Earlier text: AN INTERESTING LETTERMAN is not omnipotent. He cannot create something from nothing. He attempts to make the Bible prove that man has immortality and eternal life, of himself, independent of the Son of God; but there is nothing there, and he cannot succeed. He may redouble his diligence, and multiply his hours of research, but like the fabled "philosopher's stone," or the "elixir of life," the evidence eludes his grasp; and no theological alchemy will ever be able to produce it. A striking illustration of this may be found in a tract entitled as above, which purports to be a refutation of the doctrine of the annihilation of the wicked, by Rev. Israel F. Warren, the book of which we spoke two weeks since. We have just given the work a careful perusal; and, viewed as a whole, we are sorry to be compelled to say that it descends to a depth of unfairness and misrepresentation which is truly painful. This may perhaps seem like a grave charge; but if the specimens which we herewith present do not bear it out, the reader is at liberty to discard it, and hold us to censure. "The doctrine, then," says the writer, "which is popularly known as 'annihilation'—which denies the immortality of the soul, and teaches that it perishes at death with the body, is in its main features Sadducceism. There have indeed of late been added to this certain other sentiments, apparently of wholly modern origin." And what are these sentiments which he elsewhere styles "only appendages of the ancient faith?" They are those items in which all believe who hold the consistent view of man's nature and destiny; namely, a coming resurrection, a future life, and future rewards and punishments; and to say that these are only appendages to that ancient faith, we aver is a very grave misrepresentation, since they diametrically oppose that faith, the leading feature of which was, no resurrection, no future life. Our Lord in his association and contact with the Sadducees, found no fault with their views of the state of the dead; but when they proceeded to deny them any future life whatever, by denying the resurrection through which alone they could have it, then he takes occasion publicly to refute and reprove them. In the resurrection and a future life we joyfully believe; and hence in the main feature of Sadducceism, that which alone our Saviour saw fit to disprove and condemn, we are not Sadducees. "Death in its true and proper import does not mean extinction of being." p. 11. He then gives Webster's definition of death, which is "a total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions," and immediately adds, "Observe, not the cessation of existence, not 'extermination of being,' but a cessation of certain functions." Thus, only three lines from Webster's definition, he attempts to limit that definition. Webster says, "A cessation of all the vital functions." He says, "A cessation of certain functions." If he will adhere to the definition so fatally introduced from Webster, a significant query will still stare him in the face; viz., When all the vital functions are extinct, what is there left to live on in conscious existence? He next attempts to confound our view of the destruction of the wicked as conscious beings, with the annihilation of matter. He is eloquent in exposing the absurdity of the latter notion, and attempts to fix its stigma upon us; but he either knows or ought to know that we entertain no such view more than he; yet it will be admitted by all that a thing may be destroyed, yes, annihilated, if you please, as to specific form, and still its substance all remain. Demolish a house, and as a house it no longer exists, though its parts may all be in existence. Convert a tree into fire-wood, and as a tree it no longer exists. Go further and put that wood through the furnace and it is decomposed still further, and as wood it no longer exists, but has passed into other forms. So of the wicked: when they are burned up root and branch, when their "root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom go up as dust," they will cease to exist as conscious intelligent beings: they will be ashes under the soles of the saints' feet. Mal. iv, 3. On page 14, our author further confounds conscious existence with existence of matter as such, and he confounds literal death with a death in sin, and tauntingly asks if such are nonentities. A specimen of this jargon the reader must see for himself. "When we ordinarily speak of any substance as dead, we do not mean that it has no more existence; we mean only that certain powers and functions have ceased in it, and that is all. It has gone into another form of existence; its essence, its substance, are just as truly in being, just as real as ever before. Neither does death in the Scriptures, in other applications than to the subject before us, have any such meaning as is alleged. 'Let the dead,' said Christ, 'bury their dead.' Did he mean to say that non-existence should bury non-existence? 'She which liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.' 'You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins.' Are persons who are living in pleasure and sin already annihilated? 'So then death hath passed upon all men,' not shall pass hereafter, but hath passed already. Have all men suffered 'extinction of being?'" If the reader can see in this any of that fairness and candor which ought to characterize discussions of so grave a subject, he is blest with more powerful optics than we possess. Having expatiated on the idea that matter as such never ceases to exist, he asks, "Why should this be affirmed only of the soul?" Just as though the soul was an entity distinct from the body, and the living and the dying of the two were distinct. This gives a wrong impression. He should first have proved that man has any such distinct part as he understands by the term soul, and told us how and whence he derived it. It will greatly aid us to guard against false distinctions, to keep man in view as a unit being, as the Bible represents him, wholly dependent on his organization, for the exercise of any of his functions; and when that organism is destroyed, unconsciousness ensues. There is also in Mr. W.'s remarks an utter obliteration of all distinction between the first and second death. Speaking of the declaration of the Lord by Ezekiel, "The soul that sinneth it shall die," he says, "What force has this if the soul that sinneth not shall also die? for it is claimed that the soul in all cases dies with the body." He here refers to the first death. We have only to reply that Ezekiel refers to another event altogether, and that the soul that sinneth not shall not die the death there threatened. This will appear as we proceed to reply to another of the gentleman's questions, when in reference to the resurrection of the wicked, he asks, "To what end should the wicked once annihilated be thus 'raised'?" He proceeds to call such an act, unnecessary, needless, cruel, and the author of it a monster, and adds, "What shall we say of such profanations and caricatures of the most solemn truths of revelation?" If he utters all this seriously, he is certainly to be commiserated for the insignificant range of his mental perceptions; if not, his dishonesty deserves rebuke. We supposed everybody knew that the death which comes upon us in the present state, we suffer on account of the mortal nature entailed upon us by Adam, and not on account of our personal sin. This death comes upon all alike irrespective of character. Our deeds have nothing to do with it, and hence it is not a punishment for our personal sins. Mark this. But we supposed that everybody knew also that there is a punishment threatened against the evil deeds which we personally commit here in the body. We are to be judged according to the deeds done in the body, and the wicked punished accordingly. And what is that punishment? The same that Ezekiel says, "The soul that sinneth it shall die." And this death those who do not sin will not suffer; for the righteous shall enter into life eternal; but the wicked shall be burned up root and branch, be devoured by fire [Rev. xx, 9], and become as though they had not been. Obad. 16. Thus it will be seen that a resurrection and second death must necessarily take place. Let the reader for a moment imagine before him the whole human race. We see them all die, on account of the death which the sin of our first parents introduced into the world. But Christ intervenes to release us all from this; "for as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." We therefore behold the whole race resurrected to life again. They are then beyond the effects of Adam's sin. What next? Then comes the settlement with them for their personal sins, which could not till this time come into account. Then those who are found sinners, receive the punishment awarded to sin, which is death again—eternal death, from which no resurrection is ever again to bring them; and the righteous who have confessed their sins, and been forgiven, meet no such fate, but enter upon everlasting life. And this, forsooth, is unnecessary, cruel and monstrous! "Suppose," says he, "a judge could galvanize the dead body of a criminal into life, who, by once dying, had fully satisfied all the ends of justice, for the sole purpose of executing him again, what would be thought of such a man? Would not the voice of universal humanity cry out against him as a monster?" There is not a particle of parallelism between this illustration and the case of the wicked who are raised to receive the reward of their deeds. When a criminal is hung it is in direct punishment for his crime, (notwithstanding some have the hardihood to contend that death is no punishment,) and to raise him and hang him again, would be a mere wanton repetition of the punishment, and as such unjustifiable; but in case of the wicked the death which they first experience, as we have already seen, is not in punishment for their sins; hence their resurrection and assignment to a second death is not a repetition of punishment, but only the just penalty of their sins which had not before been inflicted. And since Mr. W. is fond of illustrations, we also will introduce one. As he is struck with such horror at the idea of a judge's raising a criminal and hanging him again, let us suppose that another judge should sentence a criminal to the gallows, and should then by a direct exertion of a power which he possessed, keep that criminal alive, quivering with torture, and writhing in the death struggle on that gallows, not for a day or a week merely, but forever and ever! "What would be thought of such a man?" Which would "the voice of universal humanity" pronounce the monster? This one or the former? We submit the question. Judge ye. More next week. WESTERN TOUR.
By James White
At Tipton we took a large addition to a cold we then had, and by the time we reached Iowa City, we were unfit for labor. We had to give up Millersburg and remain with the kind friends in the City over Sabbath. First-day we spoke in the Universalist church to a few. The brethren are firm in the faith, but there can be but little done at present in that community. The course pursued by some, who instead of getting into the Spirit of the message, have a fault-finding spirit, has had a bad influence. One of them has left the Sabbath which is no small relief to the brethren. We received the kindest attention from Brn. Curtis, Carver, Graham, and their families, with whom we tarried nearly two weeks. We much regret our inability to labor, and do them good, but hope our protracted visit with them will do them no harm, if it does them no good. The brethren at Iowa City pledged $67 for the Tent. At Dayton we held one meeting on the Sabbath, and two on First-day in a school-house about sixteen feet by twenty. To say that the house was "crammed" would not express the true condition of things. About twice as many people came as could find seats in the house. Some had to stay out in the cold wind. But as many crowded inside the door as could get in. When we went to the place on First-day it was with some difficulty that Mrs. W. and self could find our way to the small desk. And from real necessity she sat in the desk with me, as there was scarcely a square foot of room besides in the house. After expelling from the desk a large dog, there was just room in the desk for us. The windows were raised on one side of the house so that those outside could hear. We spoke one hour and three-fourths, and Mrs. W. finished out the two hours, and our audience, packed in the house and out of it, seemed to forget their position and listened with all that interest and patience as if occupying cushioned pews in a spacious church.157 One thing is certain, the people came and stayed to hear, for there was nothing attractive or comfortable in the place of meeting. We hope to reach Knoxville appointments, but to do it, we must ride two or three days in the cold, chilling prairie winds, which is enough to unfit any human being for public speaking for several days. But sick or well, wearied or rested, it will be expected that a man will preach. And those changes from a crowded school house with heated air to the chilling prairie winds, afford the greatest liability of getting colds and retaining them that we ever experienced. But the ears of this people are open to hear the truth, and it must be preached to them. Meeting-houses are few and small in this country, and many of them are closed against the truth, and against the wishes of the people generally. Therefore Tents must run in this Western field. In new places congregations are very large, the interest great, and the success in raising churches is better than in any other field at present. We have ever felt a deep interest for the West, and being on the ground and seeing for ourself, our interest increases. Here is a glorious chance for the Lord's stewards to invest some of their Lord's money. A more full report we can give after the Knoxville meeting. It is possible that we shall not be able to attend the Conferences in Wisconsin. We will not disappoint if we can prevent. If the Lord favors us with health we shall undoubtedly meet the brethren at Cadiz and Mackford, Wisconsin. The brethren in Eastern Iowa think they must have a Tent, and are pledging nobly. Here are some men that have the "go through" in them, and if others will not help, they will double the amount of their pledges. God will bless the persevering efforts of such, and the cause, with such faithfulness, will prosper in the hands of his servants. J. W. MEETINGS IN SPRING MT., OHIO.
By T. J. Butler
Bro. Smith: I have just closed a course of lectures at Spring Mountain, Coshocton County, giving in all some twenty discourses. Before commencing I obtained a grant of the M. E. house for two weeks and as much longer as I wished, but having occupied the house long enough to get out the evidences for the kingdom and Sabbath, and showing up Sunday keeping, I was very unceremoniously expelled from the house on the charge of "desecration." It is evident to the minds of many, however, that my expulsion was hastened by some of their members getting very much interested. I was also opposed on two occasions by two ministers—one a Presbyterian, the other a Baptist. The latter claiming to be a Greek scholar stated to a full congregation, that with king James' translation he would have to come to about the same conclusion (on the Sabbath) that I had come to; but he loved the Greek in which the New Testament was originally written, and that it (the Greek) plainly showed that the first day was the Sabbath. To prove this point he read Matt. xxviii, 1, and translated it, claiming that there were two ellipses in the verse to be supplied—the first, before the first occurrence of σαββατον (Sabbath), should be supplied by "old;" the second, before the second occurrence of σαββατον (Sabbath), should be supplied by "new," which would make it read: "In the end of the old Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the new Sabbath." I then pledged myself willing to abide the correct translation, and claimed the privilege of testing his own to see whether or not it should be considered an improvement on that of king James; and having obtained the favor of his books, I called upon the Professor in the Methodist Academy of the same place, who frankly acknowledged to the congregation that there was nothing in the text to favor the first day. I then asked my Baptist friend if he was satisfied with the Professor's rendering, to which he replied, Yes, and if necessary he could say, Amen. I then stated to the congregation that I demurred not; also that from the little knowledge I possessed of the Greek I was ready to affirm, 1. That according to note 4, (Greenleaf, from which he read) all the ellipses were supplied; and that consequently our Baptist friend found ellipses where there were none. 2. That σαββατον as it occurs in the second instance, in the above text, Greenfield himself defines, "a period of seven days." 3. That in every instance where the word "week" occurs in our English New Testament it is translated from the same word σαββατον; and 4. That our Baptist friend must not only for ever fail to show a "new" Sabbath any where in the word of the Lord, but that even the phrase "first day of the week," cannot be found in the Greek New Testament. At this signal failure of the Baptist minister to make his first point, he retired to enjoy his laurels. This also no doubt had its influence in our expulsion. The Presbyterian minister a few evenings after, took up the Sabbath question, and in a gentlemanly manner urged what he considered scripture evidence for the first day, to whom we had the privilege of replying on the next evening. The Methodist minister also took up against us on the subject of the kingdom [Dan. ii, 44], 1. applying the fourth kingdom, the legs of iron, to the Egyptian and Syrian kingdoms—the two principal ones into which the Grecian (third kingdom) was divided after the death of Alexander. 2. That the kingdom of the little stone was set up in the past; it being the church and influence of the gospel. And 3. That its filling the earth denoted that the world was to be converted. To the first I replied as follows: 1. Egypt and Syria did not break in pieces and bruise the others as specified of the fourth kingdom, in Dan. ii, 40. 2. That the fourth kingdom was to be universal, but Egypt and Syria were not. 3. That Egypt and Syria were two kingdoms, hence could not both be the fourth kingdom. 4. That Rome is the next kingdom recognized both in the Bible [Luke ii, 1] and in profane history as being universal after the Grecian; hence it is the fourth kingdom. To his second proposition I replied, 1. That the church cannot be the kingdom, for earthly governments were to become extinct to give place for it [Dan. ii, 35]; but instead of their becoming extinct at the setting up of the church, Christ, the apostles, and 50,000,000 of the saints have been martyred by them. 2. That the kingdom of God is to be set up at the end of the papacy [Dan. vii, 1]; but the church was established before it arose. See heads of epistles. 3. That while the church was set up 1800 years ago, the kingdom is to be set up at the judgment [2 Tim. iv, 1; Rev. xi, 15], which they themselves claim to be future. 4. That the foundation of the church is the Apostles, prophets, and Christ [Eph. ii, 20], while that of the kingdom is the territory of earth [Dan. ii, 38; Rev. xi, 15], and the church will ultimately constitute only the subjects of the kingdom. Matt. xxv, 31-34; Dan. vii, 15, 22, 27; Matt. xiii, 43. And to his third position I replied, 1. That if the church was the kingdom my friend was right about the world's conversion; but that a failure in his third point would be fatal of itself to the two former. 2. That his quotation of Ps. ii, 8, as a promise of its conversion needed verse 9, also Rev. ii, 27, to specify the kind of conversion, viz., to pieces and to shivers, instead of to the church. 3. That if he was right in the church's being the kingdom, and the world was to be converted, he would not only contradict Christ who taught that both righteous and wicked would be together in the world till its end [Matt. xiii, 24-42], but should abandon all church discipline and let them grow together. 4. That if evil men and seducers waxing worse and worse [2 Tim. iii, 13] is what indicates conversion, he may be right. 5. That he can not be right unless God is going to bring sudden destruction upon converted people. 1 Thess. v, 1-6. 6. That unless my friend could show that Paul's description of men in the last days [1 Tim. iv, 1-5 also 2 Tim. iii, 1], is only parallel to the testimony of 2 Pet. i, 5-11, he must be mistaken. 7. If my friend is right, who will the seven last plagues be poured upon threatened in Rev. xvi, and who will gnaw their tongues from pain and blaspheme the name of God? At the close of the meetings fifteen testified to the truth and their determination to live, while others voted in its favor. Five obeyed the Lord in baptism, and others expect to do so as soon as circumstances will allow. I should have said that when I was turned out of the M. E. house, a friend (Mr. Day) opened a large vacated store room in his possession for me to occupy, for which I was very thankful. P. S. In my report of meetings at Claylick, in Review of March 15, it should have read six, instead of "sixteen" who embraced the truth.
T. J. B. It is evident in reading this prophecy, and the application made of it by the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, that it not only applies to the outpouring of the Spirit on that day as a demonstration that Jesus had risen from the dead, and was ascended to the right hand of God, and had sent down the Spirit upon his disciples as he had promised, and thus in the fulfillment of the prophecy in the baptism of the Spirit marking the commencement of the Christian dispensation, but it extends also to its end, or to the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord, or the day of judgment. This is evident from the signs given to precede the day of the Lord. "I will show wonders in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke." "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come." The signs in this prophecy correspond and harmonize with the signs mentioned by our Saviour to precede his coming. Matt. xxiv, 29. "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Rev. vi, 12. "And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig-tree casteth her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind." These quotations, which correspond with the signs mentioned in this prophecy, and like the prophecy precede the great day of the Lord and the coming of the Son of man to judgment, furnish conclusive evidence that Joel's prophecy covers the whole dispensation to its end. In the quotation and application of this prophecy by the apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, he omits the last part of the last verse. "For in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance as the Lord hath said, and in the remnant whom the Lord shall call." Peter doubtless omitted this clause for the same reason that our Saviour, in reading Isa. lxi, 1, 2, omitted a part of the second verse. See Luke iv, 18, 19. "To preach the acceptable year of the Lord;" omitting the clause, "And the day of vengeance of our God." And why these omissions? Because to my mind the proclamation of the day of vengeance to the world was reserved for the burden of the first angel's message, in the last or closing days of the dispensation after the predicted signs had been given; the "angel flying 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. Rev. xiv, 6, 7. So the omission of Peter was reserved by the Spirit for the proclamation of the third angel's message, which was to call out the remnant people, a people called after the signs to precede the day of the Lord had been given to the world, a people with whom in deliverance, as the Lord hath said. This prophecy, then, stands forth as a beacon light amidst the darkness of this age to shew to believers in the word of God their true position in the course of time. Did Peter apply the pouring out of the Spirit in this prophecy to the day of Pentecost as its fulfillment in part and as proof that a new dispensation had commenced? So also from the fact that the signs predicted in this prophecy have been given and158 are in the past, it is evident that the end of the dispensation is near. The last days have come. But here an important question suggests itself. Has the first angel's proclamation been given? as it must precede the second and third? I know it is popularly applied to the missionary efforts of the popular churches; but they proclaim no such message. They have no faith in the burden of the message, "The hour of his judgment is come." But a few considerations will make the question clear and easy of solution. What is the chronology of this message? "The hour of his judgment is come." Then the proclamation must synchronize with the prophetic description of the condition of the world at the hour of judgment or the last days. What is that description? 1. One of prevailing wickedness. As it was in the days of Noah, and as it was in the days of Lot. 2. The church in the last days is so far to apostatize from the faith as to fulfill the prediction of Paul in 2 Tim. iii, 1-5, "This know also that in the last days perilous times shall come," &c. 3. A time when the church and the world will dislike to hear of the coming of Christ and the judgment. The evil servant saying in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming. All ears turned away from the truth unto fables. 4. A period when scoffers will say, "Where is the promise of his coming?" 5. A time of indifference to the import of the angel's proclamation. When they shall say, peace and safety, even when sudden destruction is coming upon them. 6. After the predicted signs have been given. What then is the chronology of the first angel's message? The present age; because it answers the prophetic description of the last days, and proves that the last days have come; and because the wickedness of the world in this age proves it to be the last. The condition of the church proves it to be this age. She is worldly and formal. The church and the world unite in opposing the coming of Christ. Scoffers abound, and scoff at the proclamation of the angel, walking after their own lusts, and are willingly ignorant. The predicted signs are past. Hence all combine to prove this time to be the chronological time for the first angel's message. Why? Because the condition of the world in this age required the first message. The church and the world were asleep upon this important and awful event near at hand, and prepared to be overtaken as by a thief in the night. The watchmen saw no danger and gave no warning. Hence the necessity of the first message. I know it is objected that the Advent proclamation cannot be of God because its expectations were not realized. But it seems to be plain that it must have been so because there were two more to follow, the last of which is now being proclaimed; so that if this proclamation of the first angel is yet to be given a similar disappointment must necessarily follow. SPEAK EVIL OF NO MAN.
By F. Morrow
It is truly gratifying to see that the brethren in different places are waking up and examining what is duty. May the God of mercy direct us in the path of duty, and help us to walk therein. The Advent body is made up of those from the different denominations, principally, who by the grace of God were led to see the confusion and error in the churches, and had sufficient grace to come out of Babylon; let us therefore avoid confusion, and try and be consistent. A few more such articles as the ones from Bro. R. F. C. and L., by the grace of God, will help to show the remnant some of the wiles of the evil one. You that are able, show the people their sins through the weekly preacher (the Review). Bro. L. truly says that the time of the messengers is often thrown away or hindered by the hearing of church trials. This should not be the case. There is another source of evil, and a very prolific one it is; viz., when a messenger comes to visit a church, almost the first thing that greets his ears is likely to be the faults of this or that brother, some of which are based on supposition. Such a brother has not been to meeting for three or four weeks, or the corners of some brother's mouth looked as if he had been using tobacco, &c. This, brethren, is certainly evil speaking, and always tends to evil and bad results. It brings barrenness and leanness of soul, and certainly must be painful to the messenger, often causing him to say, I am bound up, I have no freedom, &c. Is it much to be wondered at? But this might be avoided by the messenger's stopping the one who should commence to tell faults of his absent brother, and asking if he has discharged his duty, according to the discipline (the Bible, Matt. xviii, 15–17). But it may be said that the messenger has a duty to the church, to inquire about the welfare of the church, and that much information comes to him by this means. But certainly the church's welfare does not consist in telling the faults of others, real or imaginary, for it weakens the confidence the messenger would otherwise have. The brother will see it, and the good that might be done is hindered. Brethren, let us try and live nearer to the rule laid down for us, do as we would wish others to do unto us, and see that we love one another with pure hearts fervently. Rom. xiii, 10. If we enter our complaints to the messenger to shoulder the responsibility on him, it certainly is wrong. If we think we have not strength to discharge the duty ourselves, let us come to the fountain of strength and ask for help, that we may be found of him who is our life, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, through obeying the truth. Mt. Vernon, Iowa, March, 1860. A MISTAKE.—It is a mistake for us to suppose that we can overcome merely by resisting evil: there must be a principle of love growing up in the heart, daily increasing, and taking possession of the whole man, rooting out the love of sin: and so making the resistance of sin, daily, a victory over the same: thus we overcome; but in a mere resistance of evil, without the cultivation of a new principle, we might fight a losing warfare, and finally lose the battle. Then let this love to God and truth grow and increase, and become strong, until its roots wind about in every part of the frame, and its branches overshadow the head. Then shall sin lose its strong hold, and garments of righteousness shall clothe the warrior. WATCHFULNESS.—Do not tell your child to do a thing, and then do it yourself. If you do, he will soon govern you. There is one of two ways, either your child will be under your watch and care, or you will be under the watch-care of your child. Which do you prefer? Choose quickly and act promptly. GoD's PROVIDENCE.—Eli little thought when he reproved Hannah for drunkenness, without proof of her guilt, while he excused his profligate sons against whom there was full proof of crime, that God looked with disgust upon his conduct, and so overruled things, that the son of that very chastened Hannah, proved to be the prophet that supplanted him and his family, and while yet a child, predicted the ruin of his (Eli's) family. Who knows but the wife of Eli justified her sons in sin, and stood in the way of their being brought to justice? Perhaps their parents thought that Hophni and Phinehas were very witty and smart. PARTIALITY.—Some think that because you profess to feel brotherly love for them, you must be on their side, right or wrong, and when you cut with the sword upon the right hand and the left, you must be careful not to hit their dear favorite ideas, and self-willed ways; such forget the exhortation of Paul to Timothy, [first epistle v, 21], “ Doing nothing by partiality.” INSANITY.—Sometimes we feel so anxious to keep our brethren right, that we lose sight of our own errors, and in our warmth of desire, we fancy we are very disinterested; and in our pious zeal we go beyond all proper bounds. Such a course reminds one of a man who was being taken to the insane asylum, and stopping at the tavern for refreshment, had the ingenuity to convince the landlord that the sheriff was the crazy man, and had him bound and taken to the asylum, and the maniac escaped for the time, while the officer was made an occupant of the maniac's apartment, until he proved his identity. SEVERITY.—The skillful surgeon is more anxious to heal a wound than to increase his reputation for skill; yet he often must use the sharp instrument in clearing the body of corrupt matter, else death would ensue. “Spare not for his crying,” says the wise man; that is, when you do punish your child, make him feel it severely, but hold him to his reason and temper, and be sure he does not go off in a huff; if he does, chastise and reason alternately, until he submits pleasantly. If he is long stubborn, be so yourself, and conquer, if it takes twelve months or more. “THE SABBATH WAS MADE FOR MAN.”
By M.
THE occasion upon which our Saviour spake the words at the head of this article, gives no countenance to the opinion of some, that Jesus by his conduct diminished in any respect the sacredness of the Sabbath, much less would his words countenance the opinion. See Matt. xii; Mark ii. The Saviour and the disciples were not pursuing an ordinary journey upon the Sabbath, when the latter plucked and ate the ears of corn. This is evident from two facts: 1. The journey would have been the greater crime, and so the first reproved by the Pharisees; but no reference is made to such journeying, and we conclude no occasion was given for doing so. 2. It appears evident that the Pharisees who rebuked the Saviour concerning the disciples, were traveling with them. This they would not have done, had the journey been of an unlawful length, or for unjustifiable purposes; since all testimony goes to convince us that they were very strict in the observance of the Sabbath. The reply which Jesus made to the Pharisees, only goes to distinguish the use of the Sabbath, from its superstitious abuse. It is allowable for merciful purposes, to do what on ordinary occasions would not be lawful. David, when famishing in his flight from the persecuting Saul, could eat the shewbread without condemnation, though upon ordinary occasions none could taste of it but the priests. We are taught by Christ that we may supply our wants upon that day, visit the sick, and preach and hear the gospel, even though, if necessary, we perform considerable journeys, or submit to bodily toil in doing it. But in all this, as well as in all other teachings of our Saviour upon the subject, he gave countenance to nothing incompatible with the law; and this the Jews (at least upon reflection) knew very well; or why did they not charge him with Sabbath-breaking, in his last trial? This would have been too high an offence with them, to have passed unnoticed, if they could have successfully maintained it. But if the circumstances of the occasion furnish no excuse for the violation of the Sabbath, the words of our Saviour establish the importance of its observance, and the binding character of the law by which it was instituted. The Sabbath was made for man, and not for the Jew simply. It was an institution designed for the benefit of the whole race, in whatever place or time it may exist. Nor can there be a reason set forth in favor of its observance prior to our Saviour's advent, which does not hold equally good if offered in favor of its observance by Christians. The words of our Saviour furthermore answer an objection often urged by anti-Sabbath observers, to the effect that the Sabbath has no natural indications of that sacredness which we affix to it. They say, "If the Sabbath is so sacred, why do the beasts of the field give it no attention? They feed and play as on other days. Why do not the clouds and vegetation observe it? Why does not the sun shine with a different ray? and nature work out by unmistakable signs the period which God has ordained for man's repose?" The answer is ready. The Sabbath was made for man, not for beasts, and birds, and clouds, and vegetation, and sunshine; these have no soul to save, no God to glorify, no minds and hearts to cultivate; but man has; and the Sabbath was ordained for his benefit in these particulars. The Sabbath is not, then, an unreasonable requirement made of man for no purpose, but it is a day that his nature requires, and which he cannot neglect without loss to himself.—From The Canada Christian Advocate of Feb. 8th, 1860. REMARKS.—"If the circumstances of the occasion furnish no excuse for the violation of the Sabbath, the words of our Saviour establish the importance of its159 observance, and the binding character of the law by which it was instituted." What law is binding? Evidently the law containing the Sabbath commandment. How reads that command? "Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy. The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt do no work," &c. Why? Because the Lord rested on the seventh day; wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath (rest-day), and hallowed it (or set it apart for sacred uses). What day? The seventh day. The Saviour's words establish the importance of observing the Sabbath; not by Jews simply, but by man, for "it was designed for the whole race" (of man) "in whatever place or time it (the race) may exist. There can be no reason set forth in favor of its observance by the Jews, prior to our Saviour's advent, which does not hold equally good if offered in favor of its observance by Christians." Then it is not "Jewish," although the seventh, not the first day, is the Christian Sabbath. The author of the above article seems in the main to write consistently, to argue conclusively. But how shall we reconcile the writing with the (probable) action, unless we suppose he has found a Bible whose Sabbath command reads after this manner: The first day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, in it thou shalt do no work, &c. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and rested on the first day. If Jesus' conduct diminished in no respect the sacredness of the Sabbath (the seventh day), how dare feeble man raise his puny arm in defiance of that holy law which Jesus came to fulfill—to ratify? See Campbell's Translation.
M.