[Bro. SMITH: I herewith send you a letter that I received from Elder Shockey, of Ind., in answer to one that I wrote to a neighbor of his who is keeping the Sabbath, in which I sent him Bro. Andrews' reply to Litch's criticism on the Sabbath. Will you please answer his arguments through the Review. I. Sanborn.]
[In compliance with this request we give that portion of the letter which relates to the Sabbath question and our answer to the same.—Ed.]
As to the Sabbath question we are negative in reality. They ought to affirm in their own language, "The seventh day of the week, is, according to the New Testament, the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus Christ." We deny.
The New Testament teaches that on the first day of the week the disciples should meet together, to continue in the apostles' doctrine, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers. We affirm. The Holy Scriptures teach that the law of Moses was abolished at the crucifixion of Christ. I affirm.
Either of these embraces the issue. If they are no more "doubtful" of this being the Sabbath of the Lord Jesus, than of their "existence," there will be no trouble about it. The first proposition is the proper one, as it will settle all controversy.
Your correspondent is wiser than what was written. Where is it recorded that "the keeping the first day of the week is the mark of the beast?" It does not follow because the Lord said, "pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath day," that therefore it was the Sabbath of the Lord when they fled. It was such at the time he prophesied, and the disobedient Jews were great sticklers for it when he said this, and when the destruction came, although God had done the Sabbath away; and it would be more perplexing for them to flee before their enemies on that, than any other day. Their holding it as the Lord's Sabbath would no more prove it so, than their beholding the abomination standing in the holy place proved that the Jewish temple was the holy place in A. D. 70, which we all agree was abrogated at Christ's crucifixion. Now his reasoning would prove that the offering of the blood of bulls and goats in the holy place was in force by Christ's authority at the destruction, as that the Sabbath was, because the Jews held it so. This they do not believe any more than we.
Mr. Andrews has even failed to remove the difficulty of Mr. Litch. We are not bound to prove there is any Sabbath at all; much less the day that is the Sabbath. Note.—"In the end of the Sabbaths as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week." "End of the Sabbaths." What is it? If it were the close of that Sabbath in which Jesus lay in the grave, it was not plural. If it were the Sabbaths, all the Sabbaths that the Jews had kept as commanded for 1600 years, then they ended.
The antitype of the Sabbath is the future rest. Heb. iv, 4, 9. "And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.—For if Jesus (Joshua) had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day. There remaineth therefore a rest (sabbatismos) for the people of God." If this be the Sabbath for the people of God, then there is none in this earth for them. How true this, "Let us labor, (not rest,) therefore to enter into that rest lest any fall after the same example of unbelief."
The mian sabbaton is the first day of the week which is set apart by Jesus, not as a Sabbath or rest, but the Lord's day, on which day God made the light, gave the law of Moses, had the feast of pentecost, raised his Son from the grave, who appeared for six successive first days to his disciples, sent the Holy Spirit down on the apostles, giving to them the kingdom, ascended up on high, gave the last revelation to man, and no doubt will descend on it to give the kingdom to the saints to possess for ever.
Isa. lviii, 13, 14, is a statement to the people of God of that dispensation; if they kept the Sabbath as was ordained, they should be caused to ride on high places, &c. Just so now if the disciples meet, pray, read, exhort, teach, contribute for the poor, and break bread on the first day according to the present appointment of the Lord, they "shall feed with the heritage of Israel," just as Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac, and we are justified by works, of faith, repentance, baptism, and adding virtue, knowledge, temperance, patience, godliness, brotherly kindness and charity. He could not have been justified had he refused to offer his son; but we are not required to offer up our sons that we may justified; no more are we to look for justification by keeping the seventh day Sabbath, because the Lord's Israel of the old covenant had to.
I will not copy any of this but the propositions, and don't know whether it will be published in the Review and Herald or not. I believe they are mistaken about this matter, and some others; but I rejoice to know they are obeying the Lord in humility and benevolence, and piety. I do not see any immorality if they rest on the seventh day. The rest in the everlasting kingdom is the sabbath we all want.
Yours fraternally,
WM. P. SHOCKEY.
REPLY.
In the above we have the embodiment of a view of the Sabbath question which is rapidly on the increase. So far as the first day of the week is concerned, it is certainly more consistent to disconnect it from the fourth commandment, and consider it a merely conventional institution of the church, than it is to endeavor to enforce it from any divine command. But when our friends affirm the abolition of the Sabbath to make room for this institution which, comparatively speaking, has come "newly up," [Deut. xxxii, 17], they make a serious, and we fear they will find at last, a fatal mistake. The secret of our zeal on the Sabbath question (and we think we can speak for every Sabbath-keeper in the land) is this: We know that all acceptable worship must be performed in spirit and in truth. Jno. iv, 24. It must not only be done in spirit, but it must be in accordance with the truth. Hence, if it be a fact that the original Sabbath is still binding on the world; if the command which enforces it is still a living oracle, as vital as any other precept which enters into the constitution of God's government, wo unto those persons who, with the statute-book in their hands, are found living in its constant and determined violation! And believing it to be thus binding, as we desire to heed the Lord's injunction, "He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully;" and as we love our fellow-men, it is our object and aim, by all means in our power, to hold up the light of truth before the people, and persuade as many as possible to turn and live by obeying the commandments of God, and adopting that course of action which will find acceptance in the great and final day; for action must
go with our belief; works must accompany our faith.
A word as to the statement of the question. It is a misapprehension to suppose that we occupy affirmative ground in any particular in this matter. The institution for which we contend is certainly more ancient than that for which the writer of the above and people generally, at the present day, contend; and in such a case it is an acknowledged principle that "the burden of proof lies upon the more modern, and the presumption lies in favor of the more ancient institution." (Tappan, p. 428.) The original Sabbath, the seventh day of each week, may therefore, independently of any other argument, be presumed to be still binding, until it shall be shown to have been either changed or abolished. Of our opponents, one class affirms that it has been changed, and another class affirms that it has been abolished. It will therefore be seen that our position is negative; for in both cases we deny their affirmation.
Eld. S.'s second proposition is that "the New Testament teaches that on the first day of the week the disciples should meet together," &c. Here he says truly that he affirms. And here we meet emphatically deny; for the New Testament teaches no such doctrine either by its precepts, or by the practice it records. On this point we need not dwell; for all can here, having the record in their hands, decide the question for themselves; and if any one doubts our negation, let him search and see if he can find anything of the kind.
Third. "The Holy Scriptures teach that the law of Moses was abolished at the crucifixion of Christ." Here the writer says, "I affirm." Here it so happens that we also affirm. Our friend has simply mistaken as a contested point, that upon which there is no issue. We believe that the law of Moses was abolished at the cross; understanding by the law of Moses everything distinctive of Judaism. But the Sabbath was not an institution of this kind. Being made for our first parents in Eden, designed for the whole race, and in force ages before a Jew existed, it cannot be considered a distinctive feature of the religion of that people.
As to the mark of the beast, it no doubt seems a very singular charge, to those unacquainted with the ground on which we make it. But this point is very simple, as a few considerations will show. If that power, represented by the symbol of a beast [Dan. vii, 25], has changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week, as history shows, and as Catholics themselves claim, then the first-day Sabbath becomes an institution of the papacy; and whoever then, with these facts in view, pays homage to that institution, to the neglect of the ordinances of Jehovah, becomes a worshiper of the beast. That is all. It is a plain point, and cannot be evaded.
"Let not your flight be on the Sabbath day." Whether or not this proves the existence of the Sabbath in this dispensation, it is a fact that the Sabbath is many times acknowledged this side the cross, by the sacred writers as an existing institution. One instance is found in Luke xxiii, 56. "And they returned and prepared spices and ointments and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." This was the day following the crucifixion where our friend thinks that the Sabbath was abolished. The force of this scripture will be apparent to all without comment from us; as all will at once perceive that it would be impossible to keep an institution according to a commandment after the institution and the commandment which enforces it, were abolished. Yet Luke tells us, this side of the cross, that the disciples did keep the Sabbath, and that too according to the commandment. See also the book of Acts throughout.
Again: "End of the Sabbaths." We need only remark181here that the word sabbaton [Matt. xxviii, 1], does not refer to any class of sabbaths, but to the space marked off by the regularly recurring weekly Sabbath—the week. See Greenfield and Robinson.
Again he says: "The antitype of the Sabbath is the future rest. Heb. iv." From some cases which we are unable to explain, our opponents almost universally overlook the singular anomaly which this position involves. The Sabbath is a type, say they, of the heavenly rest; and yet the Sabbath was "done away" at the cross, and still the rest is yet future! Did any one ever hear of a type's ceasing before it reached its antitype? Whoever regards the Sabbath as a type must admit that it has been binding without interruption to the present time, and will be till that antitype is reached. But we rest its perpetuity on other ground, since, as it was instituted before the fall, there can be nothing typical about it. And as to the exhortation, "Let us labor to enter into that rest," if he thinks that it is manual labor—"our own work"—such as we are required to cease from on the Sabbath, that is here meant, he is welcome to his theory and all the consolation he can draw from it.
Again, he speaks of the first day of the week as the day "set apart by Jesus," as the day on which he "ascended up on high," and the day upon which the disciples should meet to pray, read, exhort, &c., "according to the present appointment of the Lord;" in all which we reply, Pure assumption: Jesus never set apart the first day of the week for any purpose; he never even mentioned it in all his teaching; and it is certain that he did not ascend on that day; and he has never given any "appointment" for the observance of that day. If any wish to see an example of wisdom above what is written, they have it here.
We are further told that Christ "appeared for six successive first-days to his disciples." This would involve a period of forty-two days; but inspiration informs us that he was seen of them but forty days in all. Acts i, 3. And as to his appearing on the first day particularly while he stayed, we answer that he appeared to them every day; for he could not be seen of them forty days as Acts i, 3, informs us, unless he was seen of them daily; hence there is nothing very significant in his appearing on the first day. We might as well endeavor to distinguish any other day of the week by saying that he appeared to his disciples several successive Mondays, or Tuesdays, or Wednesdays, or any other day.
Finally the writer concedes the advantage which we possess over all others in this respect; for he admits that he does not see any immorality in resting on the seventh day. All must concede as much as this. But if our position be correct, we cannot concede as much to them; for we do behold an alarming immorality in violating one of the commandments of God. It must not be thought strange therefore if, in things which may concern our eternal destiny, we choose to be on the safe side.
CONSECRATION. No. 6.—JUSTIFICATION.
By M. E. S.
Having yielded all in sacrifice to God, we find a precious promise in our behalf: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 Jno. i, 9. What kind of a confession is here meant, which, performed on our part, will secure this blessed promise? Can it be a superficial one, which does not spring from that sorrow and aversion for sin that would induce a forsaking as well as a confession of it? No, no, Jesus came to “save his people from their sins,” not in them. Hence, we are to forsake as well as confess our sins.
Does the passage admit an incomplete confession in any sense? Then the forgiveness and cleansing promised will be equally incomplete. But the promise covers all unrighteousness, consequently the conditions must cover just as much, and require an entire confession and forsaking of all sin.
Remember (as others have remarked) the sacrifices anciently brought to the altar must be without blemish. Will God accept an imperfect sacrifice from us? Are we better than our fathers “of whom the world was not worthy?” or has the Lord become a respecter of persons?
In the text above noticed we find two distinct propositions joined by the connective, and. God has made here, through the apostle, two promises; 1st, forgiveness; 2d, cleansing. To whom were these promises made? Did John write to believers, or to the world? From verse 6th, we would conclude that he wrote to those who were saying they had fellowship with God; also in the next chapter he speaks of the world in the third person, and says: “I write unto you little children because your sins are forgiven you. I write unto you fathers, because you have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one.” We see that the apostle was addressing a class of Christians; and consequently was not explaining to sinners the way to become such. We must look elsewhere to find instruction on this point. Listen to Peter in his first discourse after having been endued with power from on high to preach the gospel. This discourse affected his listeners; they believed it, of course, or it would not have moved them. They exercised faith, thus complying with the first condition of salvation. See Mark xvi, 15, 16. Hear now sinners from every nation under heaven crying to Peter and to the rest of the apostles, “men and brethren what shall we do.” They see condemnation written against them; how shall they escape? “Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, (what for?) for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Was this the doctrine Peter was to receive power to preach? Let us see how far he followed the expressed directions of his master. Read Luke xxiv, 47. And that repentance and remission of sins (the very thing Peter preached, telling them how to secure the latter) should be preached in his name, among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Did Peter deliver the above named sermon at Jerusalem? He did. Verse 49. “And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you, (Jno. xv, 26), but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” The apostles had tarried as directed, the Comforter, or Holy Spirit, which was the promise of the Father, had rested on them; and do you not think they received with this gift power to preach just right? Did not Peter know perfectly now what men should do to be saved? and had he given them an ordinance as one condition of salvation which the Saviour never intended as such, could he still have retained the divine favor? But we find him years afterward especially called upon to go and teach the Gentiles the way of salvation; hence his preaching must be approved of God. I speak of this particularly because some object to one condition as essential which Peter prefixed to remission, i. e., baptism. Such refer to passages which speak of justification by faith. They seem to forget that a part of any thing is taken to represent the whole. Thus man when used as a representative of the human race, includes men, women, and children. If we be justified by faith alone, then where is the place for repentance. They admit this must precede forgiveness, but notice,—182the passages they cite do not speak of it. If they admit one step not found in these texts, why not consistently, as far as these texts are concerned, admit two that are outside of them. They tell us about being saved by works when we speak of baptism as prerequisite to forgiveness. Now a physical and a mental act are the same so far as they affect human merit. An act of my mind is as much my own as an act of my body, and I could as consistently receive reward or punishment for it. Now what is faith or repentance but acts of the mind? Faith belongs to me; it is an operation of my own mind. Now, dear brother, can you see the consistency in telling us that we rest our salvation on works while you claim as much for faith and repentance (human actions) as we do for faith, repentance, and baptism (human actions). You say the blood of Jesus saves us; we rest our salvation on nothing more nor less; but we all know that the whole human family are not to enjoy the purchase of that blood. Something on our part secures to us its application. You say that something is faith (faith certainly belongs to us; Jesus does not exercise it for us). You believe it to be faith and repentance. We believe we must exercise faith and repentance, and further, must pass through the emblem of that death which Jesus has suffered, before his blood, i. e., his death for our transgressions can be imputed to us. Dear reader, shall we not give a place to every portion of the Bible? Let us beware how we throw away any passages for the sake of our own opinions of others. What if the sacred writers have placed faith in a majority of cases as a representative of all the conditions of salvation? If they have in any other one instance given the other conditions, shall we reject the passage that names them? The Scriptures are a perfect representative of the divine will, and wherever it seems discordant let us ask that the wisdom from above may tune it in harmony for us.
“LOVEST THOU ME.”
By E. Goodrich
Thrice is this question asked by the Saviour, and thrice is it answered in the affirmative by Peter to whom it is directed. And each time that it is answered, the Saviour enjoins upon Peter that he should feed his lambs or sheep. The Saviour did not ask the question for the purpose of ascertaining whether Peter loved him or not; this he already knew.
He knew that he loved him; and knowing this, he asked him the question. The object for which he asked the question was to solemnly impress the mind of Peter with a proper understanding and a realizing sense of the great work in which he was engaged, namely, that of preaching to and saving souls. The Saviour wished to make the love that Peter had for him available in sustaining him while preaching to the flock of God, and this he did by calling his attention to the fact that he loved him, by virtue of which love he enjoined on him to feed both lambs and sheep.
To illustrate, if we were to turn our attention to two loving brothers, whose hearts are knit together as were the hearts of Jonathan and David, and behold them as disease fastens upon one, and he is laid upon the bed of death, and see him as his friends gather around his bed-side, and weeping children wait for his last, dying blessing, and see him as the cold sweat of death gathers upon his brow, and his eyes glisten with the glow of departing life, and hear him as he turns to his loving brother, saying, brother, lovest thou me? and hear this question thrice repeated and as often answered by the loving brother saying, yea I love thee, and each time hear the dying brother say, then take care of my little ones, undoubtedly we should realize how ardently the father loved his children, and how solemn the charge to take care of his orphans. This is a kind of allegory, yet but a faint resemblance of the great Messiah, his love to his children, and his final charge to Peter to feed his sheep. The Saviour had been with his disciples three years and a half, speaking as never man spake, preaching the glad tidings of the kingdom of God and opening to them the word and way of life. He had chosen them out of the world and sent them forth to preach the gospel to every creature.
He had prayed most devoutly to the Father that he would sanctify them through his truth, and he had promised them the Comforter, who should bring all things to their remembrance and show them things to come. He had even been crucified, but now had arisen from the dead, and having been with them for a time (preaching the kingdom) he was about to take his final leave and go to the Father. And O how his heart yearned over his little ones who should believe on him through preaching, and be exposed to the wiles of Satan and the roughness of the way! O how solemn and interesting both the occasion and theme upon which the Saviour was speaking. And it seems as though he took advantage of every facility of impressing upon the mind of Peter the truth concerning his solemn and heaven-ordained mission. And although the lesson is given to Peter, yet it cannot be supposed for a moment that it belongs to him alone. No, nor even to the apostles who were with him, nor yet, even to those who labor in word and in doctrine. True, it belongs primarily to these, yet it belongs to the entire church, whose business is to help carry forward and sustain the preaching of the word.
The same lesson is taught by the Saviour when he says, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my disciples, ye have done it unto me.” Could we but realize this, what an incentive to forbearance, to virtue, yea to every good word and work would it be? Could we but feel that every kind look given, every encouraging word spoken, even to the least saint, and that every sacrifice of feeling or of means that we make for the cause of Jesus is recorded in heaven as done directly to our Master, how careful would we be lest we should offend or neglect the wants of the little ones that believe on Jesus. And how much in earnest would we be in sustaining and advancing the cause of our dear divine Master. “Lovest thou me?” May this question be asked by and be responded to in each heart. And may the solemn injunction, “Feed my sheep,” be realized by all, both ministers and members, especially those looking for the immediate return of their Master.
E. GOODRICH.
Edenboro, Pa.
DECEPTION.
By James White
I HAVE noticed with deep regret the course of some professors of the present truth, chiefly young women, who have two methods of dressing, to wit: one very plain way when they attend Sabbath meetings, or meetings of Sabbath-keepers; and another quite different way when they attend Sunday meetings, or meetings of fashionable bodies, and sometimes county fairs. They then put on more gay or gaudy apparel, with artificials in their bonnets, hoops, &c.; and you can see but very little difference between them and the world at large on such occasions. These persons take to themselves all the credit of plain dressing, and avoid all the cross and self-denial; for it is no cross to dress plainly among those who dress so, and among others they do not dress plainly.
Can there be any other object and end but deception in such a course as this? And is it not evident that somebody is deceived by it? As God cannot be deceived there are only three parties that can be, viz: the church the world, and the wearer. All these may be deceived; one certainly is. Which of the three is most deceived? Will those addicted to the custom consider the question?
J. H. W.
Grace and Honesty
Grace makes a man honest to himself, his neighbor and his God.
NO BALANCE-WHEEL.
By J. Clarke
The wise man says that "through idleness of the hands, the house droppeth through;" and the common sense of mankind does unite in deprecating the slothful idler, whose time is wasted and lost, while he burdens himself and society with a load, an encumbrance; while an industrious man is prized and valued above the worth of fine gold.
Industry may well be lauded as one of the most excellent of virtues, more especially when well directed by the mind of wisdom, in the accomplishment of benevolent designs, and in performance of the common and humbler every-day employments of life; and when purity of motive, and sweetness of temper, accompany this, life becomes an offering of sweet savor to God.
Our national maxims are all of a tendency to excite the public mind to exertion; and the writings of Franklin on this particular head, are become as "household words," and most American readers are familiar with his proverbs, illustrating the tendency of idleness, and the rewards of economy and industry.
Indeed, such have been the prospects held out before the young men of our country, and such the success of those who pursue a steady course of patient, well-directed industry, that the public mind has been stimulated to unparalleled efforts, and now we behold its fruits: a century or less has sufficed to improve a continent; an enlightened nation of twenty-five millions, now draw their sustenance from the soil, so suddenly changed from a dreary wilderness, to a smiling landscape, varied with cities, towns and villages, canals and roads; fiery chariots roll with winged speed, through tunneled mountains, and over foaming cataracts, forests are levelled and changed into fruitful fields, while mechanical skill erects the noble edifice, and the comfortable cottage, and executes the nice and curious labor-saving machinery, while the well adjusted system of education gives impetus to mental improvement, and fosters the arts and sciences. Meanwhile, commerce and manufactures have not failed to keep pace with the growth of our young and thriving commonwealth.
But the question arises in the reflective mind, as we see the almost maniacal efforts, and the nervous strife for wealth, as we behold the ceaseless efforts put forth by our countrymen in pursuit of gold, as we take note of the sickly countenances, the broken constitutions, and the premature old age of many of our people, when we count the tons of drugs and medicines consumed in the land, and other evidences of the decay of the physical man, we are led to inquire, What is wrong? Is there no balance-wheel in our political machinery?
We look around, and after careful observation we must conclude that the wise men of the world have omitted this important part of the machine, the balance-wheel. They have urged forward improvement: work, work, night and day, ceaseless toil, the poor laborer has toiled and swotn for his employer, with only this Yankee maxim ringing in his ears, "Go ahead!" No balance-wheel! No wonder the machinery is worn and heated! No wonder the motion is irregular! No wonder it needs repair! No wonder the engineers tremble as they behold its terribly swift rotations! They see its destruction is sure, unless its motion can be regulated.
Alas! woful mistake! Worldly wisdom failed to see the effect of unhealthy action, and the necessity of a proper balancing power, in their early instructions, and Young America is now fast approaching the vortex of the Maelstrom, which threatens to engulf her, for want of a balance-wheel, and that balance-wheel is, "Rest."
Rest! O, how sweet to the tired laborer, as he wearily seeks his couch beneath the protection of night, (which was fortunately arranged by the good Creator,) for his unmerciful employer often grudges even this.
Rest! The machine must be cooled; constant friction heats and softens, and the engineer who knows this gives his engine time to cool. So the Creator in the beginning set apart a special day for this purpose of rest. The Sabbath was made for man. God foresaw that a strict command was necessary to check the full tide of worldliness in man's heart, and that regular rest-days were indispensable to his health of body and mind.
Satan is a hard master; he overworks his subjects, and drowns them in perplexities and cares, when he finds he cannot drive them to some other extreme. And while he administers more opiates to the idler, he goads on the ambitious and the industrious to unhealthy, immoderate exertion, until they richly merit the appellation, "greedy of filthy lucre."
God has appointed the seventh day, [Gen. ii, 2, 3,] unconditionally, as a perpetual memorial of his work, thus showing that no less than this seventh day would suffice (works of mercy excepted) for the wants of man; but that he is willing and desirous that a greater proportion of time should be applied to rest, may be inferred from the appointment of festivals among the Israelites, which amount in all, (Sabbaths included,) to more than one third of the time.
(Not that I would put these festivals on a par with the weekly Sabbath, by any means; for these festivals have all expired by limitation at the death of Christ, while the weekly Sabbath points back to the work of creation, and cannot expire until it ceases to be a fact that God made the world in six days and rested on the seventh.)
There are times, as with the farmer in harvest, when every effort must be made to secure the crop, and there are times, too, in the prosecution of most kinds of business, when rest may be obtained from exciting, wearing labor.
To prove the necessity of rest, to the best development of mind, ask the lawyer if he will attempt to make a plea immediately after a walk of thirty or forty miles. Ask him if his memory, or imagination, or reason, or judgment, or taste, would act under such circumstances. Ask the messengers if they can present the third angel's message in its force and beauty, when they are worn with fatigue, in caring for the pecuniary matters of the tent. Notice the decision of the apostles in appointing deacons for the administration of secular matters, that all the power of their minds might be brought to bear upon the work of their ministry.
The brain, the center of mental power, may be compared to a flower, of which the spinal marrow is the stem merely, and when the brain labors, the whole man labors; therefore when the mind is fatigued, the whole body must rest; for such is the sympathy between the brain and the lower parts of the frame, that one cannot labor while the other rests; nor one rest while the other labors; thus, fatigue of brain tires the body, and when the body is wearied, the brain also is dull and sluggish.
Rest is necessary not only to the professional man, but to the laborer. All need full, liberal appropriation of time for rest. He who would appreciate and fully comprehend the arguments as set forth in defense of present truth, of the third angel's message, needs the most vigorous exercise of the powers of his mind: a dull, stupid, apathetic state of mind, consequent upon wearing, constant fatigue, unfits the mind to act, to reason, to investigate, or to judge.
Rest is necessary to the brother or sister who would overcome; for Satan is ever ready to infuse his venom, when the physical or bodily powers are overworked, and overtasked. Then is the time for fretfulness, and anger, for discouragement, and low spirits, and all the evils following in the wake of their besetments.
J. CLARKE.
THE ORIGINAL ADVENT FAITH.
By Editor
[The following items we gather from publications issued previous to 1843. The reader will see from a perusal of them who the original Adventists are. One date, 1843, we change to 1844, as all believers in the doctrine were unanimous in that date previous to the year's close. We love the true, original Advent doctrine. Its fundamental principles cannot be invalidated. May its spirit abide with us.—Ed.]
The word of God teaches that this earth is to be regenerated, in the restitution of all things, and restored to its Eden state, as it came from the hand of its Maker before the fall, and is to be the eternal abode of the righteous in their resurrection state.
The only restoration of Israel yet future, is the restoration of the saints to the new earth, when "the Lord my God shall come, and all his saints with him."
The signs which were to precede the coming of our Saviour, have all been given; and the prophecies have all been fulfilled but those which relate to the coming of Christ, the end of this world, and the restitution of all things.
There are none of the prophetic periods, as we understand them, extending beyond the year 1844.
The above we shall ever maintain as the immutable truths of the word of God, and therefore, till our Lord come, we shall ever look for his return as the next event in historical prophecy.
We hold that the prophetic days of Daniel and John are years; as did Wesley, Scott, Clark, Fletcher, the learned Joseph Mede, Faber, Prideaux, Dr. Hales, Bishop Newton, and Sir Isaac Newton, with all the standard protestant commentators. Our opponents claim that they are simply days, or half-days!
We claim that the prophecies of Daniel and John are historical prophecies, extending to the end of time, as all Christians have held, according to the undoubted testimony of historians, till our day. And if the end is not brought to view by these prophecies, they are to us inexplicable.
We claim that the ninth of Daniel is an appendix to the eighth, and that the seventy weeks and the 2300 days or years commence together. Our opponents deny this.
THE LONE PILGRIM.
By S. A. Richmond
While passing through the desert drear,
I laid me down and slept,
And as I slept a form appeared,
And as I gazed he wept.
Then cried I, Why weepest thou?
Why art thou thus cast down?
Is not thy treasure laid on high?
Hast thou not there a crown?
Do conflicts sore, thy way oppress,
And many foes deride,
While passing through the wilderness,
Thy feet to turn aside?
Look up, lone pilgrim, and believe,
Bid all thy fears be gone,
Prepare a blessing to receive,
Awake, arise! "'tis morn."
S. A. RICHMOND.
The Love and Spirit of Christ
The more you drink into the love and spirit of Christ, the more happy, and honorable, and useful you will be.