A FRIEND has sent us a handbill announcing a wonderful exhibition of spirit power which was to be given in Wieting Opera House, Syracuse, N. Y., Jan. 11, by C. C. Braddon, assisted by three of the most remarkable mediums in the world. They claim to perform all their wonders in full view of the audience, under brilliant gas light. The following are named as some of the tests which usually take place in the presence of these mediums:—
“While the medium is raised from her seat and floating in mid-air, the many spirit forms that appear around her are truly wonderful, and seen by all present. They stand beside you, converse with you as in life, and shake hands with their friends.”
It is claimed also that a table rises in the air, and that a large piano is raised clear from the floor, and played upon, without any visible hand touching it. This is put forth as “evidence that the dead do return;” and the parties challenge all exposers to meet them and disprove, if they can, the genuineness of their manifestations.
We present herewith some of the testimonials which they produce, and in reference to which they say: “Persons doubting the following assertions can write to the parties and substantiate the same:”—
“Lady Mayhew, No. 2, Vernon Place, Bloomsbury Square, London, states, ‘that thinking there might be some deception in the hall, she took the mediums to her own house, no one present but her own family; that while herself and brothers were holding them, the guitar floated around the parlor, touching many upon the head; bells were suspended in the air and rung, and her mother appeared, and was seen by all present; that there was no chance for deception, as the medium had never visited the house before that day.’
“The Countess of Caithness, of Landsdown Terrace, saw her husband; he stood beside her, conversed with her, placed his arms around her neck, and kissed her as in life.
“C. B. Greenwood, No. 11 Angel Court, Throgmorton Street, London, stated, that he had never seen any manifestations, or even believed in Spiritualism and didn’t know as he did now, but certainly there was something wonderful and miraculous in the manifestations; that his little grandchildren came to him, sitting upon his knee, placing their arms around his neck, called him ‘grandpa,’ and asking for ‘papa’ and ‘mamma;’ that he distinctly saw them as they were sitting there, and felt their presence upon his lap.”
“C. C. Braddon, and mediums, held a seance last evening, at Steinway Hall, to a full house. The performances were new, and startling enough to almost, if not quite, convince the veriest skeptic. Spirits were seen, felt and heard; musical instruments were played upon by spirit hands; the mediums were securely tied and bound to a chair by the spirit of Mulenburg, whose form was plainly seen by the entire audience. These are the only mediums through whom spiritual manifestations are developed in full gas-light.—Spiritual Telegraph.
“Mrs. William Chase, of New York City, testified to the audience, that she had not previously been in the presence of a spiritual meeting or medium, for twelve years, but on this occasion curiosity prompted her to see these mediums, and, on being seated with them, her mother, Mary, her sister Alice, and little child, Willie Lewis, appeared to her, and even talking to her, giving her many cheering and comforting messages.”
“Dr. W. S. Stevens, of No. 14 Arch St., Philadelphia, states: ‘I had C. C. Braddon and mediums in my own parlor, for a private seance, and none but members of my own family being present. Spirit forms appeared, as many as seven at once; they conversed with us, shook hands and played upon the piano, raising it to a height of three feet from the floor. We (myself and family) were not believers in Spiritualism, nor had we ever seen any manifestations before. What I give here are simply facts, and I am positive that no deception could have been practiced, and that each manifestation was most thoroughly investigated. I would further state that the manifestations were all produced in full gas-light.’
“New York Herald, Jan. 25: ‘Might truly be called a marvelous seance. The guitar was seen to rise in the air, while some invisible hand was thumbing it for a space of three minutes. The committee was allowed to hold the medium while the manifestations continued as before. It is inexplicable.’”
“The Graphic, Dec. 31, says: ‘Neither the committee or other spectators were able to fathom the mystery. Miss Fay was firmly tied to the wall and pinioned by a committee. Indeed the demonstration continued while she was held by a reporter of the Tribune.’”
“London Standard, July 5: ‘Nothing half so bewildering has been seen in England. Quite beyond the range of description.’”
So much has appeared already with high-sounding claims and marvelous pretensions, which finally turned out to be a cunning imposition, that the public will no doubt receive this, and perhaps justly, with no little incredulity. But the view we take of the prophecies which point to spiritualism as Satan’s great master-piece of deception for the last days, holds us to the conclusion that he will be able to do the very things which are here claimed to be already done. If, therefore, these manifestations are not genuine, we still look for such things not far in the future. If they are genuine, then that power which is just to reach the climax of its wonderful working as the Lord appears, has so far developed as to be able to perform all but the last act which the prophecy ascribes to it, Rev. 13:13; and the coming of Christ is indeed at the door.
BAPTISM IN WATER.
By John Nevins Andrews
BY ELD. J. N. ANDREWS.
CHRISTIAN baptism is baptism in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is distinct from the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Christ commissioned his disciples to baptize in water in his name, but no man can baptize with the Holy Spirit. Christ alone can do this. Baptism in water is one of the acts commanded for the remission of sins. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the special gift of God to all those who seek it with their whole heart.
That the baptism commanded by Christ was baptism in water is shown by many passages. When Philip preached Christ to the eunuch, it happened that they arrived at a pool or stream of water. Acts 8 : 34–36. The eunuch said to Philip, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” This shows that Philip, in preaching Christ to the eunuch, had preached to him that Christ commanded his disciples to be baptized in water. Luke tells us that both went down into the water, and that Philip then baptized the eunuch. Then they came up out of the water, and the Spirit of God caught away Philip. Acts 8 : 38, 39.
When Philip preached in Samaria, all that believed his word, both men and women, were baptized. But this was baptism in water, and not the baptism of the Holy Spirit; for these persons did not receive the Holy Spirit till afterward, when Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and prayed for them. Acts 8 : 5–16. Those who heard Peter preach on the day of Pentecost asked what they should do to be saved; Peter told them to repent and to be baptized, and they should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This baptism, therefore, was something which preceded the gift of the Spirit of God. Acts 2 : 37–44. In like manner, it is said that Paul baptized certain disciples at Ephesus, and then laid his hands upon them and they received the Holy Spirit. This baptism which preceded the gift of the Spirit of God must have been baptism in water. Acts 19 : 1–6.
When Peter preached at the house of Cornelius, the Holy Spirit descended upon those who heard him, even as it descended upon the disciples on the day of Pentecost. Acts 10 : 44, 45; 11 : 15, 16. Peter asked if any would forbid that these persons should be baptized in water; and he then commanded that they should be baptized. Acts 10 : 47, 48. This shows the distinction between the baptism in water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that, even after the baptism of the Holy Spirit, baptism in water was necessary in order to obey the command of Christ.
Then it is seen that baptism in the Holy Spirit may precede baptism in water, as in the case of those at the house of Cornelius; or it may succeed baptism in water, as in the case of those baptized by Philip in Samaria, and of those baptized by Paul at Ephesus. But the baptism of the Holy Spirit did not render the baptism in water unnecessary. The apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit descended like a mighty rushing wind, and filled all the house where they were sitting. Acts 1 : 4, 5; 2 : 1, 2. Without doubt, the apostles had been baptized by John in Jordan, even as Christ had been baptized by him. John 1 : 28–37; Matt. 3 : 13–16.
Several things are mentioned as necessary for the remission of sins: 1. Repentance. Acts 5 : 31; Luke 24 : 47. 2. Faith in Christ. Acts 10 : 43; 13 : 38, 39; 26 : 18. 3. The blood of Christ was shed for the remission of sins. Matt. 26 : 28; Eph. 1 : 7;57Col. 1 : 14. In addition to these things it is expressly declared that baptism is for the remission of sins. Peter bade the people be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, that they might receive the remission of their sins. Acts 2 : 38. John also preached baptism as one of the things necessary in order to obtain the remission of sins. Mark 1 : 4, 5; Luke 3 : 3. If baptism is one of the things necessary in order for us to receive the remission of sins, it is certainly a duty of great importance.
Bale, Dec. 1, 1879.
THE SUNDAY QUESTION IN ENGLAND.
By Editor
IN REVIEW of Jan. 8, we noticed the fact that the Manchester (Eng.) Presbyterian had protested against the opening of the exhibition of statuary and painting in the Royal Institution, and that a letter had appeared in the Weekly Times of that city, exposing the weakness of the Sunday argument.
A later issue of that paper has been put into our hands, in which the question is still further discussed. While the writer in arguing on the no-Sabbath ground falls into the fallacies common to that error, he nevertheless says some things relative to the Sunday arguments which are worth repeating. We instance the following:—
“Having established to his satisfaction the universal and permanent obligation of the fourth commandment, Mr. M’Caw proceeds to take liberties with it. The commandment speaks of the seventh day, but he says that any other day will do as well. He says that any candid man will admit that the principle of the commandment is the consecration of the seventh part of our time. I trust that I am a candid man, and yet I must profess myself unable to follow him. We are dealing with a chapter in a statute book. The statute orders the observance of the seventh day. Mr. M’Caw says the particular day is of no importance. The statute gives reasons why it should be the seventh day, and no other; but Mr. M’Caw still says that it does not matter. The common notion of a law is that you may either keep it or break it, but that you are not at liberty to change its terms without the consent of the lawgiver. Mr. M’Caw does so, and cites no permission. Coming to Christian times, Mr. M’Caw admits that there is no Sabbatic law in the New Testament. He says that our Lord neither abrogated nor re-enacted the fourth commandment, but left it where it was.”
No better position could be taken on the fourth commandment than the one stated in this closing sentence. And no position will more surely help on the Sabbath cause. For let the principle once be established that the fourth commandment remains unchanged, and the battle is more than half fought; inasmuch as it can most easily be shown that the commandment is not kept by the observance of simply an indefinite seventh part of time, but that it does require the hallowing of the seventh, and not the first, day of the week.
THE TRANSFIGURATION.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
BY ELD. D. M. CANRIGHT.
“AND, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.” Matt. 17:1-3.
On the mount of transfiguration two men appeared to those present. These were Moses and Elijah. It is claimed that this circumstance proves that the real man lives after the death of the body. It is readily admitted that the case of Elijah furnishes no proof of this, from the simple fact that he was translated without seeing death. See 2 Kings 2:11. But the case of Moses is different. Moses had died fifteen hundred years before, and had been buried; but he appeared on the mountain. Hence it is claimed that it was his immortal soul separate from the body. To this claim we object, and we give our reasons.
The Bible says that Moses died and was buried. See Deut. 34. Afterward he was seen on the mountain alive. Now, we submit that the rational conclusion to be drawn from these facts is that Moses had been raised from the dead. The conclusion of our opponents is unnatural; it is a mere supposition without any facts. It does not say Elijah and the soul of Moses were there, or that the spirit of Moses was there. No; but “There appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.” Moses himself was there. But turning back to the record, we read: “Moses, my servant, is dead.” Josh. 1:2. And here it is said that Moses talked with Christ. Was there more than one Moses, then, one dead and one alive? That is absurd. No, there was only one Moses. The Bible positively says this Moses was dead. And now we maintain that if Moses was actually seen alive afterward, he must have been raised from the dead. If our opponents had not had their judgment warped by a fanciful philosophy, they would readily admit that their conclusion is unnatural and illogical. We propose to show that the Scriptures intimate that this is a fact, in the case of Moses, that he was raised from the dead.
First, look at the record of his burial, which is extraordinary. It says that the Lord buried him, and “no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.” Deut. 34:6. Why was this? The Lord did not suffer him to die a natural death, but he took him up into the mount, and there he died in a peculiar manner; and then the Lord took care of him, and no man ever found his sepulcher.
Secondly, the language in Jude does plainly assume that Moses was raised from the dead.
“Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.” Verse 9.
How is this? What does this mean? Here was a dispute between two noted individuals, Michael the archangel on one hand, and the devil on the other. It will be remembered that the archangel is the one who will raise the dead; for Paul says, “For the Lord himself shall descend from Heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God; and dead in Christ shall rise first.” 1 Thess. 4:16.
It is the prerogative of the archangel to raise the dead, and this is the very one that held the controversy with the devil about the body of Moses. Let it be remembered, further, that the devil is the very one who holds the power of death under which Moses had fallen; for Paul says, Heb. 2:14, Christ took our natures “that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” Now we begin to understand what Jude means. The archangel, who alone has the right and power to raise the dead, has a dispute with the devil, who holds the power of death, and this dispute relates to the body of Moses. The devil disputes the right of Michael to raise that body. But the archangel rebukes him, and carries out his own design. This certainly does imply that Moses was raised from the dead. In perfect harmony with this, we read that Moses was seen alive on the mountain with Elijah, who was translated.
Thirdly, Moses was a type of Christ. See Acts 3:22. “A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me.” Christ died, was buried, and was raised again the third day without seeing corruption. So Moses, as the type of Christ, was raised from the dead.
Fourthly, the very significance of the transfiguration proves that Moses was there bodily. What was the transfiguration for? It was a miniature representation of the kingdom of God; for, notice that Christ had just promised them that some of those standing there should not taste of death until they should see the kingdom of God come. Then Matthew adds that about six days afterward Jesus took the disciples up into the mountain and was transfigured before them. In the kingdom of God there will be, first, the King of glory. Jesus appeared in this capacity. Secondly, the living saints who will be translated at the second advent without seeing death. Elijah was here as a representative of this class. Thirdly, those who have died and been raised from the dead. Moses was here as a representative of that class. And thus were Christ’s words fulfilled. They saw in this an epitome of the kingdom of God. Indeed, Peter directly declares this in speaking of that event. “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honor and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from Heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” 2 Pet. 1:16-18. The apostle declares that in this event on the mount they saw the power and coming of Christ just as Jesus had promised.
But to this it may be objected that Christ, in his resurrection, was the first-fruits of them that slept. How, then, could Moses have been raised before him? Well, Lazarus, Jairus’ daughter, the widow’s son, and others were raised from the dead before Christ was. But you say that these were not raised to immortal life. Neither does this text say that Christ was the first to be raised to immortal life. It simply says that he should be the first-fruits that should rise from the dead. Acts 26:23. In point of time, others did rise from the dead before Christ. Looking at the original Greek we find that “the first” translated from protos, is thus defined by Greenfield: “First in time, order; first in dignity, importance.” We see, then, it not only means first in time, but it also means first in importance. So of Christ. His resurrection really did not take place till after a few others were actually raised; but his resurrection was the grand, important one of all; for by virtue of him the others were raised. And finally by his word and power all the millions of the human race will come up. In view of these facts, we firmly believe that Moses was raised from the dead, and was actually alive on the mount, as the record says.
Bringing Small Cares to Prayer
—Learn to entwine with your prayers the small cares, the trifling sorrows, the little wants of daily life. Whatever affects you,—be it a changed look, an altered tone, an unkind word, a wrong, a wound, a demand you cannot meet, a charge you cannot notice, a sorrow you cannot disclose,—turn it into prayer, and send it up to God. Disclosures you may not make to man you can make to the Lord. Man may be too little for your great matters; God is not too great for your small ones. Only give yourself to prayer, whatever be the occasion that calls for it.—Winslow.
A DISCIPLE is a learner. Jesus said, “Learn of me.” A true disciple of Christ will always be glad to learn more of him, and of the word of the gospel which he announced and sent forth into all the world by the servants of his choice.
In reading the passage referred to in my heading, the sense of the clause which says, “If that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus,” has not been clearly apprehended by me. But from reading the passage in Whiting’s translation, I have received an idea new to me; and I will give it, not as infallibly true, but for the consideration of the reader. If it is not right, I shall be glad to learn. I will first give the text as rendered by Whiting, from verse 11 to verse 14.
“In order that by any means I may attain to the resurrection from among the dead. Not that I have already attained, or have already finished my course, but I am pressing forward, so that I may lay hold of that for which I also was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have laid hold of it: but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things before, I press forward toward the mark for the prize of the calling from on high, of God, by Christ Jesus.”
The past tense of the verb in the phrase, “was laid hold of by Christ,” suggested the following. When Saul of Tarsus was on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus to persecute the saints, the Lord Jesus apprehended, or laid hold of him, by the way. Jesus said to him, “I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee.” Acts 26 : 16, 17. Here the apostle received his call to the ministry. It was a high calling, or a calling from on high, a calling of God made by Christ Jesus. A “course” was set before the apostle, which was that he should go to the Gentiles and wherever God should send him, and faithfully fulfill his ministry. A dispensation of the gospel was committed to him; and at the end of the course, or race, there was a prize, which was a part in the first resurrection,—the resurrection “from among the dead,”—and “a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge,” would give him in that day.
Reader, a course is set before each one of us, and the same prize awaits us “in that day,” if we finish our course as the apostle did his, faithful to the last, loving Christ’s appearing. See 2 Tim. 4 : 6–8.
With a realizing sense of his commission, its responsibilities and its results,—the salvation or condemnation of those to whom it came, the preacher as well as the hearer,—it is no wonder that the apostle should feel such anxious solicitude to finish his course and fulfill his ministry in a way to meet the approval of Heaven. Said he to the elders of the church at Ephesus, “And now, behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there; save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying that bonds and afflictions abide me. But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.” Acts 20 : 22–24.
When Paul wrote to the Philippians, he had not finished his course, and consequently had not yet fully secured that which the Lord designed to give him, when he appeared to him on his way to Damascus,—that prize of eternal life at the first resurrection,—but he was still pressing forward to this object, “if by any means” he might lay hold of that for which he had been called by the Lord Jesus. He finished his course with joy; and may the reader and the writer so fulfill their respective callings as in the end to “lay hold on eternal life.”
WHY SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS SHOULD SIGN THE TEETOTAL PLEDGE.
By W. H. Littlejohn
BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.
In organizing temperance clubs in the various churches, we meet quite frequently with individuals who object to signing a temperance pledge on the ground that the church covenant really covers the field occupied by the temperance movement, and that, having signed the covenant, they are already committed to principles of abstinence.
It is not our purpose just now to discuss the proposition whether the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, when rightly understood, will exclude the use of intoxicants. As we are agreed with the parties in question that they would do so, we wish only to inquire whether that fact should stand in the way of the signing of the pledge. To our mind, it is very far from doing so. To us it appears that the objector, in insisting that by signing the covenant, he has already virtually signed one temperance pledge, thereby removes every serious objection to the signing of another, since he frankly concedes that total abstinence is perfectly sound in point of doctrine.
That being the case, the question to be considered by him in the matter of signing the temperance pledge has ceased to be one of principle, and has become one of expediency merely; for, granting that the church covenant is a pledge, he either did wrong in signing that covenant, or else it is right, under some circumstances, to sign a pledge. But does he say that expediency is the very ground of his objection, and that he refuses to sign the second time because in so doing his practice as to the use of alcohol, tea, coffee, opium, and tobacco could in no wise be affected thereby, since he has kept his covenant strictly and wholly abstains from all of them? We answer, So far so good.
Had it turned out that he had been pleading his church covenant as a bar against the necessity of signing the teetotal pledge, while he was himself in the daily use of some of the articles which that pledge prohibits, then he would have exposed himself to the charge of prevarication; for if a church covenant is really a substitute for a teetotal pledge, and is to be pleaded as such, then it is manifest that he who makes that plea and yet continues to use the things which he says the covenant forbids, is undeniably dishonest, since he thereby feigns to be doing what he really does not do.
We repeat, therefore, that he who pleads the church covenant as equivalent to a teetotal pledge, must be a total abstainer in practice in order to be consistent; and that it only remains to prove to him that there are certain advantages to be gained by signing the teetotal pledge, in order to induce him to take that step.
What, then, are the facts?
Suppose we should grant—as we do most cheerfully—that so far as he is concerned individually, his practice would in no wise be improved by signing the pledge? How would that affect the discussion? Why, it would decide it in his favor, unless it could be shown that others besides himself would be affected by his refusal to sign that instrument.
We inquire, therefore, Is it true that there are no interests involved in the signing of the pledge except those of the individual signer?
The answer is emphatically in the negative. In this life we are so related that we act and react upon one another in society as the cog-wheels in a piece of machinery mash in together, alternately turning others and then being turned by them.
No man is so humble but that he can influence some one else.
This is particularly true in the temperance work. Example goes a great way, either in leading others to drink or to desist therefrom.
Moral suasion has been found most successful in bringing about the reformation of inebriates. Its influence has been most potent when exerted through organized societies. As bad as the world is, in point of drunkenness, at the present time, it is hard to conceive what it would have been were it not for the untiring efforts of philanthropic men and women through temperance societies. About everything that has been accomplished in the line of reformation has been brought about through these instrumentalities.
But what has been the prominent resource of those who have labored successfully in that line?
Manifestly it has been the pledge. Without that, you could have no temperance organization worthy of the name. Without temperance organizations, drink would run riot, and demoralization would become complete. Furthermore, temperance reformers who should offer to the victims of strong drink a pledge which they would not sign themselves, either because of indifference to its importance or scruple in regard to its propriety, would be certain to meet with failure in the work of reform. In this thing, as in everything else, he alone who is willing to do himself what he asks others to do, will be enabled to move men in the direction in which he desires to move them.
These things being true, it becomes at once evident that the question of pledge-signing is vital to the highest interests of society. No trivial consideration, therefore, should stand in its way. He who does not wish to become responsible for the ruin of others, should not allow himself to dishearten temperance workers, and encourage drinking men in their opposition to the same, by either practically or theoretically condemning the most valuable resource which has yet been discovered for reforming the fallen. It is not enough to say that we will not sign the pledge because we do not need it ourselves, so long as by signing it we might by our example lead others to do the same, who otherwise would not do so.
In God’s word we are instructed that we should look upon the things of others, as well as those of ourselves. Phil. 2:4. We think, therefore, that he who is not opposed to temperance upon principle, and who has at heart an earnest desire to save the young from temptation and to rescue the fallen from the horrors of the drunkard’s doom, should heartily co-operate in the formation of temperance societies, by attaching his name, without hesitation, to a temperance pledge, and henceforth recommending to all, by example as well as precept, personal union with that institution which is fraught with blessing untold to the young, the middle-aged, and the aged.
Allegan, Mich.
LAWS, PHYSICAL AND MORAL.
By A. Stone
BY ELD. A. STONE.
THE physical and moral laws by which God governs the world are immutable. No change could better adapt them to their respective uses in the divine economy. They possess both the qualities of infinite precision and exactitude. To take from them or add to them would mar their perfectness. The least change in the laws of nature would doubtless be fraught with incalculable mischief to the physical world. To abrogate or change moral law would tend to the annihilation of goodness and the destruction of the moral world. The laws of nature were made by the Creator to govern the physical world. Moral law depends on the existence of God, and is inseparable from it. Though these laws differ in their objects and operations, yet they are in harmony, and are prime parts of that stupendous whole which constitutes the universe of God. Man cannot change them. Divine wisdom and goodness has placed them beyond the reach of man's power or skill. The worst that he can do is to transgress them, and incur the penalty.
It is, indeed, passing strange that in the nineteenth century a controversy should arise among the professed followers of Christ respecting the claims of the moral law of God, on the basis of law or no law in the gospel dispensation. Long-cherished and well-established theories are made to give way before the rolling tide of human fancy, that the moral law of God expired with Christ at the crucifixion. This view is advocated with an earnestness and zeal worthy of a better cause.
Do our no-law friends refuse to take stock in the express declaration of Christ, that he came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it? Will they listen to Paul, who expressly says that the gospel of faith does not make void the law, but establishes it? Rom. 3:31. Does not the apostle further teach that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us? But there can be no lawful curse if the law is done away.
If they believe not Moses and the prophets, Jesus Christ and the apostles, they would not believe though one should rise from the dead. To annul the law is to reject the concurrent testimony of nearly all the inspired writers, and at the same time make the gospel of no effect. In the name of truth and consistency, we ask, If the law is done away, of what use is the gospel? Just none at all. The gospel was not in the original plan, neither was it brought in after the fall of man as a substitute for the law, nor to kill the law, but as a remedy to help the sinner back to the perfection which the law required.
The gospel is an effort put forth, at infinite expense, to obtain the consent of the law to the salvation of penitent believers. The law condemns the transgressor to death. It is the office of the gospel to cancel the claims of the law for past sins, and obtain its consent to the salvation of believers. Christ, who is the resurrection and the life, will raise the saints from their graves, and give them eternal life; but he will do it only as the law is satisfied, and consents. An effort to obtain friendship with Christ while living in rebellion against the law, is a direct insult to both the Father and the Son.
“The law commands, and makes us know
What duties to our God we owe;
But ’tis the gospel must reveal
Where lies our strength to do his will.”
—Watts.
AN INTERESTING PEOPLE.
IN the Independent of Dec. 18 we find the following brief sketch of a peculiar sect of Russian Christians:
“Mr. Cole, of the mission of the American Board in Eastern Turkey, writing of the state of affairs in Kars, describes a sect of Christians called Malagans, who are settling in Kars in great numbers. The history of their origin, as they give it, is that between fifty and sixty years ago their fathers were taken as captives into Germany, where they received some ideas of Protestantism. They speak the Russian language and come from north of the Caucasus. They have been much persecuted. They dress somewhat59like Quakers; they abstain from wine-drinking and the use of tobacco, and wear long beards. They will not eat pork, and also eschew some kinds of herbs, and have a fervent desire to go to Jerusalem. They are diligent readers of the Bible, which they prize very highly, and will have no other book. Though they believe in the New as well as the Old Testament, they do not celebrate baptism nor the Lord’s supper. They observe the Sabbath, and are noted for their love of truth and fair dealing. They bought all the Bibles Mr. Cole had to spare, and desired him to come and teach them and correct their mistakes. There are now about 500 of them in Kars, and many are yet to come. Mr. Cole thinks there ought to be a Protestant congregation in Kars for their benefit. The introduction of a little steamer on Lake Van for missionary use greatly excited the natives, who gravely discussed the question whether Solomon was as wise as the Protestants, and gave a verdict in favor of the latter.”
UNIVERSAL PEACE AT LAST.
By A. Smith
HOW THIS PEACE WILL BE BROUGHT ABOUT.
BY A. SMITH.
In an old number of Harper’s Weekly is a series of pictures representing the progress of the art of war from the most primitive pugilistic demonstrations, and the earliest use of arms by Cain in slaying his brother, down through the centuries to the beginning of 1900. In each scene the devil is represented as an interested and often gleesome spectator. The sword, pistol, musket, cannon, and needle-gun are superseded by the fan-gun, the electric organ-gun, and the steam-gun; and these, in turn, by an asphyxiating bomb, whereby both contending armies are annihilated in three minutes. The crowning tableau represents a reign of perfect calm, the opposing armies lying in ranks, a la Sennacherib’s host, and the prince of hell striding in mid-air over the battle field, holding in one hand an olive branch, and in the other a coronet of laurel.
Such an ending would doubtless be the legitimate consequence of the present progress of the art of war, should not the God of Heaven anticipate the result by destroying the wicked of the earth by the brightness of his coming. Then will be fulfilled the prophetic declaration: “When they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, . . . and they shall not escape.” 1 Thess. 5:3.
SPECIAL MENTION.
By Editor
THE SITUATION IN MAINE.
Maine finds herself in a singular position. She has no legally elected Governor, and no legally formed Legislature; but the judicial branch of the government remains unimpaired. At the time appointed (Jan. 7), the Legislature was organized under the auspices of the Fusionists, many of the lawfully elected Republican members being entirely ignored. In voting for a speaker, a quorum was lacking, and one of the members, the Hon. Eugene Hale, made the point that all the voting was illegal.
On the 12th, the Republicans, in turn, organized, claiming that their object was to bring the matter before the Supreme Court of the State, that facts might be brought out, and a just decision rendered.
This has been done; but as the decision rendered was favorable to the Republicans, the Fusionists refused to accept it. Joseph L. Smith, the Governor elected by the illegally-constituted Fusionist Legislature, was at last accounts endeavoring to administer the government. He had issued an order relieving General Chamberlain of his command. The General has been acting as Governor and commander of the military. What the result will be cannot now be foreseen.
We indorse the following from the Christian Weekly of Jan. 17: “We care nothing for the mere party aspect of the Maine election. There are far higher considerations involved than those of party. It is a question whether honesty or trickery is to control our political affairs.”
The situation is peculiar, and a significant sign of the times. What will become of our boasted freedom, of our republican institutions, when the purity and freedom of the ballot box can no longer be maintained, and when the results of an election cannot be decided without the threat of an appeal to arms? In view of the Maine “muddle,” with some other similar ones that have preceded it, we are led to ask if our government is taking lessons of Louis Napoleon, whose coup d'etat of 1850 produced such brilliant results.
Before the crisis in Maine had reached its present stage of development, the Christian Union made the following pertinent remarks on the subject:—
“It is a wrong to the nation, and one full of danger. It looks like the beginning of a deliberate attempt to secure the Presidential election at every hazard; for if the electoral vote of Maine be added to the vote of the solid South, only forty more votes in the electoral college would be required; and they could easily be secured by the same methods. Republicanism rests upon the cordial acquiescence of all the people in the expressed will of the majority; and whoever assails this, mines under the very foundation of the nation. Whoever, Republican or Democrat, endeavors to defeat the will of the voters, whether by violence, as in Mississippi, or by purchase, as in Louisiana, or by technicalities, as in Maine, is a traitor to the Republic more dangerous than Benedict Arnold, and deserving as condign a punishment and as universal an execration. The Maine fraud is as much more dangerous to its life than the bombardment of Fort Sumter, as the attack is more insidious, and should be met with a popular indignation as universal.”