If any one covets a crown, or a sceptre, or a presidential chair, or a millionaire’s fortune, or a post of honor among men, or a queen’s jewels, or a pleasure seeker’s bubbles, let him first read what they say, and how they feel and fare. Lord Chesterfield, the prince of fashion, with Solomon, said of his gay, golden life, “All is vanity.” Alexander the Great conquered all the world, and died, aged but thirty-two, in a fit of drunkenness,—perhaps poisoned to death. Julius Cæsar conquered Europe, and won royal honor, but at the last was assassinated by a supposed friend. The impious and proud Voltaire said, The world was full of wretches, and he “the most wretched of all.” One of the Spanish emperors (Abderrahman III.) reigned in splendor fifty years, but declared he could count up in that half century “only fourteen days of unalloyed happiness.” Hannibal, the renowned African hero, died of poison administered by his own hand, unlamented and unwept. Charles V. resigned his throne and crown in despair of finding happiness as an emperor. Of the great Roman emperors, history informs us that no less than nine in succession were slain by the Prætorian Guards. The infamous empress Catherine, of Russia, could get no sleep, so did her guilty conscience torment her.
Lincoln, the ruler of thirty millions, was shot dead in an instant. Some of the sovereigns of Great Britain were assassinated or beheaded. Queen Elizabeth died saying she would give “millions of money for an inch of time,” in which to get ready. Louis Napoleon has lived in constant fear of the assassin’s bullet. Of sixty-seven queens, who have sat on the throne of France, eleven were divorced, two were executed, nine died young, seven were widowed early, three cruelly treated, three exiled, the rest being either poisoned or broken-hearted. Napoleon Bonaparte, the arbiter of Europe, declared he had been as fortunate as any man on earth, but “had not enjoyed one hour of real happiness in all his life.” Truly—“Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.”
The great Hume rested his hope in philosophy, and as the result declared he was “affrighted and confounded at the forlorn solitude” in which it placed him. Goethe, who was so much admired in high circles, said at the age of eighty-four he “had scarcely tasted twenty-four hours solid comfort in all his life.” George Brummell, with a most princely fortune, spent £800 a year on dress alone, and died at last in a lunatic asylum. The Duke of Marlborough had a million of money, and vast estates; but looking around upon them as far as his vision could extend, exclaimed to a friend, “I do not believe that there is in all this vast circuit a more unhappy man than myself.” Robert Clive became the conqueror of all India, and had the treasures of the East poured at his feet, but died disappointed and a suicide. Christopher Columbus discovered a new world, but was robbed of the honor of naming it, became an object of hatred and abuse and died poor and sorrowful. William Beckford, of England, had an income of £100,000 a year and finally died in want and misery.
The wretched life and unhappy death of Lord Byron are well known. William Pitt possessed the rarest intellectual gift in England, but lived in misery and unhappiness, and died of a broken heart. The last words of the great orator Sheridan were, “I am absolutely undone.” Sir Walter Scott, who received the honors of an empire, died in sadness and sorrow, and without hope. The celebrated poet Campbell affirmed that “his fame was only bitter,” and died in grief and solitude. Gibbon, the great historian and infidel, died saying, “All is dark and doubtful.” The eloquent John Randolph’s last word was, “Remorse.” William C. Johnson and T. E. Johnson were a few years ago the most brilliant orators in Congress; one died an outcast and pauper, the other became diseased, and sunk down in ignominy and misery,—all through intemperance. Bulwer, the great novelist, said in his last days, “I am gloomy and unhappy.” The delirious, dying hours of John Jacob Astor, who was worth twenty-five millions, were—“Money, money, bring me money.” Ebenezer Francis, of Boston, who died leaving four millions of dollars, was in the panic of 1857 reduced almost to despair by the abundance of his money. Stephen Girard, the great millionaire of Philadelphia, said that with all his wealth he “lived like a galley slave, passed sleepless nights, and was worn out with care.”
A great American capitalist, when asked why he did not have his life written, replied in these sad words, “My life has been a failure.” The four brothers Rothschild are the bankers of Europe, the wealthiest men in the world. Their united income is $1000 an hour. But when some one said to the Baron at Paris, “I should think you would be happy with such a kingly fortune,” his quick, reproving, negative reply was,—“Happy! me happy!”
Reader is not this sad record a striking commentary on the vanity of all earthly riches and greatness? Which would you prefer, to be ranked in this high but wretched company, and, like Abner, die “as the fool dieth;” or be an humble, faithful Christian, and one day inherit immortal life in a glorious and endless kingdom? Which?—D. T. T., in World’s Crisis.
TROUBLE FROM WITHIN.
By Dr. Bushnell
The passionate, ill-natured man lives always in stormy weather, even though it be the quiet of dewfall around him. Always wronged, always hurt, always complaining of some enemy, he has no conception that that enemy is in his own bosom, in the sourness, the ungoverned irritability, the habitual ill-nature of his own bad spirit and character. I speak not here of some single burst of passion, into which a man of amiable temper may, for once, be betrayed; but I speak more especially of the angry characters, always brewing in some tempest of violated feelings. They have a great many enemies, are unaccountably ill-treated, and cannot understand why it is. They have no suspicion that they see and suffer bad things because they are bad, that being ill-natured is about the same thing as receiving ill-treatment, and that all the enemies they suffer from are snugly closeted in their own evil tempers.
The same is true of fretful persons—men and women that wear away fast and die, because they have worried life completely out. Nothing goes right—husband, or wife, or child, or customer, or sermon. They are pricked and stung at every motion they make, and wonder why it is that others are permitted to float along so peacefully, and they never suffered to have a moment of peace in their lives. And the very simple reason is, that life is a field of nettles to them, because their fretful, worrying tempers are always pricking out through the tender skin of their uneasiness. Why, if they were set down in Paradise, carrying their bad minds with them, they would fret at the good angels, and the climate, and the colors even of the roses.—Dr. Bushnell.
COMFORT FOR THE FORGETFUL.
WE must not measure the benefit we receive from the preached word according to what of it remains, but according to what effect it leaves behind. Lightning, you know, than which nothing sooner vanishes away, often breaks and melts the hardest and most firm bodies, in its sudden passage. Such is the irresistible force of the word; the Spirit often darts it through us, it seems like a flash, and gone, and yet it may break and melt down our hard hearts before it, when it leaves no impression at all upon our memories. I have heard of one, who returning from an affecting sermon, highly commended it, and being demanded what he remembered of it, answered, “Truly I remember nothing at all; but only while I heard it, it made me resolve I would live better, and so by God’s grace I will.” To the same purpose I have somewhere read of one who complained to an aged, holy man, that he was much discouraged from reading the Scriptures, because he could fasten nothing upon his memory which he had read. The old man bade him take an earthen pitcher and fill it with water; when he had done this, he bade him empty the pitcher again and wipe it clean, that nothing remain in it. While wondering at what this tended, he said, “now though there be nothing of the water remaining in it, yet the pitcher is cleaner than before; so, though thy memory retain nothing of the word thou readest, yet thy heart is the cleaner for its very passage through it.”—Bishop Hopkins.
EVERY day is full of a most impressive experience. Every temptation to evil temper which can assail us to-day will be an opportunity to decide the question whether we shall be tossed by the restlessness and agitation of the world, or whether we shall gain the calmness and the rest of Christ. Nay, the very vicissitudes of the seasons, day and night, heat and cold, rain and sunshine, affecting as variably and producing exhilaration or depression, are so contrived as to conduce toward the being we are to become, and decide whether we shall be masters of ourselves or whether we shall be swept at the mercy of accident and circumstance, miserably susceptible of merely outward influences. Infinite as are the varieties of life, so manifold are the paths to a saintly character; and he who has not found out how, directly or indirectly, to make everything converge toward his sanctification, has as yet missed the meaning of this life.—Sel.
VICTORY THROUGH CHRIST.
“He knelt, the Saviour knelt and prayed,
When but his Father’s eye
Looked through the lonely garden’s shade
On that dread agony;
The Lord of all above, beneath,
Was bowed with sorrow unto death.
“The sun set in a fearful hour,
The stars might well grow dim,
When this mortality had power
So to o’ershadow Him,
That he who gave man’s breath might know
The very depths of human woe.
“And was the sinless thus beset,
With anguish and dismay?
How may we meet our conflict yet,
In the dark narrow way?
Through Him, through Him, that path who trod:
Save, or we perish, Son of God.”
EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE, NO. 3.
SEPT. 24. Crossing the Mississippi at Rock Island at 7 A. M., we soon had the privilege, for the first time, of breathing the pure air of Iowa, and setting our eyes on its boundless prairies. Reached Washington at a little past noon, where we were met by Bro. H. Nicola and R. M. Kilgore, and taken to the hospitable home of the latter. Having partaken of refreshments, the rest of our party went on with Bro. Nicola to his home in Pilot Grove, the place of the meeting, while we remained to finish reports for the paper, and other correspondence. Arrived at the encampment on Thursday morning in good time for the meeting. Found the Iowa tent erected, and brethren and sisters assembled and assembling from every quarter for the season of worship. The tent was pitched in the edge of the grove near the S. D. A. meeting-house, the seats of which were used to seat in part the tent, the house, meanwhile, furnishing a good home for quite a large number of those who had come in from a distance.
It was to us a matter of no small interest to stand upon the very spot where a little more than two years ago the cause of present truth in this State encountered such fierce and bitter opposition, in the unreasonable and underhanded defection of two who were then public laborers in this work; but where the truth triumphed, and these unhappy victims of the deception of the enemy were brought to see and heartily confess the snare into which they had fallen, only, however, alas! to return to it more blindly and unaccountably than they had been taken in it at the first. It was also a matter of rejoicing and thanksgiving to God, that Bro. and sister White, who have been passing through the deep waters of affliction, and whom their enemies would have been glad to see completely swallowed up, as they predicted they would be—it was a matter of thanksgiving that they were able once more to visit this spot, where they last met the brethren under so unfavorable circumstances, and to see them now in the enjoyment of a good measure of health and strength, Bro. W. preaching six of the seven discourses given at the meeting, and sister W. bearing her testimony on every opportunity with a sense of constantly-increasing physical strength and vigor.
In happy contrast also was this meeting with the former in still another respect. Not now as then did they come to meet a spirit of hardness and strife, but hearts full of sympathy and love, grateful for their presence, ready to stay up their hands, and join with them in gratitude for the good occasion upon which we had met.
To speak of each meeting in order, would be too statistical for the brevity of this report. Like the Convocation in Wisconsin, the meeting was a good and blessed season for those assembled. The attendance of brethren was not so large as in Wisconsin; but on first-day the attendance of those without was even greater, there being about fifteen hundred people upon the ground.
The social meetings were good, showing on the part of those engaged in them, an interest in the cause of truth, and the individual work of preparation for coming events that now devolves upon us. The feelings of the brethren seemed to be well expressed by one who said that he had supposed heretofore that his whole interest was in this work; but he concluded not, for he found it was now rapidly increasing.
The subjects brought before the meeting were well adapted to the condition of the cause, and the wants of the brethren in this State. In his opening remarks, Bro. W. dwelt upon the difficulties through which the cause has passed in this Conference, referring to those who have doubted the leadings of God's providence and the genuineness of the work, and the lessons we may learn from their experience; most of them having already made shipwreck of their faith.
Friday afternoon the time was occupied by sister White on the instruction we may derive from the history of the children of Israel, and God's dealings with them; which were ensamples unto us, to the intent we should not lust after evil things as they also lusted. A powerful and impressive exhortation was given to keep free from the example and fashions of the world, and to exclude from our families the unconsecrated, and every influence which would tend to corrupt our children, and draw them away from the sobriety of the last message of mercy to mankind.
In the evening a discourse of much interest to the brethren was given by Bro. White, on the subject of Advent experience. There were but half a dozen in the entire congregation of some three hundred Sabbath-keepers, who had had an actual experience in the first and second messages. Yet the others had virtually had an experience in them by receiving the truth of those messages, as they took their stand upon the third. Such experienced in a few days as they were receiving the truth, the feelings and emotions which characterized those messages, and which covered, with those who were actually engaged in them, months or perhaps years of time. The first message was one of rejoicing; “Fear God and give glory to him.” The work of the third message, is of a far different nature. This is a heart-searching work of preparation for the great day, connected with the hour of judgment and the finishing of the ministration in the sanctuary above. That message found utterance in shouts of joy and glory; this oftener in tears. None should therefore feel dissatisfied if they do not have the feelings which characterized the Advent people in 1844. We do not want to go back twenty-three years for the feelings and spirit of that time, but we want to receive the spirit of the present time in reference to the advent, and accept the solemn feelings which the present solemn message is calculated to produce.
After a discourse, Sabbath forenoon, by Bro. White, on Luke xxi, 34–36, Bro. Geo. I. Butler was solemnly set apart to the work of the gospel ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands. Prayer by Bro. Bourdeau; right hand of fellowship and charge, by Bro. White.
In the afternoon we listened to an affecting farewell discourse from Bro. Bourdeau, as he took his leave of the brethren of this State among whom he has labored for more than a year, to return again to the East. Text, 2 Cor. xiii, 11: “Finally brethren, farewell. Be perfect, be of good comfort, be of one mind, live in peace; and the God of love and peace shall be with you.” This text, which is a sermon in itself was well set forth. May the brethren carefully remember, and scrupulously heed, the instruction which Bro. B. labored to instill into their minds from these precious words of the apostle.
At 6 P. M., sister White spoke for one hour upon the health and dress reform, setting forth the subject in a manner to remove all misunderstanding, and enable all to act understandingly and with uniformity in these matters. At 7, Bro. W. spoke on the subject of baptism, after which the evening was spent to a late hour, in the answering of questions, and the examination of candidates for baptism. Twenty-six offered themselves, and were accepted as fit subjects, either by vote of the members present from the churches which they proposed to join, or where none such were present, by vote of the entire congregation. Among the candidates were many youth and children whom it was pleasant to see taking up the cross, and starting in the service of their Divine Master. Bro. Butler administered the ordinance, on first-day morning, at the nearest place, some four miles distant. A good season was enjoyed at the water's edge.
Preaching first-day forenoon by Bro. White, and in the afternoon by Sr. W., closing with a solemn appeal to the people to prepare for the coming Judgment. The evening meeting was omitted to give the brethren opportunity to prepare to return to their homes on the morrow.
Thus, ere we were aware, the pleasant four days of meeting had sped like an arrow away, bringing the sad hour of partings and farewell greetings. And as the beholder witnessed the quivering lips and falling tears, he could truly have said, Behold, how these love one another! We separated, never more to all meet again in this pilgrimage state, but each cherishing a hope now bright for the better land. How many will ever see this hope realized? How many will safely land on the immortal shore? And how many will leave the wrecks of their ill-guided barks, amid the perils of these last days? Let us each resolve to gain the heavenly land. We may all go through if we will.
The brethren consider the cause in this State in a better condition now than at any previous time. Its friends, it is true, are not so numerous as they have been in times past. Those who were brought into the truth wrong, never partaking of the right spirit, have left it, as it was almost certain that they would. But those that remain are having an experience that will be of lasting benefit to them. They have another spirit, and are learning to value vital godliness and holy living, in connection with the truth, more than mere theory and a spirit of contention on the points of our faith.
This meeting will result in good. We shall confidently look for encouraging and lasting fruits, as the brethren, imbued with its good spirit, bear its influence to their several homes. The cause has many firm and staunch friends in this State, men of too much sterling integrity and moral worth, to prove recreant to the truth which they now so ardently love. We believe that from this time on, there will be a gathering influence, and a growth in grace. May the labors of Bro. Butler in the State be blessed of Heaven, and other faithful men be raised up to assist him in his arduous work.
The weather throughout both meetings, with the exception of one rainy night in Wisconsin, has proved most delightful. Everything seemed to conspire to render the meetings most pleasant seasons. A spirit of perfect union apparently pervaded all hearts, and the blessing of the Lord was upon his people. To his name be the praise.
It has been a great privilege to us to see the faces of many friends of the truth, with whose names we have long been familiar. May an acquaintance, commenced through the Review, that good medium of communication among the little flock, and now strengthened by the privilege of seeing each other's faces, and grasping the friendly hand, be perpetuated forever in the kingdom of Heaven. Blessed hope. We thank the brethren for their cordial greetings and words of sympathy, and hope to hear from them often for the paper, on our return to the Office.
Bro. and Sr. White, accompanied by Bro. and Sr. Bourdeau, hold meetings next Sabbath and first-day at Mt. Pleasant, from which point we expect to return home.
THE OLD ARGUMENT AGAIN.
By W. C. G.
Our attention is constantly being called to the effort made by Sunday-keepers to defend their darling theory through the columns of the religious press. Seldom is any new argument attempted, but the old positions are presented again and again with but little variation. The October issue of the Christian Press, the organ of the Western Tract and Book Society, contains an effort of this character, which we have been requested to notice through the columns of the Review. Probably most of our readers are familiar with the line of argument which it presents, but for the sake of those who are not we give it entire, to show the weakness of a position which cannot be supported by a single text of Scripture.
We give the article in sections convenient for reply.
THE SABBATH.
“Should any particular day be observed?”
“Under the old economy not the third, fourth, or fifth, but the seventh day was the day which the people of God were bound to observe in his worship, not that the morality of the law extended to the particular day, but because it was the will of God that the seventh day should be observed. The same thing is true as respects the observance of the first day under the New Testament economy. That is the day which Christians are now bound to observe and not the second, third, or fourth day of the week, because the day has been changed by the authority of Christ, and the first day265of the week is now the Lord’s day instead of the seventh day. The following is the argument proving the change of the day, as we have used it elsewhere:
“The seventh day was the Sabbath originally appointed. Had any one power to change it to the first day? That it was changed no one denies—that Christians have observed the first day as the Sabbath instead of the seventh, from the resurrection of Christ, is admitted by all. Who changed the day? To this we reply: It was done by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. True, this is not asserted in so many words by the Scriptures, but the evidence is nevertheless quite conclusive.”
The above contains quite a number of assertions, which ought to be backed by the authority of Scripture before being received by those who take the Bible for their guide. It will be noticed that not a single text is presented in proof of what is asserted.
“It was the will of God that the seventh day should be observed” under the old economy, and “the same thing is true as respects the observance of the first day under the New Testament economy.” How do we know it is the will of God? His will is made known to us by his Word. If it is his will for us to observe the first day of the week he has so commanded us. But where in all the Word of God is such a commandment recorded? The will of God that “not the third, fourth, or fifth, but the seventh day,” should be observed in the former dispensation, was made known by the fourth commandment. If that commandment taught the observance of only the seventh day then, it must teach the same now, and cannot be made to enjoin the first day of the week, nor any other day but the seventh. A change of day must involve a change of the commandment, and until that is proved all inferences in regard to such a change are entirely groundless.
Our Sunday advocate then asserts that “Christians have observed the first day as the Sabbath instead of the seventh, from the resurrection of Christ,” and claims that this “is admitted by all.” He should have known before making so broad a statement that none of the advocates of the true Sabbath admit it, nor does any one else who is conversant with the history of the matter. We are not disposed to admit such an assumption as that without good evidence, and as it is a link in his chain of argument it devolves upon him to prove it instead of simply asserting it.
The day was changed, he says, by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, and then gives his reasons:
“1. The Saviour claimed complete control over the Sabbath.
“His own declaration is: ‘The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath day.’ His disciples heard this declaration from his own lips. Is it at all conceivable that they would have presumed to interfere with this day, over which their Master claimed special control? And is it conceivable that, among a people so attached to old usages as the Jews were, they would have succeeded in their effort? Besides this, without the authority of Christ would they have considered it wise policy to have attempted such a change? They were called troublers and turners of the world upside down. Would they, in such a matter, excite prejudice only for the directions of Christ? The supposition is absurd, and therefore, they must have had the authority of Christ for the change.”
His first proposition is based upon the assumption that the apostles made the change, and until this is proved the arguments in favor of this proposition are worthless. He asks if they could have effected such a change among the Jews who were attached to old usages, without the authority of Christ. No; nor could they with his authority, for nothing would so conduce to lessen their respect for the Son than to hear him quoted as authority for the violation of his Father’s law; for until they could be made to see that the fourth commandment was changed or abolished it would be a violation of it to observe any other day than the one it enjoined. The fact that the disciples did not thus “excite prejudice” is conclusive evidence that they did not attempt such a change, for among all the accusations which the Jews brought against them we do not find them charged with making or trying to make such a change, and certainly if they had attempted it “among a people so attached to old usages as the Jews were,” they would have been arraigned for it at once.
But does the fact that “the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath-day,” prove that he intended to change or abolish it? By no means, but rather to protect it, to honor it, and to strip it of those burdensome rites and traditions which the Pharisees had heaped upon it.
But we pass to notice his second proposition.
“2. The Saviour countenanced the change.
“We have the following record in the gospel of John xx, 19: ‘Then the same day, at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.’ . . . ‘And after eight days again (i. e. the first day of the week again) his disciples were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.’ Thus the Saviour sanctioned their assembling for worship the first instead of the seventh day of the week. Would he have done so if it had not been his purpose that this day should continue to be the Sabbath of the Christian? Is not this sanction sufficient authority to observe this day instead of the other, even if no special direction had been given in reference to it?”
The foregoing attempt to prove the occurrence of two consecutive weekly meetings on the first day of the week is, about as far-fetched as anything we have occasion to notice in the Sunday argument, and will not bear the slightest examination. Let us look now at the first of these meetings. The disciples were assembled on the evening of the first day of the week, immediately after the resurrection of Christ, to celebrating his resurrection, if the foregoing claim is correct; that is, after keeping the previous day, as some of Christ’s followers certainly did, “according to the commandment,” they made a change in their Sabbath observance, and went to keeping the first day of the week without any commandment! But let us see how they were observing it. The account of the resurrection as given by Mark, informs us that notwithstanding Christ appeared to several witnesses, who testified that he had risen, the apostles still refused to believe it, and on the occasion cited above he upbraided them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they would not believe those who had seen him after he was risen. This certainly does not look much like celebrating his resurrection, or keeping a Sabbath in memory of that event.
But, says the inquirer, perhaps the second meeting may prove to have been a commemorative occasion, and thus justify the conclusion that the practice of meeting on the first-day was thereby established. The first point to be decided is the time of the meeting. Having appeared to his disciples on the evening of the first day of the week, and one of the twelve being absent, our Saviour takes occasion to appear to them again when the unbelieving Thomas was present, which was “after eight days.” How long after eight days the record does not state, but the arithmetic which would make it just a week could be used equally well to prove that two and two equal six, and it certainly is astonishing that men of intelligence and judgment in other matters should make such a use of a term as is made of this. It simply shows a want of better argument. The sophistry of this reasoning, however, is greatly excelled by the barefaced assumption contained in the third and last proposition, which we herewith append:
“3. The first-day is called by the Holy Spirit, ‘the Lord’s Day.’
“But how could this be done unless he had taken this day for his own instead of the seventh day? unless it be that he now claims as his, two days out of the seven, and allows man the other five. But this is not claimed by any one, and there is no hint of it either in precept or in the practice of the early Christians. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the day was changed by him who is ‘Lord of the Sabbath,’ and who only had authority to change it. We are, therefore, as Christians, under obligation to keep, not the seventh, but the first day of the week, and to keep it by refraining from worldly employments and recreation, and by observing the ordinances of divine worship.”
“The first day is called by the Holy Spirit, ‘the Lord’s day.’” Indeed! We would be pleased to have the chapter and verse pointed out in which this remarkable statement is made. The term “Lord’s day” occurs but once in all the Bible, and that in Rev. i, 10. “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day;” and there is not the slightest intimation in the context that it was the first day of the week. We are therefore left to determine the signification of the term by other scriptures. If we search the Bible through we can find but one day which the Lord has ever called his own. The language of the fourth commandment explicitly designates that day: “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God.” See also Isa. lviii, 13, where the Lord calls the Sabbath “my holy day,” “the holy of the Lord,” &c. Until we find some other expression equally as strong relative to some other day, we must conclude that the seventh day of the week is, the Lord’s day; and to assume that it means the first day when the Scriptures do not even intimate such a thing, is unworthy of those who profess to take the Bible for their guide.
But perhaps it may be claimed that the term refers to the Son and not the Father. Even if this be true, there is no proof that it refers to the first day of the week, for our Saviour himself declares: “The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath day.” While it is his Father’s rest-day, and one which he claims as his own, yet the Son also has an interest in and a love for it, and he devoted no inconsiderable portion of his ministry to the work of divesting it of the burdensome traditions which the Pharisees had heaped upon it, holding it up before the people as a merciful institution, “made for man.” Surely we may conclude that such a day, thus honored both by the God of Heaven and by his only-begotten Son, may emphatically be termed “THE LORD’S DAY.”
Thus every argument which is not founded upon the immutable word of God, falls to the ground, and this effort in behalf of Sunday shows the weakness of a chain of argument of which every link is based entirely upon inference. Reader, do you not prefer the plain teachings of Scripture to all the inferences that ingenious men can devise? If so, let me entreat of you to obey the commandments of God rather than the “traditions of men,” by remembering that “the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,” and by faithfully observing all his commandments, that you may “have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. xxii, 14.
W. C. G.
TO THE CHURCHES IN MAINE.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
Dear Brethren and Sisters: You already see that we have a State Conference for our State, appointed to be held at Norridgewock, Nov. 1. We shall all feel a deep interest in the result of this Conference. The state of the cause here now demands that something be done in this direction. So the several churches and scattered brethren now need to prepare for this meeting. It will be necessary therefore for each church to have a business meeting, and see to the following points: 1. Choose some male member to represent you in the Conference. 2. Let the Clerk give him a writing, stating that he is the legally chosen delegate of that church. 3. Let him bring to the Conference a written statement of the number of members of his church, the condition of the church, when it was organized, how much their S. B. amounts to per year, how much they have on hand, &c. It is the duty of the elder of each church to see that these things are attended to immediately.
Let all come who can, and bring your unconverted friends with you. Come prepared with quilts, robes, &c., and we will entertain you freely. The church at Norridgewock invite all to come and partake of their hospitality, and enjoy the Conference with them. Come to labor, to pray, to sing, to exhort, to be a part of the Conference.
The delegates should all be at N. on Thursday evening before the Conference. Friday will be our day of business.
Those coming on the cars from down the river will stop at Waterville. If they will write us at N. a week beforehand we will have a team meet them there Thursday night. If not, they can take the stage. Those coming from the east will stop at Skowhegan, where they can take the stage five miles to N.
Let us come in the Spirit of God and of the present truth, and the Lord will meet with us.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
"MY PEOPLE DOTH NOT CONSIDER."
By N. Orcutt
This language of the Lord, by the mouth of his prophet, though spoken more than twenty-six hundred years since, has been an accurate description of the condition of a large class in all ages of the world. Mankind are too prone to forget, not to consider, their dependence, responsibility and accountability. Few, very few, after close self-examination, can plead Not guilty to the charge.
Do we consider, as we should, God's tender care over us, and realize the debt of gratitude we owe in consequence? Do we not forget that his eye takes cognizance of all our ways, that he is the giver of every good and perfect gift, that all our blessings, in sickness and health, in prosperity and adversity, flow from his bountiful hand? Do we consider that good angels watch over us, and shield us from danger, that, though unseen, they are efficient guardians,—"ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?"
Could we have a panoramic view of our past life, and behold their ministrations, see how we have been saved from accident and harm, through their interposition, even when we have seen no danger in the way; could we but know the many times they have beaten back the darkness which the enemy has tried to press upon us, how they have fought with evil angels when they have striven to gain an influence over us; could we but know how often we have escaped temptation through their interposition, and how the Saviour has, through their instrumentality, in the hour of temptation provided the way of escape that we might be able to bear it, our hearts would glow with gratitude, when we consider that not only have we been saved from imminent danger, but that it has been of God's mercy, and through the aid of angels that excel in strength, that no harm has befallen us.
I recollect reading several years since an anecdote which illustrates this idea. Two preachers met at conference. One was expressing great gratitude to God for his providential escape from danger. Said he, "My horse becoming frightened at some object by the wayside, I barely escaped being precipitated down an awful precipice, where I would certainly have been killed by the fall." "Well," said his companion, "I have greater cause of gratitude than you." The first speaker desired an explanation. "I came to this place without my horse being frightened at all; I was in no apparent danger, from any cause, and if our gratitude is measured by and in proportion to the favors bestowed upon us by our Heavenly Father, I have certainly more cause of gratitude than you."
Dear brethren and sisters, let us consider how good the Lord is, and under all circumstances strive to realize the consequent obligation resting upon us to love him with all our hearts, and praise him for his manifold mercies, for his goodness to the children of men. This is no more than our reasonable service.