Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 48.

PREPARE TO MEET THE LORD
Earlier text: THE WILL

SOME ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY.

The New York Sun of November 7, under the heading of “Constitution Making in Cuba,” says:—
The unselfish position taken by the United States with regard to Cuba is not less majestic and magnanimous because it is not entirely without precedent in history. Repeatedly during the Persian and Peloponnesian wars was the triumph of the Athenian arms followed, not by the conquest of Greek cities, but by the liberation of them from alien or oligarchical oppression. Upon the final overthrow of Macedon the Roman victor proclaimed the restoration of the liberties of Hellas.
The Outlook also raises the same issue. It claims:—
When before in the history of the world has a great nation delivered at its own cost a helpless community from an oppression under which it had long suffered . . . ?
These challenges are worth taking up, for the mere sake of the case, and much more for the sake of the far-reaching truth that is involved. The proclamation made by Flamininus at the time referred to by the Sun, runs as follows:—
The Senate and people of Rome and Titus Quintius the general, having overcome Philip and the Macedonians, set at liberty, from all garrisons and taxes and imposts, the Corinthians, the Locrians, the Phocians, the Euboeans, the Phthiot-Achaeans, the Magnesians, the Thessalians, and the Perrhaebians, declare them free, and ordain that they shall be governed by their respective laws and usages.
When that proclamation was made, the Greeks fairly went wild with joy ‘that there was a people in the world who, at their own expense and the hazard of their lives, engaged in a war for the liberty of other nations; and that not for their neighbors or people situated on the same continent; but who crossed seas and sailed to distant climes to destroy and extirpate unjust power from the earth, and to establish universally law, equity, and justice: that by a single word, and the voice of a herald, liberty had been restored to all the cities of Greece and Asia.’
Further, on this the Sun says:—
It will at the same time be acknowledged that none of the precedents just mentioned quite measures up to the standard of disinterestedness set by the United States in its relations to Cuba.
Instead of this being true in the cited case of Rome and the Greek states, it is the reverse that is true. Rome, immediately upon her victory over Philip, published openly, to the Greeks and to all the world, that proclamation of liberty to the Greek states which we have here reprinted. More than two years have passed since the United States completed the victory over Spain, and no such proclamation, nor anything akin to it, has yet been made, of the liberty of Cuba.
The Sun says: ‘Not long did the Romans respect those liberties of Hellas which Flamininus proclaimed.’ That is true. But it is also true that Rome did proclaim those liberties of Hellas, and that Hellas did enjoy those liberties, at least for a season. But no such thing has ever appeared on the part of the United States, toward Cuba: the United States has not proclaimed the liberty of the Cubans, even for a little while; the Cubans have not had one moment of the enjoyment of the liberty which, at the beginning, the United States declared, ‘is, and of right ought to be,’ theirs. Rome did proclaim and respect the liberties of Hellas, though it was ‘not long:’ the United States has not done any such thing at all, even for a moment, for Cuba.
In the comparison which the Outlook has challenged, and which the Sun has cited, ‘the standard of disinterestedness’ is altogether on the side of Rome. As compared with Rome in the case cited, ‘the standard of disinterestedness set by the United States in its relations to Cuba’ is a blank.
For the sake of the truth in this comparison to which the Outlook and the Sun challenge the world, it is proper to state the case of the United States and Cuba from the beginning up to date.
The United States declared war against Spain, April 18, 1898. That same day she also declared that ‘the people of the Island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.’
The war with Spain, ended Aug. 12, 1898, with the United States triumphant. A treaty of peace was arranged and ratified between the two powers—all this before a year had passed from the beginning of hostilities.
In the declaration of war against Spain, April 18, 1898, it was also declared by the United States ‘that the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said islands, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished, to leave the government and control of the island to its people.’ And, though the war with Spain was ended Aug. 12, 1898, and the treaty of peace was ratified early in 1899, no further word was said on the subject by this nation until June 20, 1900, when in the convention of the national party, that party and the administration, in their platform, declared that ‘to Cuba independence and self-government were assured in the same voice by which war was declared, and to the latter this pledge shall be performed.’
About the same time a plan was announced to the country, and to Cuba, by the national administration, according to which, if Cuba should accept it, a new form of government would be established there. By that plan a constitutional convention was to be called, in Cuba; and if this convention should frame a constitution fully satisfactory to the United States, then the military government now in control would be withdrawn. But if this convention should not frame such a satisfactory constitution, then the military government now in control would remain until Cuba should present a constitution that would be satisfactory to the United States. As to what would be satisfactory to the United States in the suggested arrangement, was made known in the following announced reservations:—
  1. The foreign relations of Cuba to be managed through the American government at Washington.
  2. Cuba to have no power to declare war without the consent of the United States.
  3. The United States government to have a veto power over legislation increasing the Cuban debt beyond certain limits to be set forth in the new constitution.
  4. The United States to have a certain well-defined supervision over the Cuban treasury.
  5. The United States to retain, for a period of years, if not indefinitely, control of the fortifications which command the port of Havana and other important cities of the republic.
In accordance with all this, it was announced, from Washington, July 20, that ‘Cuba is likely to become nominally an independent republic, with certain reservations that will virtually make the island a self-governing colony of the United States, within six or eight months from this date.’
Not long afterward an order was issued by the United States government, giving directions as to the Cuban constitutional convention. Delegates were to be elected, etc., and the convention was to meet in the city of Havana, at twelve o’clock noon, on the first Monday of November, in the year 1900, to frame and adopt a constitution for the people of Cuba, and, as a part thereof, to provide for and agree with the government of the United States, upon the relations to exist between that government and the government of Cuba.’
That convention assembled, according to order, Monday, November 5, and is now in session. And according to that order it was opened by the United States Governor-General of Cuba, in the following words:—
As Military Governor of the Island of Cuba, and representing the President of the United States, I call this convention to order. It will be your duty first of all to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and, when that has been done, to formulate what, in your opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States.
The constitution must be adequate to secure stable, orderly, and free government. When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of the United States will doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests.
All friends of Cuba will follow your deliberations with the deepest interest, earnestly desiring that you shall reach just conclusions; and that, by the dignity, individual self-restraint, and wise conservatism which shall characterize your proceedings, the capacity of the Cuban people for representative government may be signally illustrated.
The fundamental distinction between true representative government and a dictatorship is that in the former every representative of the people, in whatever office, confines himself strictly within the limits of his defined powers. Without such restraint, there can not be free constitutional government.
Under the order pursuant to which you have been elected and convened you have no duty and no authority to take part in the present government of the island. Your powers are strictly limited by the terms of the order.
Note those first two paragraphs. The first one tells them that it is their duty to frame and adopt a constitution for Cuba, and also to formulate what, in their opinion, ought to be the relations between Cuba and the United States. The second one tells them that when they shall have done these two things—then what? that then the freedom and independence of Cuba shall be proclaimed, according to the original declaration of the Congress of the United States? Is that what would follow? Is that what is intended to follow? Surely, if it were to be so, this, of all places and times in the world, was the occasion to say it. But, no. Instead of continuing that sentence to its proper, logical, and only legitimate conclusion, it suddenly breaks off in the middle, and drops to the dismal plane of shuffling and concealment. Read it again, as it actually stands:—
When you have formulated the relations which, in your opinion, ought to exist between Cuba and the United States, the government of the United States will [not proclaim the liberty and independence of Cuba, but only ‘will’] doubtless take such action on its part as shall lead to a final and authoritative agreement between the people of the two countries to the promotion of their common interests.
Read also again the last two paragraphs of the Governor-General’s speech. Read them attentively, and note their ominous meaning to that constitutional convention,—how they are told that their powers are strictly limited, how they must confine themselves strictly within those limits; and how plainly they are told that they have neither any duty nor any authority to take part in the present government of the island.
That is the latest word on the subject, and there can be no kind of question whatever that in the comparison which the Sun has made, the advantage and the way of honor stand pre-eminently in favor of Rome.
And now, from this fact of Rome’s advantage in the comparison, there is a very important conclusion which history itself has drawn, and which stands before us and all people almost as the handwriting on the wall; that is, that Rome did not long respect the liberty of Greece which she had proclaimed.
On this, ancient history itself has recorded that shortly ‘the Romans rendered themselves the sovereign arbiters of those whom they had restored to liberty, and whom they now considered, in some measure, as their freedmen. They used to depute commissioners to them, to inquire into their complaints, to weigh and examine the reasons on both sides, and to decide their quarrels; but when the articles were of such a nature that there was no possibility of reconciling them on the spot, they invited them to send their deputies to Rome. Afterward they used, with plenary authority, to summon those who refused to come to an agreement, obliged them to plead their cause before the Senate, and even to appear in person there. From arbiters and mediators, being become supreme judges, they soon assumed a magisterial tone, looked upon their decrees as irrevocable decisions, were greatly offended when the most implicit obedience was not paid to them, and gave the name of rebellion to a second resistance. . . .’
‘We shall hear one of the chief magistrates in the republic of the Achæans inveigh strongly in a public assembly against this unjust usurpation, and ask by what title the Romans were empowered to assume so haughty an ascendant over them; whether their republic was not as free and independent as that of Rome; by what right the latter pretended to force the Achæans to account for their conduct; whether they would be pleased, should the Achæans, in their turn, officiously pretend to inquire into their affairs; and whether matters ought not to be on the same footing on both sides. All these reflections were very reasonable, just, and unanswerable; and the Romans had no advantage in the question but force.’
And when that was the outcome of Rome’s open proclamation of the liberties of the Greek states, what may be expected to be the outcome of the dealings of the United States with Cuba, in which there has been no proclamation of a single liberty of Cuba?
The prophecy declared, long ago, that ‘an Image to the Beast’ was to come up sometime, somewhere. When is it, and where is it, to be?

THE NEW ORDER OF GOVERNMENT.

For the United States.

A SHORT time ago, in New York City, a professional National Reformer said:—
Congress should be the interpreter of God's law in the same sense that Congress interprets the Constitution. Nor would this result in a state church. What we desire is the union of religion and the state.
Then, in noting the objection “that Congress could not interpret the law of God so as to please members of all denominations,” he answered that “it would come a little hard at first, but in the end it would work satisfactorily.”
Upon all this the Outlook says:—
We agree, as we have repeatedly said, with the position that conformity to divine law is the basis of a just government, but not with the Puritan deduction, maintained by Dr Foster, that Congress should attempt to administer a theocracy.
Yes, that is true. The Outlook does agree, and for a long time has agreed, with the position that “conformity to divine law is the basis of a just government.” Oct. 6, 1900, the Outlook said:—
Just government rests neither upon the edict of a few strong men nor upon the consent of the many; it rests upon the law of God. No government is just which does not conform to the law of God.
Just governments rest on conformity with the laws of God.
At the same time it also said:—
Human governments are, or ought to be, attempts to ascertain what these laws are, and to adapt the life of the community to them.
A righteous democracy is simply one way of ascertaining what are the laws of God, and of conforming the life of the community to them. In democracy a large proportion of the community—in America about one in ten—participate in this endeavor. The other nine tenths are under the government of this one tenth. This method has two great advantages over all other forms of government.
Now, since, according to the Outlook's theory and model of just government, only “about one in ten” have really to do with the conforming of the life of the community to the laws of God, wherein does it differ, in principle, from that of Dr. Foster? The difference is not in any sense one of principle.
Nor is it a difference even of operation. For Dr. Foster finds in Congress the representative body of the whole “righteous democracy,” through which this “righteous democracy” expresses its will in “attempts to ascertain what these laws” of God are, “and to adapt the life of the community to them,” while the Outlook's method of operation is, not the whole body of the “righteous democracy,” but only “about one in ten.”
Thus, as actually stated by the Outlook, in the words before us, between the Outlook's theory of just government and that of Dr. Foster, which it criticises, there is no difference either in principle or in operation, but solely of degree, and even that very slight.
Where can there be any real or practical difference between “one in ten” of a “righteous democracy” attempting “to administer a theocracy;” and one in ten thousand or ten hundred thousand, in a body called Congress, doing the same thing? The thing that is done is the same in both cases: the thing that is attempted to be done is the same in both cases: the theory of government from which springs the thing that is done, or the thing that is attempted to be done, is the same in both cases.
Therefore it is as plain as A B C that the Outlook believes in and advocates, both theoretically and practically, the identical form of government that Dr. Foster the National Reformer does. And the only possible ground of dissent from Dr. Foster's order of government that the editor of the Outlook really has, lies in the mere incident that the editor of the Outlook does not belong to the same church, or sub-order in the “righteous democracy,” that Dr. Foster does. In other words, the editor of the Outlook could not allow that it would be exactly just government for Dr. Foster to conform the editor's life to the laws of God, nor for Congress to conform the editor's life to Dr. Foster's views of the laws of God. And there are tens of thousands of the people in Dr. Abbott's “about one in ten” in the “righteous democracy” who would likewise, and with equal reason, decidedly object to the others of that “one in ten” in the “righteous democracy” conforming their lives to the laws of God.
However, it is not necessary to follow that phase of the case any further at present. From the Outlook's own words the facts plainly appear that the Outlook believes in identically the same sort of government that Dr. Foster the National Reformer does; and that the Outlook recognizes that that form of government is definitely a “theocracy.”
And from this it is perfectly plain that the Outlook, in repudiating the American principle of civil government,—“the consent of the governed,”—in repudiating the republican principle of the Declaration and the Constitution, does so solely in the interests of a man-made theocracy, precisely as the confessed National Reformers have always done.
And this again reveals the mighty fact that the repudiation of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution, by this nation, from Aug. 12, 1898, to date, in which the Outlook has been a leading factor, is clearly in the interests of a man-made theocracy, and will as certainly be followed by that form of government as night follows day.
And that makes plain the truth that this national repudiation of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution—the principle of government by the “consent of the governed”—is the mightiest stride that has been taken since 1892 in the making of the Image of the Beast.

A THIEF AND A SNARE.

By Uriah Smith

Perhaps the most startling feature of the prophecies that set forth the coming of the day of the Lord is the fact that they declare that it will come on the world as a “thief in the night,” and take them as in a “snare.” The Bible reader will at once recall the words of Peter: “But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.” 2 Peter 3:10.
The very announcement that such a day as is here described is to come, sometime, on this world, in its present state, ought to be sufficient to arouse all hearts to interest and anxiety. But the manner of that coming is calculated to stir them more deeply still. For it is to come stealthily and silently, as a thief in the night. Before Peter had written these words, our Lord himself had uttered this emphatic warning: “And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.” Luke 21:34, 35.
The testimony of both these scriptures relates to the day of the Lord; and both use a figure which conveys a most searching impression. One says that it will come as a thief in the night; and the other says it will come as a snare. These figures should not be dismissed without an earnest consideration of their significance. The day of the Lord will come as a thief. What is it to come as a thief? A thief comes in the night; he comes by stealth; he comes suddenly; he comes when he thinks you are least aware, when you are least expecting him, and when he thinks the way is most clear for him to secure his booty and depart without detection. He comes when he thinks you will be lost in the unconsciousness of sleep, or be absorbed in other things, so that you will be off your guard concerning him, and he can accomplish his purpose. The whole figure conveys most intensely the idea of suddenness, unexpectedness, and fatal results, leaving you to discover your loss, and make the best of it, in whatever way you may be able.
The figure of the snare conveys the same lesson. How little the victim of a snare suspected beforehand the danger. All unconscious of peril, the victim was pursuing his own purposes according to his own intentions, when all of a sudden, like a clap of thunder from a clear sky, the trap is sprung, and the whole scene is changed. He is a captive, held fast, freedom gone, and he doomed to the fate for which the snare was laid for him.
SO shall the day of the Lord, says Christ, come upon those that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
Since this is so, the query may arise, How can anyone escape being overtaken as by a thief, and being caught in the snare? The answer is, By watching unto prayer. Peter says: “But the end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.” 1 Peter 4:7.
Bear in mind the distinction implied in the language used on this subject. The day comes, it is true, as a snare upon all that dwell on the face of the whole earth. But who are they who are counted as dwellers upon the earth?—Not the people of God; for they walk by faith, not by sight. They are led by the Spirit, and are not reckoned as dwellers on the earth, but are pilgrims and strangers, with no abiding city here. Upon them the day of the Lord does not come as a snare. So, whereas Peter says that the day of the Lord shall come as a thief in the night, without any qualification, Paul, to the Thessalonian brethren, explains the situation more fully. He does not contradict Peter, but confirms his testimony. He says: “For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.” Then he explains that there are two classes, differently related to the day of the Lord. One class are children of the night and of darkness; and the other are children of the light and the day; and to the believers he says: “Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness,” that that day should overtake you as a thief.” 1 Thess. 5:4, 5.
And again, he who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, writes to the members of the Sardis church: “If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.” Rev. 3:3. The converse of this must, of course, be true,—that if they would watch, they would know what hour he would come upon them, and would not be overtaken as by a thief. Such are exceptions to the general rule which Peter lays down.
And what kind of a day is this which is thus coming upon the world as a thief?—It is a day such as this world has never yet seen. Read Zephaniah’s graphic description of it. Zeph. 1:14–18: “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly. That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness, a day of the trumpet and alarm against the fenced cities, and against the high towers. And I will bring distress upon men, that they shall walk like blind men, because they have sinned against the Lord: and their blood shall be poured out as the dust, and their flesh as the dung. Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them in the day of the Lord’s wrath; but the whole land shall be devoured by the fire of his jealousy: for he shall make even a speedy riddance of all them that dwell in the land.” The earth has passed through terrible experiences, appalling disasters, scenes of terror that have paralyzed the stoutest hearts; but the earth has not yet been brought to drink of the cup of God’s unmixed wrath against sin.
The day of the Lord includes these scenes of trouble. It takes in the seven last plagues, and extends over to the time when the great deluge of the final lake of fire shall be quenched at the end of the thousand years of Revelation 20. The opening of the day of the Lord will draw the final line of separation between the righteous and the wicked. That day may therefore be said to open with the beginning of the seven last plagues, which mark the end of human probation. It is this point, therefore, which comes suddenly and unexpectedly, as a thief and as a snare.
But why does the day come as a thief and as a snare? Does the Lord design it to be so; and has he planned it so?—Not by any means. He has done everything within his power, which he could do consistently, to have it otherwise. He has done everything that he could do to awaken and arouse the world in regard to the coming of the great day of the Lord, and its nature. He has filled his word with predictions that such a day is coming; he has specified the signs that would be given to indicate its approach; he has written the fulfillments of these signs all over the heavens and the earth, and among men, to warn them, that they might understand the time in which they were living; he has laid out in his word the steps which Christ would take in working out the great plan of salvation; he has revealed that the last work of our Redeemer in his priesthood would be a work in the second apartment of the heavenly temple, or sanctuary, on high; he showed the very day on which that work, the atonement, or the cleansing of the sanctuary, would begin—a momentous day, now more than fifty years in the past; and finally he has sent forth a world-wide message of warning and invitation, to go to all nations, kindreds, tongues, and peoples, that no one might have any excuse for not knowing the time.
No; the Lord does not wish the world to be taken in a snare, nor to be overtaken as by a thief. He would have them not only warned but prepared for that day and for his kingdom. That day comes upon them as a thief because of their own course of action. Men are themselves responsible for that feature of the case, because they will not heed the warning nor believe the message. The Lord’s throne is clear. No man can blame the Lord for any evil destiny which may be his lot.
As a free moral agent, every man is the arbiter of his own destiny. Like the man in the parable who was questioned why he had come in without a wedding garment, and was speechless, so the wicked, when asked why they have not made preparation for that day concerning which they have been so often warned, will be speechless. But all at last, the righteous willingly and heartily, the wicked, by constraint, will be impelled to join in the reverent ascription to him that sitteth on the throne, “Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints.” U. S.

Tribune's Forecast of Imperialism and the Administration

The New York Tribune is the leading administration paper. Its editor and proprietor was one of the commissioners who arranged the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain. Since that treaty was arranged, his speeches, his articles, and his paper, by some singular or other coincidence, have marked out exactly the course taken by the national administration. And now the Tribune has announced the result of the late election as “an overwhelming victory for imperialism.” If the course of the national administration shall coincide as closely, for the next four years, with this forecast of the Tribune, as for the last two years it has coincided with the other forecasts of that paper, then by the time the four years shall be ended, the results will be so positive and decisive as to convince the most determined skeptic.

REBUKING SIN.

By John Norton Loughborough

“There are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” Titus 1: 10–14.
It may be asked, Does not this testimony show that the servants of the Lord are to use sharp rebukes, and that they are not always to be as tender as has been set forth in former articles? We answer: The rebuking here spoken of by the apostle does not give license to sharp words proceeding from the carnal heart, but in using the truth of God in exposing errors.
This thought is again expressed in the same epistle, where he says, of our Saviour Jesus Christ, “who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.” Titus 2: 14, 15. The rebuking is the exposing of sin, iniquity, and all departures from Christ, not with human zeal and words of man’s devising, but by teaching “these things”—the plain truths of the gospel.
This is again set forth in Paul’s solemn charge to the ministry, as given to Timothy, where he says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and kingdom: Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine.” 2 Tim. 3: 16, 17; 4: 1, 2.
This is in perfect accord with what he had taught in his first epistle to Timothy, where he says: “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.” 1 Tim. 5: 21, 22.
Now let us compare this with Christ’s manner, given to us for an example, as presented in the Testimonies: “With tender compassion should a brother deal with brother. Delicately should he deal with feelings. It is the nicest and most important work that ever yet was done to touch the wrongs of another. With the deepest humility should a brother do this, considering his own weakness, lest he also should be tempted. . . .
“Said Jesus, ‘Love one another as I have loved you.’ Do you feel, when a brother errs, that you could give your life to save him? If you feel thus, you can approach him and affect his heart; you are just the one to visit that brother. But it is a lamentable fact that many who profess to be brethren are not willing to sacrifice any of their opinions or their judgment, to save a brother.”—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. 1, page 166.
“Frequently the truth and facts are to be plainly spoken to the erring, to make them see and feel their error that they may reform. But this should ever be done with pitying tenderness, not with harshness or severity, but considering one’s own weakness, lest he also be tempted. When the one at fault sees and acknowledges his error, then, instead of grieving him, and seeking to make him feel more deeply, comfort should be given. In the sermon of Christ upon the mount, he said: ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.’ Our Saviour reproved for rash judgment. ‘Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye?’ ‘and behold a beam is in thine own eye.’ It is frequently the case that while one is quick to discern the errors of his brethren, he may be in greater faults himself, but be blind to them.”—Id., Vol. III, page 93.
“The Lord would teach his servants great carefulness in all their moves. ‘Let both grow together.’ Do not forcibly pull up the tares lest in rooting them up, the precious blades will become loosened. Both ministers and church-members should be very cautious, lest they get a zeal not according to knowledge. There is danger of doing too much to cure difficulties in the church, which, if let alone, will frequently work their own cure. It is bad policy to take hold of matters in any church prematurely. We shall have to exercise the greatest care, patience, and self-control, to bear these things, and not go to work in our own spirit to set them in order.”—Id., pages 113, 114.
“We are not to bruise the souls of the erring, but to go to them armed with humility and prayer. When the gospel minister, with his heart subdued by the love and grace of Christ, comes in touch with human minds, he can reveal his superior qualifications, not by destroying hope and courage, but by inspiring faith in the faithless, by lifting up the hands that hang down, and confirming the feeble knees.”—Review, Nov. 21, 1899.
“There will ever be a spirit to rise up against the reproof of sins and wrongs. But shall the voice of reproof be hushed because of this? If so, we shall be in no better situation than are the various denominations in our land, who are afraid to touch the prevailing errors and sins of the people.
“There are ever those who will despise the one who dares to reprove sin; but there are times when reproof must be given. Paul directs Titus to rebuke a certain class sharply, that they may be sound in the faith. Men and women, who, with their different organizations, are brought together in church capacity, have peculiarities and faults. As these are developed, they will require reproof. If those who are placed in important positions never reproved, never rebuked, there would soon be a demoralized condition of things that would greatly dishonor God. But how shall the reproof be given? Let the apostle answer: ‘With all long-suffering and doctrine.’ Principle should be brought to bear upon the one who needs reproof; but never should the wrongs of God’s people be passed by indifferently. . . .
“God would have his people disciplined and brought into harmony of action, that they may see eye to eye, and be of the same mind and of the same judgment. In order to bring about this state of things, there is much to be done. The carnal heart must be subdued and transformed. God designs that there shall ever be a living testimony in the church. It will be necessary to reprove and exhort, and some will need to be rebuked sharply, as the case demands. We hear the plea, ‘Oh, I am so sensitive I can not hear the least reflection!’ If these persons would state the case correctly, they would say, ‘I am so self-willed, so self-sufficient, so proud-spirited, that I will not be dictated to; I will not be reproved. I claim the right of individual judgment; I have a right to believe and talk as I please.’ The Lord would not have us yield up our individuality. But what man is a proper judge of how far this matter of individual independence should be carried?’—“Testimonies for the Church,” Vol. III, pages 359, 360.
J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH.
Continue reading: SUGGESTIONS ON REVELATION 12