acknowledge my claims.

Christ was firm. Oh! where would now be the salvation of the race if Christ had been as weak in moral power as man? No wonder that joy filled Heaven as the fallen chief left the wilderness of temptation a conquered foe. Christ has power from his Father to give his divine grace and strength to man—making it possible for him through his name, to overcome. There are but few professed followers of Christ who choose to engage with him in the work of resisting Satan’s temptation as he resisted and overcame.

Professed Christians, who enjoy gatherings of gaiety, pleasure and feasting, cannot appreciate the conflict of Christ in the wilderness. This great example of their Lord in overcoming Satan is lost to them. This infinite victory which Christ achieved for them in the plan of salvation is meaningless. They see no special interest in the wonderful humiliation of our Saviour and the anguish and sufferings he endured for sinful man, while Satan was pressing him with his manifold temptations. The scene of trial with Christ in the wilderness was the foundation of the plan of salvation, and gives to fallen man the key whereby he, in Christ’s name, may overcome.

Many professed Christians look upon this portion of the life of Christ as they would upon a common warfare between two kings, and as having no special bearing upon their own life and character. Therefore the manner of warfare, and the wonderful victory gained, have but little interest for them. Their perceptive powers are blunted by Satan’s artifices, so that they cannot discern that he who afflicted Christ with manifold temptations in the wilderness, determining to rob him of his integrity as the Son of the Infinite, is to be their adversary to the end of time. Although he failed to overcome Christ, his power is not weakened over man. All are personally exposed to the temptations that Christ overcame, but strength is provided for them in the all-powerful name of the great Conqueror. And all must, for themselves, individually overcome. Many are assailed and fall under the very same temptations wherewith Satan assailed Christ.

(To be continued.)

Continue reading: Prophecy No. 6: Cities Waste and Sanctuaries Desolate