Earlier text: THE OLD YEAR AND THE NEWWhy Observe Sunday?
By Editor
Why observe the Fourth of July? or Washington's birthday? There is no command to do so in the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of any of the undivided States, and consequently there is no legal obligation on any citizen to observe either day. Yet they are generally observed throughout our country. And why? Plainly because of the love of country common to our people which attaches itself to its natal day as well as to the natal day of its greatest citizens—the father of our country. Why observe Sunday? There is no command either in the Old Testament or the New so to do. Yet it has been the uniform practice of the church and of Christian people everywhere from the first century to observe it. And why? Because the astounding fact of rising from the dead by Jesus Christ was believed to have happened on that day—the first day of the week. And hence it was more natural for all who believed that fact, to honor that day, than it was for them to honor the day of his birth, that is, Christmas. And that observance has been kept up for eighteen centuries wherever Christianity has followers throughout the known world. The Christian term for the day, is the Lord's day, and not Sunday. It is a volunteer observance, and not a compulsory or obligatory one, in the universal Christian world, as in the case of Christmas, and just like the fourth of July or Washington's birthday. And for the same reason. All who are true patriots will honor these great American days without constraint or compulsion. And all who are sincere Christian believers will honor the Lord's day because of their faith in the resurrection, and need no Scripture command or legal obligation to constrain them so to do. Any other observance would be a mere outward formality, without merit or without benefit to anybody. To call Sunday the Sabbath, and thereby try to import into Christianity the legal obligation of the old Hebrews to observe the seventh day, or Saturday, as of divine command, is not only a proceeding wholly illogical, but wholly unhistorical, unscriptural, and unreasonable also. The seventh day was the Jewish day of rest or the Sabbath, and was observed by converted Christian Jews, just the same as, and together with the Lord's day, for three hundred years or down to the reign of Constantine in the fourth century. Gentile converts, however, observed only the Lord's day. But neither of these two classes ever observed Sunday because of any legal or scriptural obligation, but only in honor of the day as that of Christ's resurrection and the great fact of immortality brought to light to them in that way. Saint Paul expressly condemns the intolerance of the Jewish converts who wanted the Gentiles to keep their Sabbaths and other national observances, peculiar to the Jews, and approves that while "one man esteemeth one day above another, another esteemeth every day alike" and is right in so doing. The theory that the observance of the Lord's day is obligatory on Christians, just as the Sabbath, (that is, our Saturday), was on the Jews, is of modern growth and of narrow extent, and is quite as unauthorized as would be the general adoption by the Christians now, of the old Jewish Sabbath, which, like circumcision and other national observances, formed a part of the customs and laws of that peculiar people. The truth is, the moment such observance becomes a matter of law, rather than of choice, from that moment it ceases to be the evidence of Christian faith or feeling, in which it first had its origin, and becomes wholly devoid of patriotic merit or Christian virtue. The Presbyterian divines at Westminster, who undertook to make the observance of what they called the Sabbath, a part of the moral law and so obligatory upon the whole world, not only ignored the voice of the entire Christian church, ancient and modern, Catholic, Protestant, Greek, and Oriental, but condemned thereby even the very Scriptures, which they declared the sole foundation of their faith. At the time of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century, its leaders declared Sunday no more obligatory or sacred than any other day, including such men as Luther, Calvin, Melanethon, Erasmus, and also Grotius. In the English church the same views were held by Cranmer, Tyndale, Knox. Barrow, Warburton, Baxter, Taylor, Whately, Paley, Bunyan, Milton, and many others. There is really no permanent authority in the entire range of Christian history, that upholds any other view, except the Westminster Assembly of Divines and their followers. So long as the church was kept free from the State, no attempt was made to legislate in favor of Sunday, but when these were united, then the law of the State became supreme, and the obligation was simply a State obligation, not a scriptural one, or one originating in the primitive church. The first legislation of the kind began in the days of Constantine. He was a man of blood and of policy, the most infamous, as shown in the murder of his own wife, his own son, and his father-in-law. He issued his edict in the year 321, and it reads as follows:— "Let all judges and people of the towns rest, and all the various trades be suspended on the venerable day of the sun. Those who live in the country, however, may freely and without fault attend to the cultivation of the fields, lest with the loss of favorable opportunity, the commodities offered by divine providence be destroyed." The wording of the above imperial decree shows that Constantine recognized the need of rest as the basis of his legislation, and not at all as the Christian origin of the day. And that is the ground on which our modern legislatures put it, just as Moses did the Sabbath. On this ground it is a legitimate exercise of legislative power in the interests of the people, and has nothing whatever to do with its Christian origin or the faith that has kept up its observance as a Christian festival of free-will rejoicing for eighteen centuries. As a day of rest and freedom from work all can take part in its enjoyment and recognize gratefully the provision that not only sets apart one day in seven for repose, but forbids ordinary work to be done on that day and enforces the rule by appropriate penalties. In order to afford our readers a correct understanding of the state of the Sunday controversy we must copy something from the secular press; for all papers have something to say about the Sunday laws now. The above from the Yolo Mail is one of the best articles we have seen, notwithstanding the evident errors into which the writer has fallen. We will notice a few. 1. It is not a historical fact that the first day of the week was kept by any class of Christians in the first three centuries. It is so often asserted (though without any proof) that it is quite easy to imbibe the idea that such is the fact. 2. The Sunday was never called "the Lord's day" in the New Testament. The Lord made the seventh day the Sabbath in the act of resting upon it from the work of creation. It was the Lord's own rest day, even as the work of creation was his. He always claimed the seventh day as his—"the holy of the Lord," "My holy day,"—but he never put forth a like claim to the first day. When specified in the New Testament it is always called "the first day of the week"—nothing more. 3. Gentile converts did not keep the first day of the week any more sacredly than they kept the sixth day of the week. Religious meetings were early held on both these days in honor of the crucifixion and of the resurrection. In process of time the precedence was given to the first day, as precedence was given to the Roman church over all other churches. So far as any sacredness was attached to the first day of the week it was of Roman origin—not at first as the Lord's day, but as "the venerable day of the sun." As a matter of policy it was adopted from the heathen by the Bishops of Rome, and soon supplanted the Sabbath of the Lord in that church. 4. Rom. 14 does not refer to the weekly Sabbath, as we have shown in a recent examination of this chapter. 5. It is a manifest error to class the seventh-day Sabbath with "circumcision and other national observances." The Sabbath was entirely separate from observances peculiar to the Jews; it was placed in the decalogue as part of the moral law, and the only reason of the institution and obligation was that of God's work and resting at the time of the creation. Jewish sabbaths, of which there were a number, were typical; the weekly Sabbath was commemorative. It belonged to Jehovah as his rest day (Sabbath day) from the beginning. 6. The Sabbath was not, in the Pentateuch, placed on the ground of man's need of rest. It was a memorial of the work of creation; a reminder of the all-important truth that there is a God of infinite power, to whom all creatures are indebted for "life and breath and all things." It was in this light that the Lord presented it both through Moses and the later prophets. In Ex. 31:17 the Lord himself said of the seventh-day Sabbath:— "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed." "Hallow my Sabbaths; and they shall be a sign between me and you, that ye may know that I am the Lord your God." See also verse 12. The clergy of the present time, by placing Sabbath obligation upon the basis of our need of rest, are secularizing the institution and obliterating it as a Bible institution—as the holy of the Lord. This is the direct and unavoidable result of turning away from the Sabbath of the decalogue, and of choosing a day in its stead which God never enjoined in his word, for the observance of which no Scriptural reason can be given. In the absence of any divine requirement, a reason is invented which is most likely to meet with popular favor. And this is the surest method possible to make the religion of the day a popular worldly religion. It is fast descending to that. This article of the Mail contains many truths, to one of which we wish to call particular attention, namely: "So long as the church was kept free from the State, no attempt was made to legislate in favor of Sunday." One of the most prominent steps in the work of secularizing the church, or in uniting church and State, was the enforcing, as a church festival, the heathen "day of the sun." The American people might learn a lesson from this, but they will not. Too many of the religious of the present day love the praise of man more than the praise of God. Too many professed Christians would rather follow in the easy wake of popular error than to bear the cross of an unpopular truth, even though that truth is plainly written in God's word. "It is time for thee, Lord, to work; for they have made void thy law." [EDITOR SIGNS. Accepting the Cross.
By M. A. Hamlin
"MOTHER," said a young son, after listening as the singers repeated with apparent fervor the beautiful words:— "Nearer, my God to thee,
Nearer to thee;
E'en though it be a cross
That raiseth me.
Still all my song shall be,
Nearer my God, to thee.
Nearer to thee."— "I do not think people realize what they are doing when they are singing the prayer in that hymn; and they ought to be careful not to pray what they would not be willing God should answer by taking them at their word. Now I don't think many people want to be drawn nearer to God by crosses." His mother explained that Christians who love God supremely, desire to be drawn nearer him, even though they bear the consecrated cross for his sake. "Jesus said, 'Take up thy cross and follow me.'" "Yes, but mother," said the little fellow, "they don't know what the cross may be, or how hard it may be to bear it;" and to make the argument more suggestive he added: "suppose it should be your cross to have me grow up a very bad, wicked man, would it draw you nearer to God? would you love him better?" The mother, knowing her boy understood something5 of her deep anxiety for his early consecration to God, was struck with quick conviction of her own utter weakness; and with a secret prayer to the unfailing Source of strength to be able to endure what He might see fit to allow her to endure for his sake, tried, with tears, to exhort her dear boy to early give his heart into the kind keeping of the great Shepherd of our souls, that they might both be drawn nearer the bleeding side of the Redeemer, by living faith, and not wait for the chastening of his rod. O, how often have all of us who are Christians, after being uplifted into the spirit of consecration expressed by the author of the hymn referred to, and having felt that we were privileged to enter the secret places of the Most High, been brought to realize the application of the words by some sudden and unexpected cross—some giving up or breaking down of cherished idols, unseen until revealed by his Spirit in answer to prayer. God help us in our prayers and singing to feel that it is for Him to choose our cross for us. I am reminded of a time when unexpectedly prostrated by severe illness, among strangers, under trying circumstances, an aged brother used often to come of a morning, and after the usual salutations and inquiries, say: "Well, Mary, who is to choose your cross to-day? Remember if you choose it, you must bear it alone; but if God chooses it for you, Christ will help you bear it; so it will be easier for you if you let him choose." I did realize the difference between taking up an unnecessary care and making it a cross, or with a sense of my dependence passively lying back in the arms of Him who governs the universe, knowing that it was my Father whose hand chastened, that he was abundantly able to care for me, and that no unnecessary burden should be laid upon the child who trusted in his strength and love. Then it was I came to see that he was testing the love I bare for him, and that "underneath were the Everlasting Arms." There is a law of compensation connected with the love of Christ. Those who "endure as seeing him who is invisible," have an experience of rainbow light and beauty upon the path to heaven; and the heart leaps with joy as it sings:— "I've found a joy in sorrow,
A secret balm for pain,
A beautiful to-morrow
Of sunshine after rain;
I've found a branch of healing
Near every bitter spring,
A whispered promise stealing
O'er every broken string."
—M. A. Hamlin, in Messiah's Herald. The Sabbath-School.
By Editor
Comments on Lesson for January 14.
The subject of this lesson is the man who fell among thieves, while on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho. The following comments on different passages we take from Dr. Clarke:— A lawyer—Nomikos, a teacher of the law. What is called lawyer in the common translation, conveys a wrong idea to most readers: my old MS. renders the word in the same way I have done. These teachers of the law were the same as the Scribes, or what Dr. Wotton calls letter-men, whom he supposes to be the same as the Karaïtes, a sect of the Jews who rejected all the traditions of the elders, and admitted nothing but the written word. See Wotton’s Mishna, vol. i. p. 78. These are allowed to have kept more closely to the spiritual meaning of the law and prophets than the Pharisees did. Verse 29. Willing to justify himself—Wishing to make it appear that he was a righteous man, and that consequently he was in the straight road to the kingdom of God, said, Who is my neighbor? Supposing our Lord would have at once answered, "Every Jew is to be considered as such, and the Jews only." Now as he imagined he had never been deficient in his conduct to any person of his own nation, he thought he had amply fulfilled the law. This is the sense in which the Jews understood the word neighbor, as may be seen from Lev. 29 : 15-18. But our Lord shows here, that the acts of kindness which a man is bound to perform to his neighbor when in distress, he should perform to any person, of whatever nation, religion, or kindred, whom he finds in necessity. As the word πλησιον signifies one who is near, this very circumstance makes any person our neighbor, whom we know; and if in distress, an object of our most compassionate regards. If a man came from the most distant part of the earth, the moment he is near you, he has a claim upon your mercy and kindness, as you would have on his, were your dwelling-place transferred to his native country. It is evident that our Lord uses the word πλησιον (very properly translated neighbor, from nae or naer, near, and buer, to dwell) in its plain, literal sense. Any person whom you know, who dwells hard by, or who passes near you, is your neighbor while within your reach. Verse 30. And Jesus answering—Rather, Then Jesus took him up. I believe to be the meaning of the word υπολαβων, he threw out a challenge, and our Lord took him up on his own ground. A certain man went down from Jerusalem—Or, A certain man of Jerusalem went down to Jericho. This was the most public road in all Judea, as it was the grand thoroughfare between these two cities for the courses of priests, twelve thousand of whom are said to have resided at Jericho. Fell among thieves—At this time the whole land of Judea was much infested with hordes of banditti, and it is not unlikely that many robberies might have been committed on that very road to which our Lord refers. Verses 31 and 32. Priest and Levite are mentioned here, partly because they were the most frequent travelers on this road, and partly to show that these were the persons who, from the nature of their office, were most obliged to perform works of mercy; and from whom a person in distress had a right to expect immediate succor and comfort; and their inhuman conduct here was a flat breach of the law. Deut. 22 : 1-4. Verse 35. Two pence—Two denarii, about fifteen pence, English; and which probably, were at that time of ten times more value there, than so much is with us now. Verse 36. Which—was neighbor—which fulfilled the duty which one neighbor owes to another? Verse 37. He that showed mercy—Or, so much mercy. His prejudice would not permit him to name the Samaritan, yet his conscience obliged him to acknowledge that he was the only righteous person of the three. Go, and do thou likewise.—Be even to thy enemy in distress as kind, humane, and merciful as this Samaritan was. As the distress was on the part of a Jew, and the relief was afforded by a Samaritan, the lawyer, to be consistent with the decision he had already given, must feel the force of our Lord's inference, that it was his duty to act to any person, of whatever nation or religion he might be, as this Samaritan had acted towards his countryman. It is very likely that what our Lord relates here was a real matter of fact, and not a parable; otherwise the captious lawyer might have objected that no such case had ever existed; and that any inference drawn from it was only begging the question; but as he was in all probability, in possession of the fact himself, he was forced to acknowledge the propriety of our Lord's inference and advice. It is from neglecting to study that there is so much of vague teaching. Vagueness consists in a sort of general, indeterminate way of speaking, which has no apparent object. Every sentence in itself is simple and easily understood, but we cannot discover what the teacher would be at. What he says is all pious, and in its own way useful enough, but it is totally destitute of point. He makes no progress. His last remarks might have been as appropriate at the beginning of the lesson as at the close; they have no special reference to the subject in hand, and little application to the particular class to whom they are addressed. The law and the gospel, addresses to saints and sinners, are intermingled without order; and it is evident at every stage of the lesson, that the teacher has never grappled with the truth which his subject illustrates, or understood in what way it was calculated to benefit his hearers. The cure for this error is to master the lesson, and have a distinct object to gain in teaching it. Though a person should understand his lesson, yet, if he does not concentrate his information about it upon a point, he merely lays his knowledge at the door of the mind, and is not likely to effect an entrance. The seal cannot be more distinct than the stamp. We cannot communicate views more distinct than we ourselves possess. A sailor never speaks vaguely about the different parts of a ship, nor a tradesman about his handicraft. If we knew the Bible as intimately as they know their professions, we should hear less of vague teaching. Persons are vague only in speaking of what they do not clearly understand. Another error, the result of want of preparation or misdirected study, is superficiality. Superficiality sometimes passes current as good teaching, under the name of simplicity. In this simple mode of instruction, mental effort on the part of teachers or scholars is not thought of. The plan of teaching is to take every sentence as it stands in the Bible, and treat it as if it stood alone, and the lesson had no general subject; and the matter of the teaching is an occasional explanatory remark, with a few passing reflections. Thus we have seen the second chapter of Luke's Gospel taught in this way: What does the angel's appearing to the shepherds teach us? That we should not despise the poor. What does the song of the angels teach us? To glorify God for our salvation. What does the conduct of the shepherds in coming with haste teach us? To obey the commandments of God. What do we learn from the shepherds making known the saying? To make known the coming of our Lord. No attempt was made to give the children a true conception of the grace of our Lord in becoming man, or to awaken their hearts to the lofty strain of the angels' jubilee song. This mode of teaching sometimes degenerates into a mere play of words, as in this passage, "God is just." What is God? He is just. Who is just? God. And so the sentence is ended. But the child has not made one step in religious knowledge by the questions, for he remains as ignorant as before of the quality of justice. Or let the sentence be, "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." What are we to do? To repent. Who are to repent? All. Why are we to repent? Lest we perish. It is obvious that our first business ought rather to be, to explain fully what repentance is, and that then we should press on our scholars the duty of repentance. The simple questions noted above suggest very little to their minds.—Inglis. A TEACHER has a duty not only to be at Sabbath-school himself, but to see that his scholars are there. It is a comparatively easy matter to take care of scholars who want to be taken care of. The real trouble is in attending to those who don't want any attention. A young man applied to a Boston merchant for a situation as salesman. "Can you sell goods to a customer?" asked the merchant. "I think I could sell to any man who wanted to buy," was the young man's answer. "Oh, that's nothing to the purpose!" said the merchant. "Any fool can sell to a man who does want to buy. I want clerks who can sell to the men who don't want to buy." It is still true that "the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light." There is a thought worthy of attention in that Boston merchant's idea of a good salesman. The angels had to "lay hold" on Lot, to induce him to leave Sodom, when he was inclined to stay there at the risk of the city's doom. And many a teacher has to do a similar work for scholars who would sooner be in Sodom than in Sabbath-school.—S. S. Times. THE YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR
By Editor
AN ILLUSTRATED WEEKLY PAPER FOR YOUTH AND CHILDREN, DEVOTED TO MORAL, MENTAL, AND RELIGIOUS CULTURE.
This paper is not devoted to insipid stories and religious fiction, but is filled with a great variety of that kind of reading which tends to the healthful development of the youthful mind. Its pages are made bright by the choicest illustrative pictures, and its columns are always full of useful information. As a Sabbath-school and Lesson paper, it is suited to the wants of scholars and teachers, and is calculated to increase the interest of all who read it, in thorough Bible study. The Sabbath-school Department contains two series of lessons, one for children and one for youth. SUBSCRIPTION PRICE, 75 CENTS A YEAR. All new subscribers paying the above price will receive the "Child's Poems" as a premium without extra charge. TERMS TO CLUBS, PAID IN ADVANCE. Price per Copy, Post-paid.
5 to 10 copies... 60 cents a year.
10 copies and upward ... 50 cents a year. Subscription for 5 to 10 copies will be taken for six months. Larger clubs may be paid for quarterly. Address YOUTH'S INSTRUCTOR, Battle Creek, Mich.
Or, SIGNS OF THE TIMES, Oakland, Cal. Progress of the Religious-Amendmentists.
Some years ago we had the privilege of attending an annual meeting of the National Association which has for its object a Religious Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the opening address the President, after speaking of the fourth article of the Constitution, said:— "The first amendment in the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. We have not proposed to change these. We deem them essential, in connection with the amendment we ask, to the preservation of religious liberty—an effective guard against a union of church and State." At that time we did all in our power to impress upon the minds of the advocates of the Religious Amendment the impossibility of preserving the fourth Article and the first Amendment of the Constitution, and at the same time carrying into effect the Amendment for which they ask. Their "platform" demands that "all Christian laws, usages, and institutions" be placed upon "an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land." An amendment covering all this would require appropriate legislation to make it operative; that is, Congress would have to make laws enforcing "all Christian usages, laws, and institutions." If anybody can tell us how this may be done while the first Amendment of the Constitution remains in force, they will be welcome to our columns for that purpose. The Christian Statesman, the organ of that Association, speaking of certain members of Congress who traveled on Sunday, said that no one would be permitted to hold any office who thus violates the "Christian Sabbath," if the Amendment is adopted for which they are working. This would be directly contrary to the fourth Article of the Constitution. Radical changes must be made in the Constitution as it now stands to accomplish the object they have in view. Notwithstanding this, notwithstanding the reverence felt for the Constitution, and the long-standing fear of a union of church and State, the Sunday sentiment is growing so fast that we expect all will be sacrificed in its behalf. As an indication of the progress in this direction we notice an article in the Christian Statesman by Dr. Milligan, an earnest advocate of the Religious Amendment, in which he openly repudiates the first Amendment. The reader may be surprised to learn the ground on which he bases his plea. It is this: Guiteau, the assassin, claims that he was inspired to kill the President; of course it was a religious act; and being a religious act, no one has authority, under the present Constitution, to restrain him from the performance of it! Incredible as it may seem, we state the truth. These are his words:— "I believe that under a strict construction of the Constitution of the United States he cannot be punished. The law that would punish his act would prevent the free exercise of his religion. This is really his plea, and to this moment he justifies his act as a religious obligation which he owed to God and his country. I do not justify the Constitution nor the deed committed by the assassin; but if the doctrine of the Constitution be correct his act cannot be condemned. No government has a right to authorize a false religion or to guarantee to its subjects the right to dishonor God or violate his law under the name of religion. Government has no right to punish a man for his belief, but it has a right and it is its duty to restrain his acts whenever they violate either the first or second table of the moral law of God. Until this government defines in its Constitution what is religion, in the understanding of this nation, the polygamy and the blood atonement of the Mormons, the licentiousness of the Oneida Community, and every other wild extravagance, even to the solemn murder of the best of Presidents, will be practiced in its sacred name. Guiteau richly deserves to die, but the Constitution which educated him to believe that he might murder the President under the delusion that it was an act of religion which could not be punished, needs to be amended." No man of education and study could possibly utter such absurdities unless he was bewildered by the influence of a hobby. All the "cranks" are not on Guiteau's side. But our object is to call attention to the rapid strides which are being made toward a union of church and State. That which was disowned a few years ago is now openly advocated now. They are becoming more consistent. Their open demand now is that Congress shall make laws concerning the establishment of religion, and restraining from the free exercise thereof. And thus the nation is nearing the time when "the image of the beast" shall be made. Prophecy is fulfilling. But the Lord has spoken on the subject. Happy are they who hearken to his words. A CALIFORNIA paper which is professedly devoted to the spread of holiness, gives, in a half-column article instructions "how to prevent the spread of holiness." Among other methods it gives the following: "Imbue them [the people] with the idea that they are to be holy by striving to do right, to keep the law of God." This, it avers will check the spread of holiness. We are reminded of the colored man who requested the new preacher not to say much about the ten commandments, "because," said he, "they has such a dampenin' effect on the congregation." We have grave doubts as to the utility of that kind of holiness which is hindered by obeying the commandments of God. The Saviour prayed for his disciples, "Sanctify them through thy truth," and Peter says, "Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth." Paul says, also, that the "law is holy;" if so it must make those holy who conform to it. This is Bible holiness; the new kind, however, will doubtless be "received with gladness" by those who love to do as they please. We have before referred to the statement of Andrew Fuller, the well-known Baptist author, that this modern theory of sanctification is nothing less than an "antinomian delusion," and this statement of the "holiness" organ proves that the charge is just. Antinomianism is one of the most dangerous delusions of the age—all the more dangerous because it is so fast becoming incorporated into the great religious system of the age. The law of God—the decalogue—is losing its hold on the consciences of men, because the churches and their pastors teach that it may be modified or changed in its terms without any violation of its obligation. If this be true it is no longer legal, but advisory, and its observance is optional. The modern "holiness" teachers make not the least difference between justification and sanctification. We know they do in theory, but not in fact. They treat sanctification precisely as Paul treats justification. This point we propose soon to examine in a separate article. Our Responsibility Toward God.
(From Les Signes des Temps.) "So THEN," says St Paul, "every one of us shall give account of himself to God." Rom. 14:12. In another place he says: "For not he that commendeth himself is approved, but whom the Lord commendeth." 2 Cor. 10:18. The time is coming in which each of us will be obliged to render an account of his own conduct before God. We will be obliged to render account, not only for the evil we have done, but also for the good we have left undone. Our time, our strength, our health, our property, our talents, all belong to God, and we will be obliged to render account for these precious gifts which he has confided to us. We are not responsible for the sin of Adam nor for the fact that we belong to a fallen race, for these things are not our fault. But the fountain of grace and mercy has been opened by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are responsible if we neglect to repent of our sins. We are responsible if we neglect the gospel of Christ, and if we live in our natural state unconverted. Every sinner is responsible if he neglects the great salvation which has been opened to him. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is so rich and so abundant that the salvation of every sinner is rendered possible. "To-day if ye will hear his voice," says the apostle, "harden not your hearts." Heb. 3:7, 8. We are responsible for every day in which we neglect this gracious invitation; and the Spirit of God may be so long grieved by us that it may finally cut off our days of grace. The blood of Christ has the power to free the sinner of his culpability, but it will not do it without his co-operation. He must repent and obey the gospel. It is possible for him to do this to-day, and he is responsible for each day wherein he neglects to obey. The invitation of the gospel is extended to all classes of mankind. The poor and humble are not forgotten. Those who are ignorant and of weak understanding have as free an invitation as the rich, the noble, and the learned of the earth. "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden," says Christ, "and I will give you rest." Matt. 11:28. The invitation is addressed to all who feel the need of Christ. The condition is to give the whole heart to God without reserve. The time to accept this invitation is the present moment, and our eternal destiny will be determined by our decision. We are responsible for every hour in which we neglect the grace of God. The day of Judgment will call us to render an account for having refused to accept the gracious offer of pardon by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." 2 Tim. 2:19. It is commanded that they walk as Christ walked, and an account will be demanded of them if they neglect to do this. They are the representatives of Christ on the earth, and they should render themselves worthy of Him who has called7 them to glory and to righteousness. They have been bought with a great price. They should therefore glorify God with all the power of their being. They must not bury their talents in the earth. God has the first right over them. They must not consult their own convenience or their own interest, but the glory of God. If it were necessary the Christian should renounce his own life sooner than deny Christ. It is incompatible with Christianity that differences should exist among Christians. They should place themselves on a higher and purer plane, out of the reach of the great adversary who seeks always to cause trouble. The Christian will take heed to the counsels of the word of God. "Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamor, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice; and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Eph. 4:31, 32. It is impossible that quarrels should exist among those who are animated with this spirit. The Son of God hears only those sinners who humble themselves before him, and they must show suitable signs of repentance, before he will do anything for their salvation. "But God commendeth his love toward us in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Rom. 5:8. Those who think they are the least at fault are very much disposed to believe that they are not at all responsible for the quarrels which may exist, and that they have nothing to do until those who are the more to blame humble themselves and take the greater burden of the cause of difficulty. But this is not at all the spirit of the Christian religion. Christ died for his enemies. He was put to death by the same race for whom he died. When men have his spirit in their hearts all their quarrels will come quickly to an end. Such persons are capable of regarding themselves the most in fault, and to consider that had they possessed the spirit of Christ, the evil others have committed would probably never have taken place. The spirit of Christ causes men to see that strict, stern justice is a dangerous thing, and gives them to understand that it is not he who is filled with honesty who is approved, but that it is he whom the Saviour fills. It opens their eyes to see how much the cause of God suffers, and is fettered, and in disrepute because of the evil influence of quarrels among the brethren. They look ahead to the day of Judgment and consider the exact account they must render to God, and can say in their hearts, "I will by the grace of God withdraw myself from this iniquity, let others do as they will, for I must be covered in the day of the anger of God, when he says, 'Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.'" Isa. 28:17. J. N. A. New Year's Greeting.
By Editor
WE cordially wish all our readers a Happy New Year—a happy year throughout. Instead of making any extended remarks upon the occasion we invite special attention to the article on the first page of this number, by Mrs. E. G. White. May all have grace to heed it, not only when the year is new, but even unto “Gray December.” Such words of counsel will never grow old. We hope to form acquaintance with thousands of new readers of the SIGNS in 1882.