Earlier text: The Sovereign Pontiff, and the Church of RomeFate of the California Sunday Law.
By Editor
It is now about a year since certain parties, mostly members of certain churches, started a vigorous crusade against Sunday-breaking, or rather for the enforcement of the Sunday Law. From its commencement we had doubts of the motives of the movers of the crusade, from the fact that they professed to act in behalf of temperance, while we knew, as the event proved, that they were acting solely in behalf of Sunday. We did not like the law, because of its evident injustice, its discrimination in religions, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution of the State. A case was brought before Chief Justice Morrison, who decided that the law was constitutional, that it did not discriminate for or against any religion, it being merely "a police regulation" and not a law affecting religion. All except the determined advocates of the law were struck with the manifest absurdity of this decision. For the title of the law, which, if we mistake not, is in California as authoritative as the law itself, declares that it concerns "Offenses against Religion." Justice Morrison was not ignorant of this fact. There are two days observed religiously in California: the seventh day, kept in obedience to the law of God, the ten commandments; and the first day, kept in professed obedience to a law of the New Testament, which, however, has not been produced; but more specifically kept, in obedience to the law of the State, and in conformity to an "American custom." Nor was Justice Morrison ignorant of this fact, that some Christians kept "the Sabbath-day according to the commandment," which enjoins working six days and resting the seventh. A case, considered a test, was brought before the full Supreme Court, and a decision was rendered March 10. Four Justices, a majority, decided in favor of the law; three dissented. Very able jurists not only dissented from the decision of the majority, but declared that the opinions of the dissenting Justices were likely to carry more weight with the people than those of the majority.547 The prominent papers of the State took ground against the decision. The Alta said:— "The decision rendered by the Supreme Court yesterday, declaring the Sunday Law to be constitutional, proves a general surprise, and promises to induce complications which will make it very unpopular. There is an old maxim that all common sense should be law, but that not all law is common sense. The Sunday Law is likely to fall under this condemnation. The Supreme Court decides that to enforce observance of the Sabbath will not be an unfair abridgment of personal liberty, and places within the power of a vigorous, though not definitely ascertained, class of public agitators, the legal right to cause the cessation of business in all but a few branches absolutely necessary to operate on Sunday. There will soon be two sharply defined parties, equally vigorous in favor of and opposition to the law. There is already a rich and powerful body, the League of Freedom, organized to defeat the ends of the Sunday Law, and which has announced its intention of conducting against it a political war. The question will be a leading public issue, and State politics will be largely subordinated to it. It is not difficult to see that there will be a numerous, energetic, wealthy, and influential element engaged in a determined effort to elect a State Legislature pledged to repeal the Sunday Law. In the present condition of politics it is almost safe to predict that this element will succeed." The Evening Post, speaking of this decision, said:— "This was not an unexpected result. Nevertheless, it remains to be determined whether or not it is a final settlement of the case. Laws, like governments, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That is a fundamental principle of republican government; it is a foundation stone of our republic, deliberately selected by the patriotic fathers to whose wisdom and love of freedom we are indebted for the enlightened and liberal form of government we enjoy. A law which is obnoxious to the masses of the people, or inimical to the best interests of any considerable class, can never be enforced in this country, though it be authorized by the most direct mandate of the constitution, and framed with due regard to the strictest requirements of technical construction." The following is the closing paragraph of the Post's article:— "But after all we fancy the next Legislature will be called upon to set at rest all doubts and quibbles as to this law. Undoubtedly the demand will be made for the repeal of the law, and with equal certainty the question of repeal or non-repeal will enter into the election of Senators and Representatives next fall. That election, then, will determine the will of the people in that regard, and from that tribunal there will be no appeal." This was a clear foreshadowing of the result of the decision. We will not now repeat the leading arguments of the dissenting Justices which were laid before the readers of the SIGNS. Some of their arguments were so just and reasonable that they could not fail to carry conviction to the minds of those who examined them with any degree of candor. We were not among those who demanded a repeal of the law, nor would we unite with those who were leagued together to oppose it. Yet it was well understood by those who watched the movement closely that its design was ultimately to stop the operations of the Seventh-day Adventists. Many proclaimed that the object was the suppression of the traffic in liquors, but the feeling in the churches, where the movement was started and fostered, was readily learned by mingling in the crowd at the close of a Sunday-Law sermon by some popular preacher. There it was freely talked that, when the Sunday Law was enforced, the labor of the Adventists on Sunday would be stopped. Little or nothing was said at such times and in such places about the sale of liquor. And the churches early sent forth a declaration that they intended to make it an issue in the next election, pledging themselves not to vote for any candidate who was not pledged to sustain the Sunday Law. In view of this we published the following words in an editorial in the SIGNS, of March 16, 1882:— "The Sunday question is now fairly launched upon the stormy sea of politics, with the prospect that the present law will be hopelessly wrecked. If that result shall be reached it will be attended with unpleasant and undesirable consequences, as a day of rest will thereafter, at least for a season, scarcely be known in California. We would not wish to see such a state of things, but it will be a natural reaction from an unwise attempt to interfere too far with civil and religious freedom." But the movers in this Sunday crusade felt strongly fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court, and refused to be warned. Warrants were sworn out and arrests made by hundreds, and for a short time there was great rejoicing in the ranks of the Sunday people. But it was for a short time, as it was soon discovered that it was impossible to procure convictions before juries, and about two thousand cases were dismissed, it being generally agreed that the election must determine the result. In the meantime some of the more calm and considerate in the vicinity took the alarm. They saw danger both to the law and to the churches in the agitation which had been inaugurated by them. The San Francisco Bulletin, of March 27, contained the following notice:— "Last evening, at the Calvary Church, Rev. John Hemphill spoke to his congregation on the Sunday Law and the issues at stake. He presented many of the arguments which have become familiar by use in discussions recently. He said he was afraid that a mistake had been made by the friends of the Sunday Law in bringing up the question for decision just at the present time. Circumstances at another time might be more favorable for success. He thought that the next Legislature would take measures to repeal the law. A majority of its opponents would in all probability be members of that body." Major Whittle, the evangelist, was laboring in California at that time. After listening to two ministers who urged the rigid enforcement of the Sunday Law, he said it would be better if the clergy preached less about the law and more of the gospel; that the present excitement about enforcing a State law would act disastrously to the churches. The Democratic State Convention met in June, and adopted a platform which, though it did not mention the Sunday Law, was well understood as a demand of that party for the repeal of the law. And here again was manifested the duplicity of the Sunday advocates. They quickly sounded the alarm that the Democrats had pressed the Sunday question into politics, and called upon the Republicans to mark the issue with a declaration in favor of the Sunday Law. We call this duplicity, because we intend to tell the truth, let it strike where it will. The "Home Protectionists," the prime movers in this agitation, had declared months before the sitting of the Democratic Convention that with them loyalty to the Sunday Law should be the test in the next political canvass, and that if the parties did not nominate candidates pledged to support it, they would nominate a separate ticket on that issue. Under these circumstances, with the settled and openly avowed determination to make the Sunday Law the main political issue, it was no small show of "cheek" to accuse any party of forcing the Sunday question into politics. Many of the Republican papers accepted the issue, and declared their readiness to go into the canvass on the advocacy of the Sunday Law. But here came another warning, this time from the Chronicle, which said that if the Republican Convention took the defense of the Sunday Law it would only court defeat. But the cry was up, and a strong demand was made by the Home Protectionists, declaring that they would set up a separate ticket if the Republicans did not accede to their demand. As it was believed that a separate ticket meant the success of the Democrats, this was really a threat held over the Republicans which they dared not disregard. They adopted a Sunday-law platform, and it became the main issue of the campaign. Mr. Estee said, in a speech in San Francisco, that it was the main issue, and as San Francisco was about the most unpromising field in the State in which to advocate a Sunday Law, we may conclude that he was firmly convinced that he was speaking the truth. We may safely conclude that the result is a popular verdict on the Sunday Law. As we predicted last March, the law is "hopelessly wrecked." We have no doubt that one of the first measures of the next Legislature will be the repeal of the law. If any disastrous results follow, the blame will rest on the Sunday agitators who unwisely determined that everybody should do as they do, and if people did not agree with their religious tenets, they should be compelled to act as if they did! They are fully protected in their worship, having granted to them privileges not granted to others. But this did not satisfy them. They had a zeal not all according to knowledge, or to the spirit of genuine Christianity. That which vexed them was that others, who did not agree with them on the Sunday question, had any privileges whatever. We recently asked a prominent Democrat, who was elected to office at the last election, what, in his opinion, would be the effect on society after the repeal of the law. He thought but little difference would be known. He said the people have done as they pleased heretofore, and they will do so hereafter. But he recognized this difference: heretofore they have acted with the threat of the law over them; hereafter the fear of prosecution will be removed. But we think this cannot fail to make considerable difference. We shall not be surprised if, so far as Sunday observance is concerned, California returns to "the days of forty-nine." Had the churches heeded our warning, this need not be so. We neither asked for nor desired anything leading to such a result. Nor have we any hope that, in case of a reaction in the public mind, the churches will act more wisely than they have in the late agitation. An equitable Sunday Law, just in its operations, allowing reasonable privileges to all religious denominations, for which the Constitution provides, would receive no opposition from us. But the spirit manifested by the churches in the late campaign forbids us to hope that they will be satisfied with any grant of privileges to those who do not keep Sunday as they do. And we think that the prediction of Major Whittle has been fully verified. The proscriptive spirit manifested by the churches, the arrogant manner in which they put forth their demands for recognition in the political canvass, and the ardor with which they advocated their religious tenets as objects of political action, have all had their effect on the public mind. We believe at this time the churches of California which have taken a prominent part in this agitation, stand lower than they ever did before in public esteem. The people have less confidence in them as conservators of true religion and morality, than they ever had before. Their action hereafter will be watched with suspicion, as it is well understood that they will not hesitate to make any encroachments on the rights of others to carry out their plans, and to gratify their worldly ambition. We shall see whether they will appreciate the situation, and try to redeem their standing "by patient continuance in well doing." Why Are They Not Seventh-day Adventists?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THIS question arose not long since, after reading an article in a religious journal, in which the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventists were characterized as "pernicious." Of course we did not admit for a moment that the doctrines are pernicious, for in that case the above question would have been answered. The journal was an organ of the Methodist denomination, and we at once instituted a comparison between the leading points of faith held by the Adventists, and the views of the Methodists upon the same subjects. The distinctive features of the body of Seventh-day Adventists are indicated by the name. Believing that the whole law of God is still binding, they keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, the day which God sanctified in the beginning, and gave a place in the fundamental law of his government. Gen. 2:2, 3; Ex. 20:8-11; and they are looking for the second coming of the Lord, according to his promise. John 14:1-3. These are the two great truths which make Seventh-day Adventists a separate body of believers. All other points of doctrine that are held by them will be found to depend directly upon these. Without stopping to inquire what there is in these doctrines that is injurious, we at once turned to the Discipline of the Methodist Church to find if the Articles of Faith contained anything that would prevent a member of that church from keeping the Sabbath. Immediately our eye rested upon the following paragraph:— "The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the Old and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Christ, who is the only mediator between God and man, being both God and man. Wherefore they are not to be heard who feign that the Old Fathers did look only for transitory promises. Although the law given from God by Moses, as touching ceremonies and rites, doth not bind Christians, nor ought the civil precepts thereof of necessity be received in any commonwealth; no Christian whatsoever is free from the obedience of the commandments which are called moral."
This is substantially the same as is found in the Creed of the Church of England, and is similar to that held by the Presbyterians and the principal Protestant denominations. Looking still farther to see just what the Methodist authorities meant by "the commandments which are called moral," we found the following comment of Dr. Clarke, on Ex. 20:— "It is worthy of remark that there is none of these commandments, nor any part of one, which can fairly be considered as merely ceremonial. All are moral, and consequently of everlasting obligation. . . . Though by the incarnation and death of Christ all the ceremonial law, which referred to him and his sacrifice, is necessarily abrogated; yet as none of these ten commandments refers to anything properly ceremonial, therefore they are not abrogated. . . . Though Christ is said to have fulfilled the law for us, yet it is nowhere intimated in the Scripture that he has so fulfilled these TEN LAWS as to exempt us from the necessity and privilege of being no idolaters, swearers, Sabbath-breakers, disobedient and cruel children, murderers, adulterers, thieves, and corrupt witnesses."
Again, Dr. Clarke in his comments on Matt. 5:17, paraphrases the verse thus: "I am not come to make the law of none effect—to dissolve the connection which subsists between its several parts, or the obligation men are under to have their lives regulated by its moral precepts." One more quotation from Dr. Clarke will suffice to show the belief of the Methodists that the law of God is still binding on all men; it is from his comments on Rom. 7:13:— "Thus it appears that man cannot have a true notion of sin, but by means of the law of God. For this, I have already given sufficient reason in the preceding notes. And it was one design of the law to show the abominable and destructive nature of sin, as well as to be a rule of life. It would be almost impossible for a man to have that just notion of the demerit of sin, so as to produce repentance, or to see the nature and necessity of the death of Christ, if the law were not applied to his conscience by the light of the Holy Spirit; it is then alone that he sees himself to be carnal, and sold under sin; and that the law and commandment are holy, just, and good. And let it be observed that the law did not answer this end merely among the Jews, in the days of the apostles; it is just as necessary to the Gentiles, to the present hour. Nor do we find that true repentance takes place where the moral law is not preached and enforced. Those who preach only the gospel to sinners, at best, only heal the hurt of the daughter of my people but slightly. The law, therefore, is the grand instrument in the hands of a faithful minister, to alarm and awaken sinners."
These testimonies are sufficient, although many more might be given. They show that true Methodism teaches perfect obedience to the whole law of God. And when in that law we read, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work," we cannot avoid the conclusion that a Methodist who is consistent with his profession of faith must be an observer of the seventh-day Sabbath; it is absolutely irresistible. A man who was well versed in the Scriptures, and also in the doctrines of the Methodist Church, having been a local preacher in that denomination for many years, once said to us, "A consistent Methodist must be a Sabbath-keeper. I have known that the seventh day is the Sabbath since I was a boy, and I have always held that we Methodists were not consistent with our profession." Not long after that he decided to be "a consistent Methodist," as he expressed it, but he soon found out that this involved his leaving the church, which he did. In order to fulfill the vows which he took when he joined the church, and which he had broken for many years, he had to leave the church. A strange affair, truly. We give one testimony from Dr. Barnes, a Presbyterian, to show that the Methodists are not alone in this dilemma. In his comments on Matt. 5:18, he says:— "The moral laws are such as grow out of the nature of things, and which cannot, therefore, be changed—such as the duty of loving God and his creatures. These can never be abolished, as it can never be made right to hate God, or to hate our fellow-men. Of this kind are the ten commandments, and these our Saviour has neither abolished nor superseded."
And now a few words as to the second point—the second advent of Christ. Article 3 of the M. E. Church says:—
"Christ did truly rise again from the dead, . . . he ascended into Heaven, and there sitteth until he return to judge all men at the last day."
Dr. Clarke, on 1 Thess. 4:16, says:—
"The Lord himself!—That is, Jesus Christ shall descend from Heaven; shall, in like manner as he was seen by his disciples to ascend; i. e., in his human form; but now infinitely more glorious, for thousands of thousands than ten thousand shall stand before him; for the Son of man shall come on the throne of his glory; but who may abide the day of his coming, or stand when he appeareth?"548 Dr. Barnes on John 14:2, 3, says:—
"'I go to prepare a place for you.' By his going is meant his death and ascent to Heaven. The figure here is taken from one who is on a journey, who goes before his companions to provide a place to lodge in, and to make the necessary preparations for their entertainment. It evidently means that he, by the work which he was yet to perform in Heaven, would secure their admission there, and obtain for them the blessings of eternal life. That work would consist mainly in his intercession. . . . 'Ye may be also.' This was language eminently fitted to comfort them. Though about to leave them, yet he would not always be absent. He would come again at the day of Judgment and gather all his friends to himself, and they should be ever with him."
See also Dr. Barnes' notes on 1 Thess. 4:14-16, where unequivocal testimony is given on this subject. Indeed, there is scarcely any doctrine more universally held than that of Christ's second coming. There is good reason for this, for there is no truth that is more prominent in the Scriptures. We do not hear it preached very often nowadays, except by a few, but we find it in the writings of all denominations. If we should quote all that has been said and written on the subject, it would fill volumes of the SIGNS. It is very evident that the majority of Protestants, if they were consistent with their profession, would be Seventh-day Adventists. That people are not a sect who are teaching some new thing, some wicked heresy, but they are those who are endeavoring to conform to the original faith. Since, then, the fundamental truths which they hold are those that are taught by the leading men in all Protestant denominations, why are not all Seventh-day Adventists? But it may be urged: You teach that the soul is not immortal; that it sleeps between death and the resurrection; that it receives immortality only through Christ; and that none go to Heaven at death. That is true, but what is there pernicious in that? Does it not necessarily follow from a belief in the second coming of Christ? Read also the testimonies quoted above. The object of Christ's coming is to "judge the quick and dead;" can any hope to go to Heaven before they are judged? He has gone to prepare a place for his followers, John 14:2; would it not be presumptuous to think of going to Heaven before the place is prepared? He said that he would return again, and receive us to himself; how can we get there before he does come for us? Paul says that it is only by his returning that we are able to be forever with him. A belief in the second coming of Christ, according to the Scriptures, necessarily involves the belief that men do not receive their reward at death. Those who hold the former and reject the latter, are inconsistent. But that all may see that we do not hold this view alone, we quote only one testimony from Dr. Barnes on 1 Thess. 4:14:— "'Which sleep in Jesus.' A most beautiful expression. . . . They do not 'sleep' in heathenism, or in infidelity, or in the gloom of atheism—but in the blessed hope which Jesus has imparted. They lie, as he did, in the tomb—free from pain and sorrow, and with the certainty of being raised up again. When, therefore, we think of the death of the saints, let us think of what Jesus was in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathæa. Such is the sleep of our pious friends in the grave; such will be our own when we die."
It is true that Dr. Barnes says other things contrary to this, but that does not invalidate this testimony, nor the plain declaration of Scripture. Many good men have held views utterly at variance with the Scriptures and have died in their erroneous belief. Their minds had not been drawn out to fully grasp certain points, But it does not follow that men who have the light, or have the chance to have it, can be saved on account of lack of knowledge. And the question still remains, Why are they not Seventh-day Adventists? Why do not the churches live up to their published teachings on the law of God, and await with joy the soon coming of their Redeemer? Is it because, as Dr. Clarke says, that these things have not been applied to their consciences by the Holy Spirit? We will not presume to answer the question; but we will still continue to earnestly pray that all the honest, who have not been enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and all those who are resisting its leadings, may be found when the Saviour returns, keeping the "commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." Missionary Spirit in the Reformation.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
DURING the darkest period of the Dark Ages there was not much of this spirit in the land. The rulers of the Catholic Church, who in reality ruled the world, were entirely destitute of it. The missionary spirit is, as we have seen, the spirit of Christ, and Christ was known to these people only by name. The whole of Europe was under the sway of the Catholic bishops, and it was unnecessary to keep up even the semblance of missionary enterprise. Their whole attention was directed to strengthening their temporal power; this they did by bribery or by force, among those who were in public positions, and by keeping the mass of the people in the deepest ignorance. It is true that there were during all this time, honest, faithful souls, who worshiped God in spirit and in truth; but they were few in comparison with their enemies, and had little opportunity or power to disseminate the true faith; they were a proscribed people. The saints and laws of God had been given into the hands of "the little horn," papal Rome, and both had been well-nigh banished from the earth. But at the proper time God raised up men who had the desire and the ability to successfully combat the gross errors of the church. Luther and his fellow-reformers set themselves to the task of correcting the abuses that had crept in, and of restoring the primitive faith. They little realized what this would involve, or how great changes would have to be made. God would not appall them by a sight of all the wrongs that must be corrected before the church could be purified unto himself. Since the Christian religion is a missionary religion, it follows that the Reformation was a missionary enterprise. In this article we shall see what the secret of their success was, and shall find that it differed in no respect from that of Paul. Indeed, the difference between all workers for God, is only one of degree; the same principle must be in all. One thing which marked the reformers was their disregard of self. They were willing to lose all the comforts of life, and even life itself, if by this means they could preach the gospel. Thus, when Luther was about to appear before the pope's legate, at Augsburg, he wrote to Melancthon as follows:-- "Instruct the youth of our beloved country in what is right and agreeable to the will of God. As for me, I am going to offer up myself for you and for them, if it be the Lord's will. I prefer death, yea, even what to me would be the greatest misfortune, the loss of your valued society, to retracting what it was my duty to teach, and perhaps ruining by my failure the noble cause to which we are devoted." Again, when in the presence of the Cardinal, he said:-- "I have no will but the Lord's. He will do with me what seemeth good in his sight. But had I a hundred heads, I would rather lose them all than retract the testimony I have borne to the holy Christian faith." Just before the celebrated Diet at Worms, Luther wrote thus to one who feared that he might retract his previous testimony:-- "Never fear that I will retract a single syllable, since the only argument they have to urge against me is that my writings are at variance with the observances of what they call the church. If our Emperor Charles sends for me only to retract, my answer shall be that I will remain here, and it will be all the same as though I had been to Worms and returned again. But if the Emperor chooses then to send for me to put me to death as an enemy to the empire, I shall be ready to obey his summons; for by Christ's help, I will never abandon his word in the day of battle." We know from what followed, and from the whole course of his life, that this was not boasting. It was the utterance of one who knew that he had the truth of God, and who, through love that he took was nothing more than was taken by the other reformers, and indeed by thousands of people whose names have not come down to us. While Tyndale was tutor in the house of a nobleman, some strong language of his against the pope and his laws, came to the ears of the priests. He was at this time engaged in the work of translating the New Testament into English. The historian says:-- "The priests had sworn to stop him in his translation of the Bible. One day he fell in with a troop of monks and curates, who abused him in the grossest manner. 'It's the favor of the gentry of the county that makes you so proud,' said they; 'but notwithstanding your patrons, there will be a talk about you before the long, and in a pretty fashion, too! You shall not always live in a manor-house.' 'Banish me to the obscurest corner of England,' replied Tyndale, 'provided you will permit me to teach children and preach the gospel, and give me ten pounds a year for my support, I shall be satisfied.'" He was soon obliged to leave the place where he then was, and go forth alone, with no friends or money, but with the firm determination to furnish the Scriptures to the people in such form that a plough-boy might know more of them than the priests of Rome. He soon found a place in the house of a rich merchant named Monmouth, where he could pursue his studies unmolested. Here he devoted his whole time to the work, and studied night and day. And here his earnestness and sincerity of purpose were displayed. Wishing to guard his mind against being "overcharged with surfeiting," he refused the delicacies of his patron's table, and confined himself to the simplest and plainest diet. His life was bound up in his labor of love.549 Here we have exhibited the true missionary spirit. It is not alone that the reformers denied themselves of the comforts of life, and braved the wrath of kings, that they were true missionaries; other men have done that in order to accomplish a selfish purpose; but it is in the fact that they did so unselfishly, for the purpose of benefiting their fellow-men. The motive which actuated them was love--love to God and his cause, and love to their fellows. This, it must be remembered, is the mainspring of all true missionary effort. The sacrifices which one makes, and the hardships endured, are simply the measure of the love that is in the heart. Wherever you find the record of a true servant of God, there you will find the record of self-denial, and unremitting labor. The record has never been kept on earth, but for each individual it is faithfully kept on high. But there is another feature which characterizes the true missionary of Christ, and that is a constant dependence on God. The reformers were men of prayer. Had they not been, their work could never have been blessed as it was. We quote only one case, that of Luther. All are familiar with the way in which he fasted and prayed and did penance while he was simply a monk, before he understood that "the just shall live by faith." It is true that these works were really of no value, and they failed to bring him the peace which he sought; but they give an insight into his character. After the light of the gospel shone upon him, he learned not to trust in voluntary humiliation, but he leaned wholly on God. On the morning of the day on which he was to appear before the Emperor, and all the dignitaries of church and State, when not only his death, but the overthrow of the Reformation seemed imminent, Luther was in great distress. We take the following account from the "History of the Reformation":-- "On the morning of this 17th of April, he was for a few minutes in deep exercise of mind. God's face seemed to be veiled, and his faith forsook him; his enemies seemed to multiply before him, and his imagination was overcome by the aspect of his dangers. His soul was like a ship driven by a violent tempest, rocked from side to side, to one moment plunged in the abyss, and the next carried up to heaven. In that hour of bitter trial--an hour which to him was as the garden of Gethsemane--he threw himself with his face upon the earth, and uttered those broken cries, which we cannot understand without entering, in thought, into the anguish of those deeps from whence they rose to God. 'O God, Almighty God everlasting! how dreadful is the world? behold how its mouth opens to swallow me up, and how small is my faith in thee! Oh, the weakness of the flesh, and the power of Satan! If I am to depend on the strength of this world, all is over. The knell is struck; sentence is gone forth. O God! O God! O thou my God! help me against all the wisdom of this world. Do this I beseech thee; thou shouldst do this . . . . by thine own mighty power. The work is not mine, but thine. I have no business here. I have nothing to contend for against these great men of the world. I would gladly pass my days in happiness and peace. But the cause is thine, and it is righteous and everlasting. O Lord, help me! O faithful and unchangeable God! I lean not upon man. It were vain! Whatever is of man is tottering, whatever proceeds from him must fail. My God! my God! dost thou not hear? My God! art thou no longer living? Nay, thou canst not die. Thou dost but hide thyself. Thou hast chosen me for this work; I know it. Therefore, O God, accomplish thine own will. Forsake me not, for sake of thy well-beloved Son, Jesus Christ, my defense, my buckler, and my stronghold!'" "After a moment of silent struggle, he continued, 'Lord, where art thou? My God where art thou? Come, I pray thee, I am ready. Behold me prepared to lay down my life for thy truth, . . . suffering like a lamb. For the cause is holy; it is thine own. I will not let thee go; no, nor yet for all eternity.'" Here we discover the secret source whence strength and courage were imparted to the humble and despised man who was God's instrument to free the minds of men from the bondage of papal superstition. This was why the work of Luther was attended with such mighty results. Christ, the sinless One, has set us an example of dependence on God. He spent entire nights in prayer. The apostle Paul was one who felt himself to be the weakest of men, yet he felt able to do all things through Christ. Elijah received power to perform his wonderful works by means of prayer. Jas. 5 : 17, 18. David, who was honored of God to an extent scarcely equaled, was one whose frequent devotions were not performed in a lifeless manner. And God is no respecter of persons. He is willing to give his Spirit to any who will ask in true faith. The weakest man in the world may be the strongest if he will but unite with God; and this every Christian must do. "The effectual, fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." What a power in the land the church of God would be, if all who profess the name of Christ had the prevailing faith of Elijah, of Daniel, of Paul, or of Luther. May the time soon come when the church shall have this power, and when it may be said of us as of Peter and John: "And they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus." E. J. W
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
PROVE all things; hold fast that which is good. Healdsburg, Cal.
By W. M. Healey
We have just closed a discussion here with an "age-to-come" minister, having spent four evenings upon the Sabbath question, and three upon the restoration of Israel. The position of our opponent upon the Sabbath was that of the abolition of the law. He had the ten commandments abolished at the cross, and claimed that the new code came into effect on the day of Pentecost, and that during this period of about fifty days there was no law and no salvation; so any who died in that period must be lost. But the question arises, Why lost? since any acts they might do could not be sinful if there was no law, for "by the law is the knowledge of sin." Rom. 3:20; 1 John 3:4; Rom. 4:15. This theory gives a sinless period for the world, and we would think that all would be saved who die in a sinless period. It was claimed that all of the commandments except the Sabbath were regiven in the New Testament. We showed that all of the ten are indorsed repeatedly, but that it would be folly to abolish and then regive the law. We pressed him to find the place in the New Testament where the law is given as a new code, and claimed that he could not prove image worship to be a sin only by reference to the Old Testament. That the New Testament is not a book of law, but points to a law already in existence. The next evening after being urged to find an express command in the New Testament against image worship, only as reference is made to the Old Testament law, he said: "I have found it, and it is lucky, for it has been strongly talked around town that I could not do it, and therefore must go under." We were then told that Acts 17:22-24 contained the new command. But woe to the position, for Paul is not making a law, but is reproving that people for not worshiping the true God, and defines him as the one who made the heavens and the earth,—a fact not admitted in their worship, but one which, according to Paul, should be the foundation of faith; and the Sabbath is to show forth this great truth, and thus acknowledge the true God. Considerable interest was manifested in the debate by the citizens of the place. Two persons were convinced of the truth, and are now keeping the commandments. Others are convinced, and we think will obey. The cause has lost nothing in any way by the discussion, but gained in many respects. Our church is not large enough to accommodate our present congregations, which are constantly increasing. We have been obliged to go to the college chapel for our meetings till we can make other arrangements. W. M. Healey. Dark Places in the Bible
By Tholuck
The reason why we find so many dark places in the Bible is, for the most part, because there are so many dark places in our hearts.—Tholuck