TEXT.—"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ." Rom. 5:1.
No apology could be in place for writing or speaking on the subject of justification by faith. Lying at the very foundation of Christian experience—the substratum of the work of the gospel on the human heart—it can never be dwelt upon too much. And when all has been said that human tongues can say, or that human minds can conceive, the whole truth on this great theme will not have been told.
Justice, as defined by Webster, is the quality of being just; rendering to every man his due; conformity to right and obligation. Righteousness has the same signification; for the quality of being right, is rightness or righteousness.
And these words have two applications; or, justification, or righteousness, is of two kinds. One, the righteousness which is by complete obedience. This is referred to by Paul in Rom. 2:13, "The doers of the law shall be justified." Unfortunately for man, as the apostle proceeds to prove, there are no doers of right, and "therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified." Chap. 3:20. But this does not destroy the principle that complete obedience to the law would result in justification. The Scriptures say "Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man." No one would for a moment deny that if man had done his whole duty he would have stood justified before God; for there would have existed no ground for his condemnation. This would have been justification by works, which it is now impossible for man to reach, as all have gone, and in our fallen condition, all do go astray.
The other kind of justification, or righteousness, and that which is the subject of the apostle's argument in this letter to the Romans, is "the treating of sinful man as though he were righteous;" vindicating or defending. This form of justification is, as is well stated by Hooker, "without us, which we have by imputation." This, again, is identical with the righteousness of faith; that is, we are accounted righteous by reason of what some one does for us, and not by reason of our works or obedience.
A question has been raised on Rom. 4:5. "Does God justify the ungodly? And if so, is not Universalism true?" A little consideration of the subject of the argument is sufficient to solve this apparent difficulty. It is an argument based upon the fact that all have sinned; that all are ungodly. The subject is, justification by faith, not of works. This kind of justification is for the ungodly alone; the righteous would not need it. So Jesus said he came not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance; the righteous would need no repentance. But the object or condition of this justification must not be lost sight of. It is not that the ungodly may remain ungodly, or be saved in their ungodliness, but that they may be saved from their sins, or be made the righteousness of God in Christ. Matt. 1:21; 2 Cor. 5:21.
Another question naturally arises on verse 7, regarding the distinction between righteousness and goodness. It has mostly been supposed to refer to some distinctions, somewhat fanciful, held by the Jews. But the distinction is real, and is often recognized. Dr. Clarke mentions four classes into which the Jews divided mankind. The just were those who render to every man his due; the good, those who are magnanimous or benevolent. Probably "the young man" who came to Christ, see Matt. 19:16-22, was a just man in this sense; certainly he was not good in the sense of being benevolent. Scott, on this text, says the just man is one of strict integrity; the good, one of extensive philanthropy; which amounts to the same thing. Chalmers says the righteous or just man is one who is simply in a state of innocence; the good, one who is engaged in benevolence. The same idea runs through all.
Doubtless we have all seen illustrations of this distinction in actual life. We have seen men of integrity, just in the payment of every demand even to a farthing. They would pay every cent, and exact every cent. They would boast that they had never wronged any man, but rendered to every man his full due. As far as the calls of the needy and the suffering were concerned, it was enough for them to know that they had not caused any one to suffer, and they felt no responsibility in their behalf. Disinterested benevolence was a quality to which they were utter strangers. In one sense their characters were commendable; in another sense they were detestable.
Or we may instance the judge who has the highest regard for justice; he will mete it to the evil-doer to the fullest extent of the law. To maintain the law and to defend the government is the ruling motive of his life. But of mercy he knows nothing; the kindlier feelings of his nature have never been developed. On the bench, all are ready to commend his justice; in every-day life, no one calls him good.
We have now brought to notice these two kinds of justification. One of one's self; by obedience. This we should term justification in fact, or justification absolute. With this we have nothing to do in this examination; man has effectually and entirely forfeited it. The other, justification by faith; effected for the transgressor of law by one who does for him what he cannot do for himself. This is not absolute in the sense in which the other kind is, for it is a righteousness (1) by imputation, not by desert; (2) it is conditional.
This brings us to notice a most important truth; to consider a most important relation. Justification by faith is not a final procedure; it looks to something beyond itself to be accomplished in the future. And it is an important factor in the accomplishment of that something. To demonstrate this we must notice another distinction, to wit: that justification is to be distinguished from salvation. Many seem to lose sight of this distinction and thereby fall into grievous and very dangerous errors.
"I am saved," is a common expression with a certain class of professed Christians. While there is a sense in which it ought to be true, and we would charitably hope it is true in many cases, we confidently say it is not true in the sense intended by many who use it. It is frequently used by those who make it a shield from exhortations to further examination of the truth of God and of their own hope of eternal life. In such cases it is sadly abused. We may be saved from sin here. And the sufficiency of this salvation is based, very often, on the purity of our intentions; for no one is completely and perfectly saved from sin unless he is fully acquainted with the will of God, and completely and perfectly fulfills it. Every one must admit that we are absolutely saved from sin just as far as we have light on the truth of God's word in regard to our duty, and follow it, and no farther. To say that we are absolutely and completely saved from sin because we have no consciousness of sin would be to deny the existence of sins of ignorance, of which the Scriptures so largely speak. See Lev. 4, entire, and Num. 15:22-29. Sins of ignorance are not so heinous in the sight of the Lord as sins of presumption; but they are sins, of which the Lord requires repentance and of which we need forgiveness.
When once urging upon an intelligent lady, and we believe an honest one, the necessity of examining a question of duty, a truth of the Bible with which she was not acquainted, and enforcing the duty by the emnity of the coming Judgment and the necessity of a thorough preparation for that day, she made but one answer, and persisted in it: "I am saved; I have given my case to Jesus and he has saved me." We could awaken her from her delusion, for such we held it to be, only by asking her if she thought her probation was ended. This aroused her to a new train of thought and to a reconsideration of her position.
Salvation is two-fold. 1. Salvation from sin. This is a progressive work of Christian life. Some mistake and think the work is finished because they feel that they love the way of truth, and have no desire or disposition to sin. But, as before noticed, they may sin ignorantly, and do things which are offensive to God because they are not fully instructed in the right. When these sins come to their knowledge they must repent; and if they refuse or neglect to repent of them, they stand as indorsing them, and then their relation is changed and they must be counted sins of presumption. And there is place for continuance of this work of increasing in knowledge and reforming in life until we become as perfect in knowledge as our circumstances will permit. This is growth in grace, without which the believer either remains a babe in the Christian life, or degenerates into a fixed state of formality; for no one has a complete knowledge of truth and duty when first he submits himself to God. It is incumbent upon him to grow up into it.
2. There is a final salvation which is brought unto us at the appearing of Christ; of which, salvation from sin (or justification and growth in grace,) is the necessary prerequisite. Of this salvation the Scriptures make very frequent mention. The Saviour said: "He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved." Matt. 24:13; the same in chap. 10:22, and Mark 13:13. This salvation comes after that which is called "the end." Paul said to his brethren: "And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed." Rom. 13:11. Waiving all question as to "the time" to which he referred, we notice that this salvation did not come to them when they believed. It is a future salvation to the believer.
And Peter speaks to those who were "begotten again unto a lively hope," and who "are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." 1 Peter 1:5. The time of the revelation of this salvation is so clearly brought to view in verses 9-13 that we copy them in full:—
"Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into. Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
The Two Covenants.
(Continued).
THE law of the Lord is perfect. Ps. 19:7-11; 111:7, 8; 119:96; James 1:25; 2:8-12. It is God's great rule of right by which sin is shown. 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 3:19, 20; 7:12, 13. But the first covenant is declared by Paul not to have been faultless. Heb. 8:7. This is another palpable proof of a distinction between the moral law and the covenant which God entered into with Israel respecting it. Nor is this to be met by the statement that Paul pronounces the law itself to be faulty, and therefore the law and the covenant may be identical. For the law thus designated by Paul was not the ten commandments, but the Levitical law. And here are a few points out of many in proof of this assertion:—
1. This law was received under the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 7:11. But the ten commandments were received before that priesthood had been appointed. Compare Ex. 20 with Ex. 28.
2. This was a law relating to priesthood, tithes, and offerings. Heb. 7:5, 12, 28. But the ten commandments said nothing concerning this.
3. It was a law which required that the priesthood should be of the tribe of Levi, and which had to be changed in order to have a priest arise out of the tribe of Judah. Heb. 7:12-14. But the ten commandments had no precept that related to the subject, or that needed to be changed for that reason.
Finally, with one further proof of the distinction between the moral law and the first covenant, this point of the argument shall be closed. The first covenant having waxed old and vanished away, the new covenant is made by God in its place. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13. And now observe the grand promise of the new covenant: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. 31:23. It is therefore certain that the dissolution of the first covenant is not the abrogation of the law of God. That which was the law of God in the days of Jeremiah, six hundred years before Christ, is the subject of this prediction. This law was not only to survive the dissolution of the first covenant, but it was to continue to exist under the new covenant, and to sustain even a more
The Complete Evidence for Sunday-keeping.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
IT is often the case when our ministers present the truth on the Sabbath question in a place where it has not before been preached, that they are met with this rejoinder from those who cannot but admit that their argument is sound, "That is your side of the question; now we want to hear our ministers present their side, and perhaps your position will not appear so strong; we want to hear both sides of the question." The desire to hear both sides of any subject is commendable, and our ministers usually gratify this desire by giving all the Sunday arguments themselves. But this often does not satisfy. The people want to hear the Sunday case presented by its own friends, so that they can feel assured that it is done in the best possible manner.
We have in our hands that which will certainly satisfy these anxious ones. It is nothing less than the "fullest authority" for Sunday-keeping. This means both that it is all the authority there is, and all that is needed. We advise all who have to meet the objection stated above, to carry this summary of the Sunday case with them, as it will be of value. Then they can give "the other side" as stated by one of its strongest supporters. The statement is found in the "Dictionary of the Bible," by Philip Schaff, D. D., LL.D., Professor in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, and one of the members of the International Revision Committee. So it is no novice whose testimony we are giving, but one eminently qualified to present the case fairly. Here it is:—
"The Christian Church keeps the first day of the week, which celebrates the close of the spiritual creation just as the last day celebrated the close of the physical creation. We have the fullest warrant for this change. Upon the first day of the week Christ arose from the dead. We find the disciples, before the ascension, assembled on that day, and Jesus appeared to them. John 20:26. According to tradition, which is confirmed by every probability, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost was on Sunday. Paul preached at Troas on the first day of the week—evidently, among those Christians, the day of religious service. Acts 20:7. Paul tells the Corinthians that every one is to lay by him in store upon the first day of the week as he is prospered. 1 Cor. 16:2. It was upon the Lord's day—and by this name he calls it—that John on Patmos saw through the opened door into Heaven. Rev. 1:10."
We agree with the author that this is "the fullest warrant" for the change, inasmuch as it is all that can be produced; but we think even many observers of the Sunday, when they think seriously of the matter, will decide that the "warrant" is not full enough to warrant any one in putting confidence in it as the command of God. "Warrant" is defined by Webster as follows: "That which warrants or authorizes; a commission giving authority, or justifying the doing of anything; an act, instrument, or obligation, by which one person authorizes another to do something which he has not otherwise a right to do." But it would puzzle the most acute lawyer to discover in the above simple statements anything having the nature of a commission, or act authorizing anybody to keep Sunday. If we may venture to criticise so great a man, we will examine the items of his statement one by one.
First. "Upon the first day of the week Christ arose from the dead." True, and we may also add that he was crucified on Friday. Both are interesting items of information, and that is all. His resurrection on first-day no more makes the Sabbath than his crucifixion on sixth-day makes that day one. To make it a "warrant" for Sunday-keeping, a statement, or the commandment to that effect is needed, from one having authority to issue commands. The changed commandment would necessarily read something like this: "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work, having rested on the first day, for the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt do no work. . . . For Christ rose from the dead on the first day; wherefore the Lord blessed the first day and hallowed it." It would not do to say, as the commandment does, that he blessed the Sabbath day, for since the first day had never been rested upon, it was not a Sabbath. But, no such commandment exists; not even a reference to it. And, by the way, is it not singular that the apostles refer to the day of Christ's resurrection? They speak of their resurrection, and of the hope that we have through it; but they had not learned that the time of the event was of any significance whatever. That was reserved for men of more modern times.
Second, "We find the disciples, before his ascension, assembled on that day, and Jesus appeared to them." Admitted; but where is the "warrant"? We may add that they were also assembled on Thursday, the day of his ascension, and Jesus met with them and blessed them. Did that make the fifth day the Sabbath? It does, if all that was required to make a Sabbath was for Jesus to meet with his disciples. There is precisely as much warrant in the Bible for keeping Thursday as there is for keeping Sunday.
Third, "According to tradition, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost was on Sunday." And so our "warrant" depends on tradition after all. This would hardly be accepted as evidence in court. Moreover the tradition is not unquestioned, for many eminent commentators claim that Pentecost came that year on Monday; others claim that it was Sabbath. And most of all, it is of no earthly consequence on what day it came, since the day is not mentioned, and no intimation is given that it was henceforth to be a Sabbath. In order to furnish even inferential evidence that it was to be a Sabbath, our friends must prove (1) that the day was Sunday; (2) that the Holy Ghost always was manifested upon Sunday; (3) that it never came upon any other day; and (4) that the outpouring of the Holy Ghost upon a company of people sanctifies the day on which it occurs. But none of these things can be proven, and if they could, the important thing—a commandment—would be lacking.
Fourth, "Paul preached at Troas on the first day of the week." True; and we also find that the inspired apostles, fresh from the baptism of the Holy Ghost on Pentecost, continued "daily with one accord in the temple," and that the Lord added souls to the church "daily." What an array of sabbaths there are for which we have "the fullest warrant." But the Doctor says that this day was "evidently among those Christians the day of religious service." That means that the fact that the church at Troas kept Sunday is evident, easily to be seen, plainly manifest, obvious, clear to the understanding, notorious. But such is not the case, since there is no evidence that they had ever met together on the first day before, or ever did again. Nevertheless, Paul preached on Sunday once, and if that doesn't make it the Sabbath, what would? Sure enough. Since Paul's action is to decide the case, let us examine it further. In Acts 13 we are told that Paul preached at Antioch on the Sabbath day; that he also preached on "the next Sabbath day." We also read in Acts 17:2 that at Thessalonica "Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures." Also that at Corinth "he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath day, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks." Acts 18:4. Is it not singular that our friends forget to mention these instances when they cite Paul's single sermon on the first day of the week as authority for the sanctification of that day? But we pass on, for we find no "warrant" here.
Fifth, "Paul tells the Corinthians that every one is to lay by him in store upon the first day of the week, as he is prospered." This laying by in store, was to be done at home, i. e., each individual was to look over his accounts and deposit, in a drawer set apart for that purpose, a portion of the earnings of the preceding week. See Barnes, Scott, and others. So it seems that even business transactions make the day sacred. Or, perhaps the day is sacred to the transaction of business. At any rate we look in vain at this simple statement for any command to keep Sunday.
Sixth, "It was upon the Lord's day that John on Patmos saw through the open door into Heaven." Well, and what day of the week was that? "Oh, we have decided that it was Sunday. To be sure it was never before called the Lord's day, and the seventh day was so called; but that makes no difference. We are bound to keep Sunday, and want some warrant for it, so we call it the Lord's day. What! you want proof that John applied the title Lord's day to Sunday? Don't we do it? What further proof do you want?" Such, in substance, is the Sunday argument from Rev. 1:10.
We have analyzed our learned author's statement, and find no "warrant" at all. In the whole of it there is nothing which can be construed into a commission, or an act giving authority. If it had been previously declared to be wrong to keep Sunday as a sabbath (as it really is in the fourth commandment), no one could gather from this summary anything that would justify him in so doing; but that, according to Webster, is what is required in order to constitute a "warrant." Such is the foundation on which the Sunday rests. Our only apology for taking up so much space with this matter is that it is confessedly all the argument which our Sunday friends have, according to the best authority in the United States. As we pause, it seems like a waste of time to review such "arguments," yet they are gravely put forth by a man who is doubtless not excelled in learning by any man in the country, and they are firmly relied on by thousands of intelligent and well-meaning persons. What is it that has so blinded the minds of the people? Dr. Schaff concludes his summary of evidence thus:—140
"The first day of the week is therefore the Christian Sabbath, the day of rest and worship."
Where did he learn this? Where is it stated of the first day, as it is of the seventh, that God blessed it and hallowed it? Nowhere. Elihu, the friend of Job, said, "Great men are not always wise;" and we are reluctantly forced to add the statement that great men are not always honest. We do not take pleasure in speaking of the weakness or fault of any one, but we do take pleasure in being able to show that the Sunday sabbath rests on simple assertions, and that the only one of these assertions which would in any way affect the nature of the day, is wholly false. It is in this way that the commandment of God has been made of none effect. We refer our readers to Eze. 22:26-31, quoting only verse 28, and leave them to make the application for themselves: "And her prophets have daubed them with untempered morter, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken." May the Lord give the people a willingness to look for themselves, and see what the Lord really has spoken. E. J. W.
Monster Petition for Sunday Closing
A MONSTER petition in favor of Sunday-closing in England is about to be presented to Parliament by the Wesleyan Methodists of Great Britain.
Monster Petition for Sunday Closing
A MONSTER petition in favor of Sunday-closing in England is about to be presented to Parliament by the Wesleyan Methodists of Great Britain.
Sunday Laws to Enforce Sabbath Observance!
By Roswell Fenner Cottrell
BY ELD. R. F. COTTRELL.
"JUST in proportion as the minds of our rulers are impressed with the truth that the Sabbath has been divinely ordained from the beginning, and meant as a rule of order for all ages, will we be likely to have Sunday laws to guard it. In proportion, too, as this truth is clearly and energetically apprehended by the people, will such laws have the moral support that will be effective."—Rev. Prof. Valentine, in Christian Statesman.
What have "Sunday laws" to do in guarding and enforcing the claims of the Sabbath which was "divinely ordained from the beginning, and meant as a rule of order for all ages"? Are our rulers so void of intelligence as not to know that the Sunday and the Sabbath are two days—the first, and the seventh, days of the week? How, then, can laws for the observance of Sunday secure the observance of the seventh day—the day on which God rested in the beginning, and which he blessed and set apart from other days for the observance of mankind? The fourth commandment, the only law in the Bible for the observance of a weekly Sabbath, says expressly, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." And we learn from the New Testament that the "Sabbath day according to the commandment," and the first day of the week, are two days, the former being past when the latter dawns. Luke 23:56; 24:1. This testimony proves that the week of the New Testament and that of the Old correspond exactly; so that the Sunday is truly what it is constantly called in the New Testament, namely, "the first day of the week," while the only divine commandment which requires us to keep a Sabbath once in seven days expressly says that the seventh day is that day.
Now the fraud of the Roman Church is in their pretended power to set aside the word and the law of God, and to substitute a requirement of their own, obedience to which will be acceptable to God, while it releases them from their obligation to do what God has expressly and plainly commanded; while that of the Protestant church consists in asserting that that substituted duty is not an innovation or substitution, but the very thing required of God in his commandment.
A comparison of the testimony of Romanists and Protestants will illustrate this. First, we quote the words of Romanists as follows: "The church, by virtue of the power she has received from Christ, abolished the Jewish Sabbath and substituted Sunday in its stead."—F. Weninger, D. D.
Again, it is argued in the "Doctrinal Catechism," another Catholic authority, that had not the church power to make new institutions which would be binding upon men, "she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."
But while Romanists claim that "the governors of the church" have "changed the Sabbath into Sunday," have "abolished" the one and "substituted" the other, Protestants claim, as in the quotation at the head of this article, that "Sunday laws" are to guard the Sabbath "divinely ordained from the beginning." To illustrate this view, we quote the following from a Catechism published by the Presbyterian board:—
"Q. Gen. 2. God did not make anything on the seventh day; what did he do? A. He rested.
Q. Was he tired? A. He was not.
Q. What is meant by saying that he rested? A. That he created nothing more.
Q. Had this day any other name than the seventh? A. It had.
Q. What was it? A. The Sabbath.
Q. Who gave it this name? A. God.
Q. What has God told us about this day in the first part of the fourth commandment? A. 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy.'
Q. To whom does this day belong? A. This day belongs to God alone, He chooses Sunday for his own; And we must neither work nor play, Because it is the Sabbath day."
"How fraudulent!" do I hear you exclaim, "to teach innocent and credulous children that Sunday is the day on which God rested, and which he claims as his own—the day he sanctified to himself!" It looks bad, truly, but they hold it to be perfectly explainable in a manner to vindicate themselves. But we will close this writing by showing how Romanists view it. The Boston Pilot, a Roman Catholic paper, gives the following: "The world, said the preacher, knows how, three centuries ago, the 'reformers' went into churches, mutilating the statues, destroying the paintings, pulling down the altars, stripping the priests of their sacred vestments, changing the name of Sunday and calling it 'the Sabbath,' the name that properly belongs to the Saturday," &c.
James Blake, M. D., a Roman Catholic, in a debate with a Protestant, said, "Christ never wrote, but God the Father did. He wrote the ten commandments on the tables of stone, and the only commandment he emphasized was that to keep the Sabbath day. 'REMEMBER to keep holy the seventh day;' and there is no command so often repeated throughout the Old Testament. If the Bible alone be the gentleman's rule of faith, he is bound by this commandment; but does he observe it? No, he does not. Has he any Scripture authority for rejecting it? No, he does not. Why, then, does he not observe it? Because the church thought fit to change it. Here the gentleman admits the authority of the church to be superior to the hand-writing of God the Father. And yet he will look you in the face and declare that the Bible, without church authority, is his rule of faith."
One falsehood or fraudulent transaction makes way for another; but neither of them can be vindicated. A false foundation cannot support the truth. Neither can "Sunday laws" induce the observance of the Sabbath "divinely ordained from the beginning."
The Missionary.
By S. N. Haskell
Importance of the Cause of God.
BY ELD. S. N. HASKELL.
There is no work so important as the work of God. There is no enterprise so safe as that which has for its object the salvation of those for whom Christ died. There are no institutions so sacred in God's sight as those which are devoted to the interests of the work of our divine Lord and Master. If there is one period in this world's history more important than another, it is the last days, when the work of probation is closing up. All Heaven is astir, and watching with the most intense interest to aid those who, with hearts and interests inseparably connected with the work of God, are struggling with the evil influences which surround them. There is no position so honorable, no work so ennobling to the human mind as that which is connected with the redemption of man through the blood of Christ. To be connected with the institutions which God in his providence has founded, and over which his watchful care is ever exercised, is a higher honor than this world can give.
In the seventh chapter of Revelation we have a prophecy showing the importance of the closing work of the gospel. The seven seals, commencing in the sixth chapter, present a consecutive history of events transpiring between the first and second advents of Christ. Hence there can be no question concerning the age of the world in which the prophecy of the seventh chapter applies. The great day of wrath is brought to view in the last verses of chapter six. The eighth chapter introduces the seventh seal, when there is silence in Heaven for the space of half an hour, seven days, prophetic time. This is when our Lord comes to this earth to gather his saints. Matt. 24:31. All the holy angels will come with him. Matt. 25:31. This is why there was silence in Heaven. The prophecy of chapter seven is parenthetically thrown in, and has its fulfillment under the sixth seal, after the signs spoken of in the 12th and 13th verses of the sixth chapter. The falling of the stars occurred on the night of Nov. 13, 1833.
So important is the sealing work brought to view in the seventh chapter that angels from glory take their position to hold the winds (margin, Jer. 25:32) until the servants of God are sealed.
There are only two classes of interests in the world—man's personal, selfish interests, and the interests of the world's Redeemer. He that controls the elements of nature, the Author and Creator of worlds, sees that importance to this sealing work that divine agencies are employed to control influences which would impede its progress. Wars, national interests, and all individual concerns, are secondary in importance to this work. When compared with it all, the affairs and interests which pertain wholly to this life sink into insignificance.
If this work is of so much importance in God's sight, we can readily understand how precious those persons must be to him whose personal interests are lost in their efforts to aid in accomplishing his purposes in it. To feel that our own personal interests are too dear for us to consecrate them to this work would be the greatest mistake man ever made. The truths of God's word have greater claims upon his people at the present time than during any previous age or the world's history. Young men and women are wanted to enter the field as canvassers, as colporteurs, and to labor in other ways as the providence of God may indicate. But the world presents to them its fleeting charms, its deceptive attractions of honor and position, making the cross of Christ of none effect. It says, "You may keep the Sabbath and be good Christians, but to go without the camp bearing the reproach is too much." They prefer an easier way. The work of God wants true men and women; who possess humility, moral worth, and sterling integrity,—those who will leave their homes, their quiet fireside, and consider it a privilege to labor for their Lord, who has done so much for them. The cause calls for means. This should come from willing hearts; not simply from those who can give as well as not, but from those with whom it will cost struggles, wearisome labor, and141deep, earnest wrestling with God to accomplish that which is undertaken. It may be true that this does not come natural for us. So we might say with truth, that there are no natural Christians. Our natures should be changed, and it is upon this point that we need the grace of God. He longs to help us, that his name may be glorified through us. He will do great things for us if we will let him.
Time and Biblical Miracles
At a recent meeting of the San Francisco Geographical Association, T. E. Slevin, LL.D., read an elaborate paper on the subject of "Time," in which he discussed the meaning of the word, and the origin of the different divisions of time. In the course of his lecture he ridiculed the idea of evolution and expressed his faith in the Biblical statements that at one time the sun stood still at the command of Joshua and at another that it moved backward. He said that these were supernatural phenomena, brought about by the suspension of natural laws by Omnipotent intervention.