Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 34, No. 4.

THE THIRD MESSAGE

Review and Herald

Jul 20, 1869

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jul 20, 1869

THE THIRD MESSAGE.

By Uriah Smith

An article bearing this heading, and professing to have been written by the “Rev. Wilson Gray,” appeared in the Northwestern Christian Advocate, of June 9, 1869. As a specimen of the reckless and careless manner in which professed clergymen treat the great Bible truths we advocate, it demands a brief notice. Ignorance, or a willingness to misconstrue our teachings, seems to lie at the foundation of his article; and as the result, his production is but a series of misstatements and misrepresentations.
He first accuses us of pinning our faith to a “non-essential of the Christian life.” What he intends by this he does not tell us. All we have to say in reply is, that we pin our faith to nothing but the word of God, and take nothing to be essential but that which it represents to be so.
He next gives us a wonderful piece of information respecting the Seventh-day Baptists, as follows: “The sect called Seventh-day Baptists had its origin since 1846; a more recent development bears the name of Seventh-day Adventists.” What would some of the eminent men of the S. D. Baptist denomination, who flourished at least two hundred years ago, say to this statement could they hear it! And the declaration that S. D. Adventists are a development of the sect called S. D. Baptists, will, I imagine, surprise not a little, some of those now living. The origin of S. D. Baptists is placed this side of 1846, and that of S. D. Adventists later still, whereas S. D. Adventists existed previous to that year. Thus in his self-assumed task of enlightening the world in reference to S. D. Baptists, and S. D. Adventists, Mr. G. is not correct in one particular respecting their origin and rise.
He is further guilty of the unpardonable jumble of confounding the two denominations, making them both equally concerned in the doctrine designated by the expression, “third message,” for which the S. D. Baptists will not, I venture to presume, particularly thank him.
He says the “third message dates from the disappointment in 1844.” It must then have been given some time by the S. D. Baptists alone; for S. D. Adventists did not rise till after them, and they are placed subsequent to 1846. By whom it was given before S. D. Baptists got hold of it, we are not informed! Such inaccuracy would be simply amusing, did it not amount to an imposition on the public.
He speaks of 1844 as “the time set by Wm. Miller;” another statement which needs no correction so far as those are concerned who have any knowledge of the Advent movement.
After an indiscriminate reference to Daniel and “Revelations,” little horn and pope, beast and mark, he says, “Advent exegesis on this text [what text no kind of information is given,] is a gratuitous assertion, which, for folly, misapprehension, or selfish design, cannot be surpassed by any of the Pope’s expositors.”
But as he gives no reason for calling our exposition gratuitous, nor tells wherein the folly consists, nor points out the misapprehension, nor exposes the selfish design, we pass it by as a harmless ebullition of prejudice unworthy of further notice.
He next makes an assertion, damaging either to the character of God, or to his own profession as one who understands and can teach his word. It is this: “What in particular shall constitute the mark of the beast, is not told in Scripture.” What kind of an idea can a man have of the word of God who will make such an assertion as that? Is not the reception of the mark of the beast set forth as a most heinous sin? Is not the generation that lives just before the appearing of the Son of Man on the white cloud, specially warned against receiving it? And is there not on record, the most terrible denunciation of wrath against it that can be found in the word of God? Oh, yes! But yet we are not told what the mark of the beast is, and can, therefore, know nothing in particular about it. Again I ask, What kind of an idea can a man have of the word of God, or the character of God, who will take such a view as this? To fathom the indignity which such a position offers to the great Lawgiver, suppose for a moment that human legislators should make laws against a certain crime, denouncing it in the strongest terms, and affixing to it the severest penalties known, and then give no information as to what that crime was, which was to be so carefully avoided, or if committed, so terribly punished. What would be thought of such men? Their legislation would be denounced as a mockery, and a farce, and they themselves would be a laughing-stock and a by-word from one end of the continent to the other. Yet men will dare to charge upon the Almighty folly as much greater than this, as heavenly things are higher than earthly.
He further represents us as holding that the “patience of the saints, and keeping the commandments of God are all comprised in observing Saturday.” If he knows no more of us than is indicated by the above sentence, he has no right to speak in reference to us at all. If he does, how shall we account for so malicious a representation? Had a person deliberately tried to see how effectually he could falsify in reference to our position, he could not have uttered what is farther from the truth. The patience of the saints is distinct from the commandments of God, and all the commandments are not comprised in keeping Saturday. We dwell particularly on the observance of the Sabbath of the Lord, because on this point, the people have long been taught to practice in opposition to the requirements of the fourth commandment.
He continues: “A very pleasant faith. Easily obtained, indeed, would Heaven be, if this were the mark of the righteous. Mohammed could have offered no better terms for entering his paradise.” I presume this man has in his articles of faith some Christian duties which he considers it at least advisable to practice. Now suppose we should single out some one of these, and then represent him as teaching that Heaven was to be gained by doing that thing. How would he like it? There is a short passage of scripture which reads, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets;” and we would say to him, Sir, please remember the golden rule, and do not let your hatred of the law lead you to violate that principle which our Lord lays down as the soul and essence of the law, and do unto others as you would not they should do unto you.
Having stated something about the origin of this people, as already noticed, he makes a statement equally reliable respecting one of its leaders. He says:
“A leader of the sect under consideration was first a Congregationalist, obtaining more light he afterward became a Baptist, he next joined the Christians. Still in search of light, he became a Millerite; the disappointment of 1844 left him a Second Adventist. A few years since his mind was greatly enlightened, and he embraced the Sabbath, a doctrine which eclipsed all his former beliefs. Now who would be surprised if this individual found something else to embrace (religiously) before his death?”
Writers of fiction usually have the honesty to give the reader to understand that such is the nature of their writings, or at least only claim that they are founded on facts. But what object a man can have in manufacturing statements, and presenting them as truth, especially a professed minister of the gospel, is difficult to determine. When any reason can be given for such a course, the statements above quoted can perhaps be accounted for. They are not true concerning any leader in this work. The one to whom reference is probably made, never was a Congregationalist nor a Baptist. From the Christian church he embraced the doctrine of the Advent as taught by Wm. Miller, to which he has steadfastly adhered, subsequently adding the observance of the Sabbath, as the light on that subject was presented to him.
But to give credit for the good as well as to take exceptions to the bad, I am happy to notice one excellent paragraph. Here it is: “It is nowhere stated in Scripture that the Sabbath was changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.” It is good for the readers of the Advocate to know this fact; and we would that the writer, having got so fairly on the track, had kept on; but, alas! he is on only a moment like one crossing it at right angles; for the very next paragraph reads: “But Scripture is not wanting to prove that the keeping of any special day is not essential to our salvation.” In support of this, he quotes those texts which speak of ceremonial observances and feast days, but have no reference to the weekly Sabbath whatever. But lest, he says, we should say Paul here referred to Jewish holidays and customs, he quotes Isaiah 1, 13: “Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths.” “Here,” he says, “they are all classed together, and the Sabbath in its observance is declared an abomination.” Because the word “sabbaths” occurs here, he thinks it must be the weekly Sabbath. He seems not to be aware that there were seven yearly sabbaths connected with the typical system; and to these Isaiah refers, classing them where they belong, with oblation, incense, and new moons. But rather than lose its application to the weekly Sabbath, Mr. G. is willing to set down the observance of that as an abomination!! It would be gratifying to know how the readers of the Advocate received that statement.
But compare this with his closing words: “With Paul we would say, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; if he regards the day unto the Lord, the Lord will accept him and the day, whether it be Saturday, or Sunday, or Thursday.” How is this? Will the Lord accept it? Had he not just said that the Lord regarded it as an abomination? Does the Lord accept abominations? Mark his positions: 1. No Sabbath; no day is essential. 2. The Sabbath is an abomination. 3. Any day is acceptable to the Lord. But if this is so, and the observance of Saturday is just as acceptable to the Lord as Sunday, why all this uncalled for and gratuitous ado over the matter? Where do men’s conscientiousness and ideas of consistency go to, when they take up their pens against the Sabbath? Can any one show us an article, however short, written against Jehovah’s rest-day, which is true to facts, or consistent with itself? If so he shall be liberally rewarded.
U. S.
Greenville, Mich., July, 1869.

AFTERWARD.

No sorrow seemeth joyous, No bitter tasteth sweet, No grief but leaves a furrow, No pleasure is complete, Here!
But, soul, be ever patient, Count not thy trials hard; The joyous fruit shall greet thee; It cometh afterward— There!
Deep through thee runs the plowshare! The soil is harsh and dry; But it's only growing ready For harvest by-and-by— There!
Hot are the tears that blister Thy cheeks so pale and wan; While empty hands are groping For some beloved one gone! Here!
Bright shall the sunbeams glitter Above the jasper gates, Where many a joyous welcome To greet thy coming waits, There!
Oh! soul be ever patient, Though sorrow seemeth hard; For bliss shall come for sighing, Not yet, but afterward, There!
—S. S. Times.

UNFAIRNESS.

By Dudley Marvin Canright

The advocates of truth can always afford to be fair and candid. They have sound arguments enough to use without resorting to unsound ones. But the advocates of error generally have to resort to all kinds of unfair arguments to support their positions. We find an instance of this in the arguments advanced to prove the immortality of the soul. The denial of the soul’s immortality is usually construed by them into a denial of any future life whatever. Hence they proceed to array all the evidences in favor of a future life, and then triumphantly assert that they have proved the immortality of the soul. This is very unfair. Here is an example of this uncandid method of reasoning. Says D. W. Clarke, while arguing for the immortality of the soul, “Our second argument is drawn from the concurrent belief of all ages and all people in a future state.” (“Man all Immortal,” p. 108.) How does this prove the soul to be immortal? Can there be no future life unless the soul is immortal? Most certainly there can. Man is to have a future life, not by virtue of his immortal soul, but by a resurrection from the dead. Hear the Saviour’s promise of a future life: “And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one that seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” John, vi, 40. Paul says, “If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” 1 Cor. xv, 32. He does not say, “If the soul is not immortal,” &c., but he rests all upon the resurrection of the dead.
This is the way the Bible points out a future life for man, and so we believe he will have it. Many unanswerable arguments show that man is designed for a future life, and should have it. Hence nearly all nations have some notions of a future life. But this by no means proves that man has an immortal life. Here is another specimen of this unfair arguing: Prof. S. C. Bartlett, D. D., of Chicago, Ill., in his preface to “Life and Death Eternal,” p. 6, says, “For as a matter of fact, the race have believed it [the immortality of man]. We certainly have testimony showing that the expectation of another life existed throughout the tribes of the Western Continent, from Greenland to Patagonia, &c.” He then goes on to argue the necessity of a future state in order to rectify the inequalities of this life, &c., as though the denial of the immortality of the soul would not allow of this. Now we protest against such arguments on this point. We believe in a future life and a future Judgment, as well as they, and so do thousands of others who do not believe that the soul is immortal.
The Bible doctrine of a future life by means of a Saviour and a resurrection from the dead, has been perverted into the doctrine of the natural immortality of the soul. Man will have a future life, it is said, because his soul is immortal. Then all the arguments in favor of a future life are brought to prove this false doctrine, while the true doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, is entirely ignored. This is always Satan’s plan to pervert God’s truth by a counterfeit, which in many points resembles it. The heathen lost sight of the resurrection; then Satan introduced this counterfeit and he has made capital of it.
There is another fact of the same nature as the above, which I have noticed, viz., many tribes and rude nations are reported by believers in the immortality of the soul, as holding that doctrine, when all the evidence they have of it, is that these people have some exceedingly vague ideas of a future life. From this it is immediately assumed that they believe in the immortality of the soul, and they are set down as orthodox on that point! Such a conclusion is entirely gratuitous. Such statements should be received with much caution and much discount. Yet this is the nature of much of the evidence that is used to show that “all nations and ages have believed the soul immortal.” It wants proof.
D. M. CANRIGHT. Talleyrand, Iowa.

“MAKE AN IMAGE.”

By R. F. COTTRELL

NEARLY twenty years ago we came decidedly to the faith that the United States was the government symbolized in prophecy as the beast with two horns like a lamb—the power that will cause an image to be made to the Papacy. Rev. xiii, 11-18. It was a bold belief, but the specifications of the two-horned beast had been so far fulfilled in our own government that we felt sure that the remaining portion of the prophecy would certainly follow. The Papacy being an ecclesiastical establishment, controlling civil government, an image must be like it. Hence, we look for a union of sects on some leading points, which will enable them to concentrate their power, so as to procure legislation in favor of some of their religious sentiments and observances, in which they can agree, especially the observance of Sunday, the substitution of which in the place of the Sabbath of the decalogue is the distinguishing “mark” of that power, that, in fulfillment of prophecy, claims to be able to “change times and laws.”
But this our faith, though seemingly bold, is being continually strengthened by the current of public sentiment. We see it drifting more and more in favor of a union of religion and politics, of Church and State. Twenty years ago we could say:
“The lightest down will soonest show Which way the rising breezes blow;”
but now there is no mistaking the matter. All that have eyes and ears, and use them, must know which way the wind and tide are setting. The Examiner and Chronicle, which claims to be “the most largely-circulated denominational newspaper in the world,” in a recent number has an article on the “Political Effect of Religious Union,” which opens as follows: “Some of the political newspapers are anticipating important political consequences from the reunion, now well nigh secured, between the two schools of the Presbyterians. And there is good ground for the anticipations which are indulged.” We give the concluding paragraphs:
“There is, also, a far higher sense in which substantial union among Christians must be productive of important political results. It would create a respect for religious sentiment on political questions. At present no such respect exists. Politicians, often of the most unscrupulous order, have the entire management of our public affairs, and in the present divided condition of the religious public, they do not reckon its sentiments on any question as of the smallest practical account. They know full well that these sentiments are not only unorganized, but wholly destitute of unity and force. The result is, the politicians make combinations for themselves, and select candidates for office without the smallest reference to any religious sentiment that exists among the people. Nearly every other interest of society, however transitory, has made itself felt, and is occasionally consulted; but the religious sentiment, never. Freedmen and foreigners, women and workingmen, not to speak of others, are each an organized force, which politicians deem it prudent to respect, or at least not to despise. But this is more than can be said of the faith and conscience of Christian men.
“We do not mean to say that these are ever intentionally outraged; they are only ignored and left wholly out of account. Men are selected for the highest trusts of the State and the nation with no more reference to their religious faith or example and observance, than to their stature or their personal appearance. We have had magistrates of the very highest rank, who were as ignorant of Christianity as of Hinduism, and cared as little for one as for the other. It may not be well to create a religious party, though many worse things have been done. But it is well, it is even very desirable, that the religious sentiment of the country should make itself felt in politics, and become a power that is no longer to be trifled with. And we hail every judicious step towards ecclesiastical co-operation and Christian union, as a means for promoting this important end.”
Christian union on the basis of truth is truly desirable. Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one, being sanctified by the truth, the word of God. John xvii, 17-20. But the “substantial union among Christians,” in contemplation, and which is to lead to such “important political results,” is to be merely a compromise of sectarian differences. The writer says, “Differences of views will of course still remain as they were before, but they will cease to be occasions of alienation.” But there are some points on which they can agree, such as the Sunday Sabbath, which, having no divine law to enforce it, stands in perishing need of human legislation. On this “the religious sentiment of the country” will soon “make itself felt in politics, and become a power that is no longer to be trifled with.” Then woe to dissenters! Woe to those who prefer the commandments of God, and neglect the traditions of men!
We know from the sure word of prophecy, which has proved, and is proving, itself an infallible guide, that the movement will carry—that the image of the beast will be made, and that legislation will be obtained to enforce the mark. Who will be prepared to endure the struggle, holding fast the commandments of God? Who will hold the faith of God’s word at the risk of his life? It is time to think on these things, and be prepared to act with decision. R. F. COTTRELL.
Will the Editor of the Sabbath Recorder do me the favor to give the above a place in his columns? R. F. C.

THE RIVER OF LIFE.

By ADOLPHUS SMITH

I HAVE rowed a skiff, in the darkness of night, against the current of a dark, turbid river, whose purling, gurgling waters spoke to my ears of the death-struggles of many a hapless wretch, against its resistless tide. And although help may have been within reach, its merciless waters gagged his last cry for aid, and he sank, to rise no more till the seas give up the dead that are in them.
Then I thought of the resurrection, and how cheerless the end must be to one who is compelled to yield his life to the merciless element that has engulfed millions of the human race, without hope. O God, pity the drowning wretch! But in his lifetime he rejected the call of mercy; he chose to live in pleasure, and now he must die in his sins to await a resurrection to damnation.
I continued rowing my skiff against the resisting current; the gnarled and broken trees, heavy with the foliage of June, that studded the irregular bank of the river, were reflected darkly from the bosom of the restless waters, or drawn in dim outline against the murky sky. The rank, wild grass and underwood, that lined the margin of the river, afforded a secure retreat for the serpent. On the air was borne the miasm of putrescent marshes, freighted with disease and death to poor, fallen man.
Then I thought of the river of life, which takes its rise at the throne of God, in the midst of Paradise. Oh! how strange the contrast between its crystal waters; its banks of green, “Where bright angel feet have trod;” its tree of life, yielding its delicious fruit to immortal hands; and the pure air laden with the odor of Eden’s blossoms; and the scene I now behold.
Dear reader, does this dark world afford you ample satisfaction? Or have you a desire to inherit a portion in the New Earth, “Where ’tis one bright summer, ever bland, and storms do never come”?
Does not the ceaseless round of toil, care, and sorrow, when contrasted with the inheritance of the saints, inspire within your breast an insatiate thirst for the waters of life, a desire to tread the banks of the beautiful river in the immortal state? God grant that your life, henceforth, may give an affirmative reply.
“Shall we gather at the river Where bright angel feet have trod, With its crystal tide forever Flowing by the throne of God?”
That you and I, dear reader, in companionship with angels, may tread the golden sands that line the margin of the river, is my prayer. * ADOLPHUS SMITH.

PAUL A SABBATH-KEEPER.

By STEPHEN PIERCE

Many have tried to satisfy their consciences with the idea that Paul was a Sunday-keeper; and of course were ready to establish their faith upon his example in this, as well as in other things. But if they would carefully read just three passages to which their attention will herein be directed, such as are humble seekers after truth must necessarily come to a very different conclusion.
The first of these is found in Acts xxiv, 14: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”
The way which they called heresy, doubtless, meant the gospel. According to the gospel, so he worshiped the God of his fathers, believing all things written in the law and prophets.
If any think Paul’s practice did not agree with his belief, we would refer them to the 16th verse; “And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God, and toward men.” How could he exercise himself so as to have always a conscience void of offense? Certainly in no other way than by practicing just what he believed. Then, of course, if he believed all things written in the law, he obeyed them all, the Sabbath commandment with the rest.
Another passage is found in chap. xxv, 8: “While he answered for himself, Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple, nor yet against Cæsar have I offended anything at all.” If Paul had not offended against the law of the Jews, he certainly had not desecrated the seventh day—not that we call the Sabbath law a law of the Jews; it was not; it was the law of God. But all must know that in case of his breaking the holy Sabbath, the law of the Jews would have caused him to be stoned to death. Hence, the act would have been against the law of the Jews, as well as against the law of God. As Paul declares that he had not offended against the temple, it would seem that if he had transgressed one of the ten great rules of the temple worship, located within the most holy apartment of that building, that such an act must have been somewhat against the temple itself. Again, here is sufficient evidence that he kept the fourth, as well as all the other commandments of the decalogue.
But to conclude we will introduce Acts xxviii, 17: “And it came to pass, that after three days, Paul called the chief of the Jews together. And when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.”
The point to be noticed here, is, that Paul had committed nothing against the people or customs of their fathers. Now if Paul desecrated the holy Sabbath from week to week, every one must know that he did commit something against the customs of their fathers; and that, too, considered by them a very serious offense, even worthy of death.
Further than this Paul says in the 18th verse: “Who when they had examined me, would have let me go, because there was no cause of death in me.” Now if he had transgressed that holy law, there was a cause of death in him; “For the wages of sin is death.” And further than this, the Jewish law would have enforced the penalty of death also.
Now if we can possibly believe that in all the above scriptures quoted, Paul did utter perfect falsehoods, and that Luke also afterward penned them as inspiration, then we might believe that Paul did desecrate the holy Sabbath; otherwise we must believe that he kept it.
STEPHEN PIERCE.

“THE LAW AND THE TESTIMONY.”

By Ellet Joseph Waggoner

Many read Isa. viii, without considering the proper relation of the Law and the Testimony to each other, or even the meaning of the terms. At the recent tent meeting in Oakland it was objected against the testimonies of God’s Spirit now being given to the church, as follows: “Sin is the transgression of the law; if it is a sin to reject these testimonies, show it by the law—the ten commandments.”
The objector professed to have embraced the third angel’s message of Rev. xiv, but if he holds on to the spirit of the above objection, that message will be no benefit to him; and why? Because his position is on the law alone, which is a position not justified by the message. The Jew might, in like manner, say, If it is wrong to reject Christ, prove it by the law; show the commandment in the law which makes it obligatory on us to believe in Christ. Now the difficulty with the objectors in these cases is that they are sinners, and the law makes no provision for the sinner except this, that he “shall die.” The obedient may stand on the law: the transgressor is driven by the law to seek a refuge from destruction. This refuge is Christ and his gospel; this gospel is a remedial system, and among its means are the gifts of the Holy Spirit. The design of the gospel, and of course of its means, including the gifts of the Spirit, is to restore fallen, sinful man to obedience to, and the favor of, God. The law drives the condemned sinner to the gospel; and the gospel leads him back, penitent, justified, and obedient, to the law. Justice and mercy then rejoice together. God’s justice is approved while he justifies the penitent believer in Jesus. Rom. iii, 23–26.
We might expect then that there would be a very close relation between the means of the gospel—the gifts of the Spirit—and the law. And such we find, in the Scriptures, is the case.
In Rev. xix, 10, we are informed that “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Prophecy is one of the most useful and necessary gifts set in the church of Christ (see Eph. iv, 8, 11; 1 Cor. xii, 4–10, 28; xiv, 1–25.); “The spirit of prophecy” is the most gracious blessing ever conferred on a church; and this, according to Rev. xix, 10, is synonymous with “the testimony of Jesus.” Now we look for the proof of our proposition, that the law and the gifts, or spirit of prophecy, are closely united in the Scriptures of truth.
Rev. xii, 17, speaks of the “remnant” of the church of Christ; the remnant must be the last part of the church—that part living immediately preceding the plagues of God’s wrath, and the second advent. Of course, this remnant are under the third angel’s message, which is given just preceding the coming of Christ. See Rev. xiv, 9, to close. In this message are “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” The remnant, of Rev. xii, 17, are said to “keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ;” which, as has been shown, is the spirit of prophecy. How any one can profess to believe the Son of Man is soon coming on the white cloud, and profess to keep the commandments of God, and yet oppose the testimony of Jesus, or the spirit of prophecy, is a marvel to me. Ungodly worldlings, and formal, unsanctified professors may love such a contradictory and unscriptural position; but I trust the Lord in mercy will preserve “the remnant” from parting asunder what God has so intimately and inseparably joined.
Another proof on this point is found in Prov. xxix, 18: “Where there is no vision, the people perish; but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.” Let the objector try his skill on this text. How plain it is that “vision” is given to direct to, or aid in, keeping “the law.” Thank God that he is now working for “the perfecting” of “the remnant” in this gracious manner. Compare Rev. xii, 17 with Eph. iv, 11, 12.
In the Lamentations of Jeremiah is given a most touching description of the deplorable condition of Israel when cast off for her sins. Chap. ii, 9 speaks as follows of Zion: “Her gates are sunk into the ground; he hath destroyed and broken her bars; her king and her princes are among the Gentiles; the law is no more; her prophets also find no vision from the Lord.”
Again, in Eze. vii, a prophecy of threatening is spoken against God’s people, because they will not hearken to him; verse 26 says: “Mischief shall come upon mischief, and rumor upon rumor; then shall they seek a vision of the prophet: but the law shall perish from the priest, and counsel from the ancients.” When visions are denied the people perish. Why? Because the law is no more regarded, and men are left to follow their own ways. And such has always been the case when God withdraws his gifts from the people. 1 Sam. iii, 1, says: “And the word of the Lord was precious in those days: there was no open vision.” And what was the condition of the church at that time? Even the priests, who ministered before the altar, committed abomination at the very door of the sanctuary, and the offerings of the Lord’s house became contemptible in the sight of the people.
By the prophet Micah—the Lord threatened the people for their sins, saying they should cry unto him and he would not hear them; he would hide his face from them. Verse 4. When this shall be fulfilled their condition is described in verse 6: “Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.” To judge by the talk of professors in these days, it is a disgrace for the church to have visions of the Lord; but they do not realize that God has fixed in his word the absence of visions and revelations of the Spirit as evidence of spiritual darkness, and that they have so forfeited his favor that he has withdrawn his Spirit and hid his face from them. To endeavor to put to shame those who have the gifts of the Spirit of God, and boast that they have them not, is surely to “glory in their shame.” Rather let the spirit of our minds be this:
“And oh! may this my glory be, That Christ is not ashamed of me.”
Coming to the New Testament, we find that, instead of separating the Law and the Testimony, the gospel is emphatically “the ministration of the Spirit.” Joel prophesied of this age as a time when God’s Spirit and its gifts should be more beautifully bestowed upon his church. The church was built up and established upon faith in, and reception of, these gifts. But a terrible apostasy—a “falling away”—has come, and it has been shown that the threatenings quoted in the past dispensation have also been fulfilled in this: when the church apostatized or fell away, the Spirit was grieved; darkness came upon them, and the gifts of the Spirit were not known. But the Lord is soon to return, and will present to himself a glorious church, without spot; in order to this the remnant must be perfected; they must keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus, or the spirit of prophecy. And may the Lord hasten the time when we shall “come behind in no gift, waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” 1 Cor. i, 7. J. H. WAGGONER.
Rochester, Mich., July 11.
Continue reading: THOUGHTS ON HEBREWS III AND IV