The Review and Herald, Review and Herald, Vol. 47, No. 12.
The Coming Religious StrugglePage 1
Earlier text: The Coming Religious StrugglePRES. ASA MAHAN ON THE SABBATH.
By Wm. Penniman.
Mr. Mahan was formerly President of Oberlin College, Ohio, and is now President of Adrian College, Mich. He is author of “A System of Intellectual Philosophy,” “Doctrine of the Will,” “Science of Moral Philosophy,” &c. The following quotations are embraced between pages 246 and 267, of his “Moral Philosophy”:— “The question in respect to the keeping of a Sabbath is one of special revelation. It is only, as such, that its observance can be regarded as morally binding. It is in this light, therefore, that I shall regard and treat the subject in the present chapter.” “‘The Sabbath,’ says our Saviour, ‘was made for man;’ that is, it was instituted to meet the demands of our nature. As it was originally given, not to any one particular people or age, but to the race, we are bound to conclude that the keeping of the day in accordance with the divine requisitions respecting it is demanded by the fundamental laws of our being. The same principle applies to all particular precepts respecting the day. In the Scriptures, the account of its establishment is connected with that of the creation, and of the first origin of the race. ‘Thus the heavens and earth were finished, and all the hosts of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all the work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.’ Gen. 2:1–3. The term blessed, as here used, can mean nothing less than this, that God ordained the institution of the Sabbath as a day of special blessings to all who would duly observe it. To sanctify the day, means to set it apart from secular to religious uses. This is the fixed and exclusive meaning of the term sanctify, when connected with any common object. “‘The fact that the account of the origin of the institution is connected with that of the creation itself, is sufficient evidence that its origin is coeval with that of the race, and of the fact that it was designed, not for any one people alone, but for the entire race of man. How strange this account appears, when placed in the light of the idea entertained by some, that the Sabbath was designed only for one people, and merely as an institution of temporary obligation relatively to them. To connect the account of the origin of such an institution with that of the creation itself without any intimation whatever of its real subsequent date, would be absurd even in an author uninspired. “‘Then the reason assigned for the institution marks it as designed for the race. What if the Most High had said, I finished the work of creation in six days, and rested on the seventh. For this reason, I now, thousands of years after the creation, sanctify this day, as an institution of temporary obligation for one, the least almost of all the branches of the human race!’ No man, having any proper respect for the Scriptures, can put such a construction upon such a passage, yet the idea under consideration compels us to do it. “‘The day also was introduced by Moses to the children of Israel, not as a new, but as an institution already existing. ‘And it came to pass, that on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man; and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord.’ Ex. 16:22, 23. This was a considerable period before the arrival of the Israelites at Sinai, where the Sabbath was formally prescribed to the people. Yet it was presented to them as a day, the observance of which had previously been commanded to the Jews, as a people. It must have been given to the race, and to them only as a part of it. We might, then, with the same propriety argue that any of the other of the ten commandments was given to the Jews alone, and given as precepts of temporary obligation even unto them, as to affirm that the Sabbath was thus given. “‘The almost universal division of time into weeks of seven days among the ancients, and the equally extensive observance of the seventh as a sacred day, clearly evinces also that the Sabbath, with the division of time which it implies, was not originally given to one people, but to the race. ‘Sacred,’ says Hesiod, ‘in the first place, is the day of the new moon; sacred also are the fourth and the seventh days.’ ‘Again came the seventh day, the illustrious light of the sun.’ ‘The seventh day then arrived,’ says Homer, ‘a sacred day.’ Again he says, ‘The seventh (day) is among good things. The seventh is the birth (day). The seventh is among the chief things. The seventh is perfect.’ Hesiod and Homer, as the reader is well aware, are among the most ancient of the Greek writers. Philo, the Jew who was contemporary with our Saviour, says of the Sabbath, ‘For it is a holy day, not of one city, or place only, but of all the world, a holy day which alone can be described as universal, the birthday of the world.’ ‘Neither is there any city of the Greeks or among foreigners,’ says Josephus, ‘not even one nation in which the custom of observing the seventh day, on which we rest has not found its way.’ I might adduce many other testimonies equally to the purpose. But this is sufficient. Such coincidences must have had a common origin—the giving of the Sabbath originally, not to any one people, but to the race. “‘The reason originally assigned for the institution requires to be specially noticed. ‘And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.’ The reason here assigned, as well as that assigned by our Saviour, designates the institution as of changeless obligation. As long as creation should stand before the creatures of God, as his grand work, the reason for observing the institution on the seventh instead of any other day would remain unchanged. If, on the other hand, the time should come when God should perform a work infinitely more important than the creation, such an occurrence would demand, not a destruction of the institution, but a change from the seventh to the day on which this last and crowning work of God was completed. Such an occurrence as the above, however, instead of being a reason for the abrogation of the Sabbath itself, would be an additional reason of infinite weight for its continued observance, on a different day. “‘Another consideration of considerable weight to my mind is this, the fact that the precept requiring the observance of the institution is placed among nine other precepts of changeless obligation, and which are separate from all other laws, precepts, and institutions, given at the time, as of fundamental importance.’” We have quoted the preceding as it is nearly all good testimony in favor of the Sabbath. As the views set forth on the Sabbath by writers on moral science generally have weight with the people, we have noticed this writer principally to show some of his inconsistencies and erroneous positions, hoping some may see how difficult it is to uphold error or to attempt to reason from a false foundation. The president makes a wrong beginning when he says, “The question in respect to the keeping of a Sabbath is one of special revelation.” The Bible says nothing about the keeping of a Sabbath; for if a Sabbath is all that the word of God requires, then any day will do. Who cannot see that this leads to the absurd seventh-part-of-time position? Again, “The keeping of a Sabbath is contrary to the law and to the teaching of our Saviour (whom he quoted) who says, ‘The Sabbath [not a Sabbath] was made for man.’” Notwithstanding the position is so ably defended that the Sabbath was given to no one people, “but to the race,” yet on page 255, we notice that the author, speaking of Rev. 1:10, says, “This could not have been the seventh day of the week, or the Jewish Sabbath.” Again, on page 261, in attempting to set up the claims of the so-called “Christian Sabbath,” he again terms it the Jewish Sabbath. This is a dilemma into which all are thrown who attempt to set up a counterfeit day. Just as well might the law of God, in which the Sabbath is found, be called a Jewish law, or even God a Jewish God, as to call the Sabbath Jewish. “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God had created and made.” Mr. Mahan thinks “the reason here assigned, as well as that assigned by our Saviour, designates the institution as of changeless obligation.” If the “institution” is “changeless,” then why attempt to change it? It was not an institution setting apart any day, but the seventh day because that in it God had rested. Creation yet stands; therefore, “the reason for observing the institution on the seventh instead of any other day” must stand also. Certainly this is a strong proposition and cannot be overthrown; for it will not only stand as long as creation, but even in the new earth. Isa. 66:22. But hear him again: “If the time should come when God should perform a work infinitely more important than the creation,” &c. It is assumed that the time has come (although the conjunction of if implies doubt in regard to it) when God has performed this work; but who says so? God does not; granting even that the work is greater, does this give sufficient authority for the change? We think not, inasmuch as we have positive proof that the institution is “changeless.” Here we find something remarkable when this noted author attempts to overthrow his own reasoning; for after making a proposition firmer than the rocks of Gibraltar, to avoid a dilemma he unwittingly attempts to overthrow his own position. From the very fact that the institution is of changeless obligation it must stand forever. It is a moral institution, since it is founded upon moral law, and moral principle, that principle which implies love to God. It is not an institution which makes holy any day or every day, but the day on which God rested, the day which he blessed and made holy. The moral principle is to keep the day which was made holy, the day which was blessed. No other day has been thus set apart to a sacred use; therefore it can no more be changed than any other part of the law. Again, “Another consideration of considerable weight to any mind is this, the fact that the precept requiring the observance of the institution is placed among nine other precepts of changeless obligation.” Here the president has given a clincher. It is no wonder he thinks this “fact” of “considerable weight.” “Facts are stubborn things.” Yes, it is a fact that this precept is in the very center of the law and binds it together with a moral chain, so strong that it cannot be broken. The Sabbath precept is just as much a moral precept as the other nine. Who cannot see but that there is just as much morality in a precept which requires love to God as there is in one which requires love to man? In fact, both are inseparably connected. The eighth command reads, “Thou shalt not steal;” yet in this degenerate age men do not seem to think they steal when they rob God of his time. Our author seems anxious to prove that the institution is changeless, yet he does not seem to think it matters in regard to the change of day. If the institution (which makes the seventh day and no other day the Sabbath) is changeless, then how can the day be changed, and the institution remain the same? Impossible! Col. 2:16, is quoted to prove that the Sabbath has been abolished. For an able and full exposition of this text the reader is referred to J. N. Andrews’ “History of the Sabbath.” Suffice it to say that Edwards, Barnes, and other able commentators differ with Mahan on this text, and hold the same position with S. D. Adventists. We notice but one more position, as it may be novel to some, and that is, that Eze. 43:27, is prophetic of first-day observance. The “Comprehensive Commentary” comments briefly upon verses 16–27 as follows: “The instruction seems to be the same as has been deduced from these types and shadows of the ceremonial law in the books of Exodus, Genesis, and Numbers, and the same evangelical truths are here prophetically proposed as were those exhibited in the way of positive instruction.” I have examined several commentaries on these texts, and there is not in one of them the least allusion to the idea that it is prophetic of first-day observance. If the eighth day, spoken of in the 27th verse, refers to first-day observance in the new dispensation, it must have a literal fulfillment; then why should not those who claim this text for their support make their literal burnt offerings upon a literal altar, for it says the priests shall thus do on the eighth day, &c. Again, seven days they were to purge the altar. To prove that the eighth day is the first, they must begin to count on the first. Can it be shown that the days of purification commenced on the first? Admitting that these days do thus commence, it is far from making a Christian Sabbath of the eighth. The kind of reasoning which Mahan has used to sustain a counterfeit day proves that when the position is false, the reasoning must be. Although an able reasoner when he has the truth on his side, yet when he tries to uphold error he becomes inconsistent, and, like a drowning man, will “catch at a straw.” May the Lord open the eyes of the people that they may see the truth, and incline their hearts to obey it. THE RESTITUTION.
By N. W. Vincent
The thousand years ended, the city of gold
Will descend from our God, what a joy to behold!
In it Christ with bright thousands will come to restore
The dominion created for Adam before. The saints all enamored with Jesus’ just ways,
Fill the city with music, with songs to his praise;
Church fair as the moon, and clear as the sun,
Dread as armies with banners when victory’s won! The city foursquare, with twelve gates open wide,
Is three hundred and seventy-five miles on each side;
Bright world, jasper-walled, with the beauty of God
Coming down out of Heaven to man’s first abode. Far below, the old earth like a dark speck is found,
Where the wicked lie dead, the devil still bound.
Then Christ, the blest Potentate, speaks once again,
And straightway the earth is all peopled with men. Among them are giants once drowned in the flood,
The mighty in war, men of lust and of blood;
Deceived by the devil they fancy that now
They can take the loved city on Olivet’s brow. By millions they rally, the vilest command,
So like goats they are gathered at Jesus’ left hand;
Then a throne great and white appears to their view
With earth’s Judge thereupon, the Faithful and True. What grief, oh! what agony rends every heart
When He who so loved them commands them, Depart!
No mother’s affection so tender had been,
Yet against their own souls they have chosen to sin. Earth’s waters as pitch, and as brimstone the sod,
Fire from Heaven devours the foes of our God;
It consumes the world’s dross, melts the earth with its heat,
So the Father puts all things beneath his Son’s feet. But true to his word, to his faithfulness true,
God restores his creation, and makes all things new;
The earth and the heavens made new shall remain,
Wherein He whose blood bought them forever shall reign. There Christ, angels, and saints, shall jubilee keep;
For God’s love fills that world as the waters the deep,
And the glorified nations with rapture untold,
Will walk in the light of the city of gold. In our Eden each month and each Sabbath we’ll meet
To bow in sweet praise at the once pierced feet;
To drink of life’s waters, to eat of life’s tree,
And sing of God’s mercy in Jesus so free. The Surest Way of Making a Dupe
The surest way of making a dupe is to let your victim suppose you are his.—Bulwer Lytton. When Napoleon was first consul of France, a beautiful girl, about fourteen years old, might have been seen one morning at the entrance of one of the French palaces. Her tears and bitter sorrow touched the heart of the porter, who was a tender-hearted man, and he allowed her to proceed. She went straight to the consul; and as he, surrounded by his ministers, was walking through one of the apartments in the deepest grief, the girl threw herself at his feet, crying, “Mercy, sire; mercy for my father!” “And who is thy father?” said Napoleon, graciously, “and who art thou?” “My name is Lojolia,” replied she, “and my father is condemned to die.” “Alas, my child!” said Napoleon, “this is the second time thy father has rebelled against the State; indeed, I cannot help thee.” “Ah, sire!” wept the poor girl, “I know it; I know he has transgressed the law, but the first time he was innocent; this time I plead not because he is guiltless—I plead for mercy, mercy! Oh, mercy for him!” The lips of Napoleon trembled, tears filled his eyes, and, taking the hand of the child in both of his, he drew her near him, saying, “Yes, my dear child, at thy request I forgive thy father.” From this touching incident we may learn after what manner the sinner is forgiven. The young girl said, “I plead not my father’s righteousness; I plead for mercy—for grace.” Napoleon’s heart could not resist that plea, and he gave her the desire of her heart. Had she pleaded her father’s righteousness her case had been utterly hopeless; he must still have said, “Alas! I cannot help thee.” God cannot help the sinner who brings his own righteousness to him; he has no remedy for such cases. “Our righteousnesses are as filthy rags,” says Isaiah. Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord; for in thy sight shall no living man be justified. Ps. 143: 2. It would indeed be strange to be justified because of the nature of our filthy rags. But, instead of your righteousness, plead God’s grace in Jesus. He cannot resist the plea; he never did, he never will, until the door of mercy is closed. The publican in the temple smote upon his breast, saying, “God be merciful to me a sinner!” and Jesus declared that he went down to his house justified, rather than the self-righteous Pharisee.—Sel. THE SANCTUARY.
By Uriah Smith
Twelfth Paper.—Closing Remarks on the Time.
From the points which have now been established, the way is short and clear to the end of the argument respecting the time. If we have a period of ten years, in reference to the location of which we wish to inform our friends, we need not tell them where the whole period terminates to convey to them the desired information. It would be sufficient to say, “We will tell you all about the first five years of that period, where they begin and end, with intermediate dates and events.” Then they could easily ascertain the termination of the whole period. After the first five years, five more would remain, and adding them to the date where the five terminated, they would have the true date of the termination of the ten. Just this course inspiration has followed with the 2300 days. It is as if the angel had said to Daniel, I have not come to give you the year in which the 2300 days will end; but a portion of this period belongs to your people and your holy city Jerusalem; and this period, comprising seventy weeks which are the first 490 years of the twenty-three hundred, I will tell you all about, giving you the time when they will commence, and the chief events which will mark intermediate dates, and finally their termination. And the angel well knew that he who had interest enough to inquire, could then easily find the termination of the whole period. Thus four hundred and ninety years taken from twenty-three hundred, leave eighteen hundred and ten. Briefly expressed in figures it stands thus: 2300—490=1810. And this number, eighteen hundred and ten, added to the date where the four hundred and ninety terminated, will give us the termination of the period of twenty-three hundred. But we have found that the four hundred and ninety ended in the autumn of A. D. 34. This gives us the following numerical statement: A. D. 34, autumn, +1810 = A. D. 1844, autumn. In the autumn of A. D. 1844, we thus have the termination of the longest and most important prophetic period revealed in the Bible. But some may fall into perplexity over the calculation of this period from another standpoint, and query how, if the 2300 days commenced B. C. 457, they can extend to A. D. 1844, since if we take 457 from 2300 we have only 1843 remaining. Did they not therefore terminate in 1843? So Adventists reasoned previous to that year; and this is the reason why that year was first set for the coming of the Lord. But further thought showed that they must extend into the following year. For it would take 457 full years before Christ, and 1843 full years after Christ, to make 2300. Therefore if the days commenced with the very first day of 457 B. C., they would not terminate till the very last day of 1843. But we have evidence to show that they did not commence with the first day of 457 B. C., but that some portion of that year had elapsed before we are to begin to reckon. It is evident from the wording of the prophecy that the actual commencement of the work at Jerusalem marks the commencement of the seventy weeks, inasmuch as the first seven weeks are allotted to the building of the city, which we could hardly begin to reckon, consistently, before the work of building was actually begun. Now Ezra did not arrive at Jerusalem till the fifth month of that year. Ez. 7:8. Then the large company that went up with him were to be provided with homes, and arrangements made for their living, &c., before they would be ready to take hold of the work. Two months would certainly be short enough time to allow for this work, which would bring us to the seventh month, or the autumn of the year. Now whatever portion of the year B. C. 457 had elapsed before the 2300 days began, just that portion of a year we must add to 1843 A. D. to make out the 2300 full years; for if only 456 years and a fraction, are to be reckoned before Christ, we must have 1843 and a fraction after Christ to make out the number. Thus are we brought again to the autumn of 1844, as the point where the 2300 days terminated. The same argument will apply to the date of Christ’s baptism. How do we make that date to be A. D. 27, when 457 years before Christ and only 26 after Christ, make out the 483 years which were to reach to Messiah the Prince? In the same way as above presented. For if any portion of B. C. 457 had elapsed before we should begin to reckon, a corresponding portion of A. D. 27 must be taken to fill out the specified number of full years. And the events associated with this, in the prophecy of the seventy weeks, are such as to show conclusively that the days terminated in the autumn of the year. At the beginning of the seventieth week the Messiah was to be manifested, that is, commence his ministry as the Anointed One. In the midst, or middle, of that week, which would be three years and six months from its commencement, he was to be cut off. This cutting off can refer to nothing else but his crucifixion. But his crucifixion in whatever year it may have occurred, was in the spring; for it was at the passover. Then, as we go back from the crucifixion of Christ three years and six months to find the commencement of his ministry, we are brought to the autumn; and as we go forward from the crucifixion three years and six months, we are again brought to the autumn. But, as has already been shown, A. D. 31 has been established beyond dispute as the year of the crucifixion; and as this was the middle of the seventieth week, the last half of the week, three and a half years more, bring us to the autumn of A. D. 34. But if the first 490 years ended in the autumn of A. D. 34, the remaining 1810 years just as conclusively ended in the autumn of A. D. 1844. We are thus particular upon this point, because this is the important one of all the prophetic periods; and it is desirable that all points in the argument should be clearly understood. And what were some of the circumstances which rendered 1844 a memorable date in the history of the church and the world? We then reached, if we may so speak, the climax of the world’s great prophetic era. Within the forty-six years preceding, five of the seven prominent prophetic periods of the Bible had terminated. The 1290 and 1260 years had ended in 1798, and marked the commencement of the “time of the end.” The 391 years and 15 days of Rev. 9, had ended Aug. 11, 1840, and marked the departure of the Ottoman supremacy. The 1335 years had expired in 1843, and marked the manifestation of such a “blessing” as the disciples at Christ’s first advent were themselves permitted to enjoy. Dan. 12:12; Matt. 13:16, 17. And now the great period of 2300 years was finished, which marked the commencement of the cleansing of the sanctuary. God has never left his church without faithful watchmen, and in such an important epoch as the one we are considering, they would not be asleep. And they were not asleep. A warning message to the world, which commenced some years before, had now swelled into a mighty cry. A movement such as the world had never before witnessed, now reached the height of its power. The impending second advent of the Son of God, was the burden of the proclamation. Sublimer theme never engaged the attention of man. In different parts of the world, men simultaneously called of God to this work, were heralding it abroad. It went to every missionary station on the globe. Treasure was poured out like water in its promulgation. An army of able and devoted men, appeared, who freely gave their time, talent, and strength, to its vindication. The spirit of revival everywhere followed the proclamation of the message. God was in the movement; and Christendom was shaken from center to circumference. What did all this mean? It meant that the first division of that three-fold warning which was to precede the coming of Christ was going forth. Rev. 14:6–12. It meant that the mighty angel standing on the sea and on the land had uttered his solemn oath that time (prophetic) should be no more; Rev. 10:6, for the time had come for the longest and latest prophetic period to meet its termination. A grievous disappointment was experienced in that movement, and a mistake had somewhere been made, yet it becomes us not hastily nor rashly to decide in regard to the nature of that work. As was asked respecting the baptism of John, we ask respecting this movement: Was it of Heaven or of men? And the same difficulties are involved in the answer; If it was from Heaven, we cannot give it up; but how then can we account for the mistake connected with it, without compromising its Heavenly origin? But if it was of men, how shall we solve the still harder problem of accounting for the presence and power of God that so manifestly attended it? Now if in 1840, 1843, and 1844, the last prophetic periods did end, that fact would be a sufficient reason why God’s hand should be in the movement based upon that fulfillment of his word, even though we might have adopted wrong views in reference to the event to occur, as did the disciples of our Lord, when in fulfillment of his word, they escorted him into Jerusalem, as their immediately expected King, shouting, “Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Matt. 21:4–9. With this view, therefore, that the prophetic periods did expire, but the mistake was in relation to the event, we are not obliged to repudiate and throw away that great work. We can give it its place in prophecy, and gratefully acknowledge the wonderful work of God connected with it. But if we take the ground that the prophetic periods did not then expire, the whole work falls to the ground, as wholly false and unscriptural. For if the termination of the prophetic periods is yet future, another like movement is to transpire, and the one we have had was a counterfeit and a fraud. Then we must attribute to fanaticism that work which gave every evidence of being wrought by the Spirit of God, and admit that in this important age, marked as the time of the end, when the world is to be warned of coming judgment, the most devoted and intelligent students of prophecy, and servants of Christ, were left to enter upon a false movement, and make an unpardonable mistake which was calculated to destroy the confidence of the world in all prophetic investigation. We need not pursue this line of thought to any greater length. The evidence is now before the reader that the calculation of the time was correct; that Daniel 9 is an explanation of Daniel 8; that the seventy weeks are a part of the 2300 days; that they are correctly dated from B. C. 457, and that consequently the 2300 days terminated in 1844. With the utmost assurance we therefore say that those who endeavor to account for the disappointment of 1844 on the supposition that the mistake was made in the time, and not in the sanctuary question, are entirely wrong. U. S. A PART OF GOD.
By J. H. Waggoner
Is God divisible? May he be separated into parts, and these parts become subject to the frailties, the vices, and the sufferings of fallen creatures? These queries were suggested to my mind by the following incident. Speaking of the destiny of the wicked, I had quoted Rev. 20: 9; 2 Thess. 1: 9, and 2 Peter 3: 7-10, to show that the lake of fire into which they will be cast is this earth in its melted state, and the fire coming down from God out of Heaven is the element or means of their everlasting destruction. A gentleman approached me at the close of my remarks, and inquired:— “What part of man do you think will be destroyed?” “I think the man will be destroyed,” was the reply. “But what will become of the soul?” he inquired. “If the soul is any part of man it will be destroyed also.” “What, do you think God will destroy a part of himself?” was the next question. “By no means. But what has that to do with this subject?” “It is generally conceded,” said he, “that the soul is a part of God, and cannot be destroyed, for God cannot destroy a part of himself.” Then followed the queries in turn, Is the soul a part of God? Is God divisible? Can a part of God sin? And will God punish a part of himself for evil doing? Such monstrous conclusions ought to suppress the utterance of such an idea. Yet this was an educated man; he could draw a conclusion. And this shows how thoughtlessly men will take an absurd position to sustain a popular error. A view more generally advocated than that here advanced is this: The soul is an independent creation; or, each soul of mankind emanates directly from God. This doctrine is supposed to be free from the defect which is so apparent in the other. Though this does not lead to the same conclusion as the other, it leads to one which is very erroneous, and, like the other, makes God directly responsible for all the sin which exists in the world. This defect has been discovered, and the doctrine itself combatted on that account, by some who are considered orthodox in regard to the nature and destiny of the soul. The Ladies' Repository, a well-known Methodist journal, of February, 1859, said:— “The general opinion held seems to be that the soul is created, and does not come by transmission from parents, as the body does. The Roman church has steadily received and taught it. “If the body only is derived by transmission from Adam, while each separate soul is a direct work of creation, then original or hereditary depravity, so far as the soul is concerned, is a thing impossible. If each soul is created by God as it comes into existence, then it must be holy, or God must be charged with making it unholy, and thus being the author of evil.” This is sound reasoning, to which no exception can be taken. But the product cannot rise above the producer. If the whole being or person (the soul and the body) is transmitted from the parents, then the whole being, soul and body, is subject to the conditions of the parents. That which is begotten, or produced by natural generation, is mortal, subject to death. God is dishonored by this doctrine of the inherent immortality of the soul, whether the soul be impiously called “a part of God,” or whether it be considered a direct creation of God. In either case God is made the direct producer of a sinful being; the sin of the soul is traced to God as its originator. And if the soul is transmitted from its parents, or begotten, then it can be immortal or held in existence by the direct power of God. “In him we live, and move, and have our being.” If he withdraw his power we cease to exist. And hence, if a sinful being lives forever it is because God perpetuates the sin. But “every plant, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” Let every soul respond, Amen, “true and righteous are thy judgments.” THE NIGHT COMETH.
By R. F. Cottrell
We are admonished to work while it is day, because the night cometh wherein no man can work. Our opportunities for doing good will close. While life and probation lasts is the time to labor. In the grave there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom; therefore what we find to do should be done without delay. If delayed, it will soon be too late; the night will have come, and it must remain forever undone. To those of former ages and generations the exhortation to labor and the time in which to labor have been bounded by the life of each individual, and death brought the night in which no work could be done.93 But to the present generation the time to labor will close during the life of many who are now living. The work of saving lost sinners is about to close. The time is at hand when the living can work no longer. The night cometh. Then nothing more can be done to save lost sinners, ourselves, or others. Now is the time to work. The flying moments are swiftly passing in which we may work. How important that they be all improved! How precious are the remaining days and hours of our probation! Shall they be lost in idleness, while souls that might be saved are lost in consequence? Shall we remain indifferent while they run to waste? There is much to be done. The people of God are now called upon to make a united and mighty effort for the salvation of men. A great work is to be done. The time is short. The night cometh. Let all put forth a mighty effort, and do it now. Work while the day lasts. By spending the little remnant of our time aright, we may yet hope to hear it said in truth, “Well done;” and it must be said in truth, if said at all. Lose no time. Get the heart right before God; and work with zeal in the cause of truth and salvation. The night cometh. R. F. COTTRELL. “HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE.”
By Dudley Marvin Canright
While at Hastings, Mich., I held meetings in the court-house, and during my stay there I observed a fact which I think well illustrates the justice and importance of our proclamation of the Judgment message. At the opening of the court, when the judge is on his bench, the clerks all ready, and everything prepared to open the court, a herald stands up and cries out, “Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye; the circuit court for Eaton County is now open. All you who have business therein give attention, draw near, and you shall be heard.” Justice demands and the law requires that such an announcement be made at the opening of the court so that all persons concerned may be informed of the fact that court is in session, and their cases can now be attended to. If this is necessary in earthly courts, how reasonable it is to suppose that there will be a similar proclamation when the great Judgment Day shall come, and that the Judge of all the earth shall take his seat on the judgment throne! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? For many thousands of years the Lord has said that the day would come when he would judge every man, and that that day was appointed. See Eccl. 12:14; Acts 17:31. When that appointed day shall come, when the great God shall sit in judgment and the books shall be opened, Dan. 7:9, 10, then there will be a solemn proclamation heralded to the world, announcing that the hour of Judgment has come. This is distinctly stated in Rev. 14:6, 7. “And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God and give glory to him; for the hour of his Judgment is come; and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” Reader, this solemn announcement was given to the world thirty-two years ago. Have you a case pending in this court? If so, it is time that you attend to it. D. M. CANRIGHT. CONFESSIONS
By H. F. Phelps
Says David, “I acknowledge my transgression; and my sin is ever before me.” Who can read his psalms and not be touched with their simplicity and humility? Who can read them and not learn the true spirit of confession? David was very far from confessing the faults of others before God, and never did he speak of the errors of others to another person. He did not seem to be watching with the spirit of jealousy “to make a brother an offender for a word.” He did not confess in a wholesale manner, thinking that this would do; and that as God would know what he meant, he need not pain himself with the confession of the fault; but humbly before God he owned his sin. When, for the benefit of generations to come, he exclaimed, “Deliver me from blood-guiltiness, O God, thou God of my salvation,” he named the very sin that stood as a blot upon his character. Oh, that we might find out our sins before they find us out in the day of Judgment. H. F. Phelps.