Review and Herald, Vol. 41, No. 12.
OUR PRESENT POSITION: or the Waiting, Watching TimePage 1
Earlier text: DISCUSSION ON THE SABBATH QUESTIONThe rapid development of apostasy in the early ages of the Christian church, is seen in the exceedingly brief space of time it took to establish openly the worship of images. Gibbon, in his “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” Vol. 5, p. 4, says:— “The use and even the worship of images was firmly established before the end of the sixth century; they were fondly cherished by the warm imagination of the Greeks and Asiatics: the Pantheon and Vatican were adorned with the emblems of a new superstition; but this semblance of idolatry was more coldly entertained by the rude Barbarians, and the Arian clergy of the West.” This worship of images was one of the elements of that heathenism which the devil was trying to foist into the Christian worship, and justly subjected the Christians to the reproach of idolatry. On page 7, Gibbon again says:— “The worship of images had stolen into the church by insensible degrees, and each petty step was pleasing to the superstitious mind, as productive of comfort, and innocent of sin. But in the beginning of the eighth century, in the full magnitude of the abuse, the more timorous Greeks were awakened by an apprehension, that, under the mask of Christianity, they had restored the religion of their fathers: they heard with grief and impatience the name of idolaters; the incessant charge of Jews and Mahometans, who derived from the Law and the Koran an immortal hatred to graven images and all relative worship.” We italicize the words, “The religion of their fathers.” The religion of their fathers was ancient heathenism. THE ROMAN EMPIRE CONTINUED UNDER THE POPES.
When the seat of empire was removed from Rome to Constantinople, or, as it is expressed in Rev. 13, when the dragon gave to the beast his seat, and great authority, the supremacy of Rome was continued under the new and strange ruler. The historian thus speaks:— “A distant and dangerous station, amidst the Barbarians of the West, excited the spirit and freedom of the Latin bishops. Their popular election endeared them to the Romans: the public and private indigence was relieved by their ample revenue; and the weakness or neglect of the emperors compelled them to consult, both in peace and war, the temporal safety of the city. In the school of adversity, the priest insensibly imbibed the virtues and ambition of a prince; the same character was assumed, the same policy was adopted, by the Italian, the Greek, or the Syrian, who ascended the chair of St. Peter; and after the loss of her legions and provinces, the genius and fortune of the popes again restored the supremacy of Rome.”—Id. p. 14. BY REASON OF TRANSGRESSION.
In Dan. 8:12, we read, “And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground and it practiced, and prospered.” By the daily is meant paganism; and this language applies to the Roman Empire at the time when there was to be a transition in the religion of the empire from paganism, the daily, to the papacy, called in verse 13 the transgression of desolation. How was a host given to the papacy against paganism? Answer. As the Barbarians swarmed down upon the provinces of the Roman Empire, they fell a prey to the workings and machinations of the papacy. They nominally embraced such Christianity as Rome then had to offer, as something better than their native paganism. Thus, while they gained temporal dominion over Rome, Rome gained spiritual dominion over them. This fact is stated in the following words of Gibbon:— “Fraud is the resource of weakness and cunning; and the strong, though ignorant, Barbarian was often entangled in the net of sacerdotal policy. The Vatican and Lateran were an arsenal and manufactory, which, according to the occasion, have produced or concealed a various collection of false or genuine, of corrupt or suspicious, acts, as they tended to promote the interest of the Roman Church.”—Id. p. 33. The popes were then weak to stand against the Barbarians by force of arms, but they were cunning, and had recourse to fraud; and by means of this transgression, by specious acts of presumption, and forged titles of authority, these Barbarians were brought to acknowledge the pope as their spiritual ruler and head. It was by such accessions to the papal power, accomplished by such means, that the old form of paganism was finally rooted out, as the religion of the empire. ESCAPING OUT OF HIS HAND.
In a prophecy respecting the king of the north, Turkey, in Dan. 11:41, we read: “He shall enter also into the glorious holy land, and many countries shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom and Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon.” Gibbon, speaking of the perpetual independence of the Arabs, bears the following testimony, which corroborates this prediction:— “The body of the nation has escaped the yoke of the most powerful monarchies: the arms of Sesostris and Cyrus, of Pompey and Trajan, could never achieve the conquest of Arabia; the present sovereign of the Turks may exercise a shadow of jurisdiction, but his pride is reduced to solicit the friendship of a people, whom it is dangerous to provoke, and fruitless to attack. “Their domestic feuds are suspended on the approach of a common enemy: and in their last hostilities against the Turks, the caravan of Mecca was attacked and pillaged by fourscore thousand of the confederates. When they advance to battle, the hope of victory is in the front; in the rear, the assurance of a retreat. Their horses and camels, who, in eight or ten days, can perform a march of four or five hundred miles, disappear before the conqueror; the secret waters of the desert elude his search; and his victorious troops are consumed with thirst, hunger, and fatigue, in the pursuit of an invisible foe, who scorns his efforts, and safely reposes in the heart of the burning solitude.”—Id. p. 83. THE ARABIAN VIEW OF THE INTERMEDIATE STATE.
The Arabs believed in the consciousness of the dead, or of departed spirits; but with this superstition they connected the equally plausible one that beasts are also conscious in the spirit world; and when a man died, they left his camel to perish on his grave, that his spirit might not be obliged to go afoot, but have a spiritual beast to transport him around in the spirit world. Were they good spiritualists? or good orthodox? which? At any rate, we have concerning them this testimony:— “The reign of the heavenly orbs could not be extended beyond the visible sphere; and some metaphysical powers were necessary to sustain the transmigration of souls and the resurrection of bodies: a camel was left to perish on the grave, that he might serve his master in another life; and the invocation of departed spirits implies that they were still endowed with consciousness and power.”—Id. p. 92. Political Corruption.
By George Ide Butler
THERE are some things transpiring around us in the political world which shed great light upon the condition of things among the so-called great men of our nation, and afford striking evidence of the tendency of American politics. And it may be well for us to consider some of them briefly, lest we be misled by the so-called progress of our age. No doubt there is progress enough, but the question is whether it be in a right or wrong direction. As many of the readers of the REVIEW do not take the political papers, it may be pardonable to say something in its columns concerning these things; for I believe them to be a sign of the times. Political purity is absolutely necessary for the success of republican government. When money can buy election, influence legislation, and determine the success of great schemes by means of the votes it can purchase, we may as well conclude we have become sadly degenerate. Who ever knew a government which had once come into such a condition, to become pure again? The tendency is all in the other direction. Destruction always follows corruption, sooner or later. Recent events in the State of Kansas are most suggestive. Grave charges of bribery in securing their election are made against both of her senators in Congress. These two officers, holding the highest position in the gift of the State, and members of the first legislative body in our country, are freely accused of bribery, and investigating committees, appointed by the Senate, are looking up the matter. Senator Pomeroy, one of them, was recently up for election. Charges of bribery and corruption have been freely made against him for years in the past, till a very large portion of his own party were bitterly opposed to him; and a majority of the Kansas Legislature were elected last fall, pledged beforehand to vote against him when his name came up again for election. Though he came to Kansas comparatively a poor man, he had become immensely rich, as many believed, by taking advantage of his official position to benefit himself pecuniarily. As the time for the election of senator drew near, Mr. Pomeroy came on from Washington to work the wires and secure his seat for another term. A large majority professed to be opposed to him, but he and his supporters, from the first, felt sure of succeeding, and openly boasted of it. As the contest waxed warm, it was noticed that many, who had talked loudest against him, began to grow weak in the knees, and talk doubtful, and finally go for him. It was fully believed that these changes were brought about by money and bribery. His opponents began greatly to fear he would succeed, and the papers opposed to him came out in mournful terms, almost hopeless of being able to stop this, attributing his expected success entirely to bribery. At this juncture, a trap is set for the senator. Mr. York, one of the members opposed to him, consents to a proposed interview. Another follows. What transpires between them at the dark hour of midnight, we only know from their own statements. Suffice it to say, on the morning just before the ballot is to be taken, which it was thought would give Mr. Pomeroy his seat for another six years' term in the Senate of the United States, Mr. York takes the floor, and makes a statement to the effect that Mr. Pomeroy had offered him $8000 for his vote, and he already had received $7000 of it, which he takes from his pocket and lays before the chairman. Of course, the excitement is tremendous. Members turn pale, perhaps from a consciousness of their own guilt. The ballot is soon taken, and Mr. Pomeroy gets not a single vote. His competitor gains his election. Mr. York becomes the hero of the hour. Mr. Pomeroy goes away baffled, sick, and terribly disappointed. And the papers which rejoice over his defeat, confess it was owing solely to this exposure, and that his defeat could not have been brought about any other way. If that be true, what a terrible confession! A great State, settled up from the most intelligent portion of our country, has fallen so low that it cannot defeat a candidate for the highest office within its gift, even when a majority of the Legislature is elected, pledged to vote against him, and when he is believed to be most corrupt and venal, simply because those whom they have sent cannot be trusted. They will yield to bribery. And the only way he can be defeated is for a member to hold a secret meeting with the briber, solemnly promise to vote for him, lie to him, and come out and betray his confidence. And the man that does this is lauded to the skies. Ministers of the gospel speak his praises, and many of the organs of public opinion hold him up as a model hero. Again, how can a man afford to pay $8000 for one man's vote? A very few purchased in this way would take more than his whole salary would amount to. The only answer that can be given, is, that his official position as a senator gives him opportunities to fill his pockets. It shows that jobbery and corruption are plenty in our national Legislature at Washington. If the great mass of senators and representatives there were honest and pure, such things could not go on. The very air is filled with stories of corruption, which are fully believed by the masses of our people. Each party has to confess its own iniquity. Each party is very zealous to expose corruption in its opponent, but has plenty of excuses for its own. The Republicans denounce the corruptions of the Tammany ring in New York city. The Democrats retort by references to Credit Mobilier, in Washington. In the latter, some of the most respectable reputations in the country have been brought into suspicion. Names that have stood high as leaders of the great anti-slavery struggle, are smutched over with a taint of corruption. Hundreds of thousands of dollars in a lump are known to have been put into the hands of lobby members for the purpose of influencing legislation, and men go to prison rather than reveal the uses they have put it to. Such terrible things are known to be going on, and some of the leading papers in our country boldly declare that there is far more beneath the surface, and demand that it shall be brought out. In some of our States, rival legislatures and sets of officers fiercely contend with each other for the mastery, each claiming to be entitled to the exercise of authority, and keep the country in uproar for months and years. Murder holds high carnival in our largest cities, and the Governor of New York comes out in a public message, intimating that respectable people begin to doubt the value of our boasted republican form of government, because it fails to secure life and property. Strong threats are made that in the commercial metropolis of the new world vigilance committees shall be organized, to take the law into their own hands, because of supposed connivance between officials and criminals, and as the only way to secure punishment for crime, and consequent safety of life and property. Political rings are organized, who gain control of party machinery, and millions of dollars are stolen from tax-payers. All these things are around us. Our ears are filled with the constantly repeated story of them. To be sure, the papers are telling us that these things are being exposed and broken up, and that greater purity will be the consequence. But to what party can we look for purity? Are not all of them tainted? Do they not excuse and defend just as long as they can? And when the thing becomes so notorious that it can be smoothed over no longer, the corruptionist is dropped, and left to enjoy his ill-gotten gains. Who has been punished? Even Tweed, the most notorious character of any age or country, almost, in this line, walks the streets months and years after his guilt is known, his name standing upon the senate list of New York as still a member, and they find it nearly impossible to convict him. Mayor Hall of New York city, his accomplice, holds out his official term. If a man steals a loaf of bread to keep him from starving, he soon finds his way to prison. But the man who pockets millions of dollars wrung from the poor, in taxes, goes off with his ill-gotten gains. Investigating committees smooth over these things, and the grand rush for money, money, goes on. If men have that, they can pass on, receiving at least outward respect. Was there ever a country on our globe that made such rapid strides in corruption, as our own? Not quite one century this side of Washington, Hancock, and Patrick Henry, and yet they tell us the millennium is not far distant, the world is getting better, and soon righteousness will reign everywhere. These very things are corrupting our youth and depraving the masses of our people. Men acknowledge everywhere that it is difficult to find men that can be trusted. And no wonder, when men in the highest places profit by corruption and go unpunished. These things are terrible, and plainly show where we are drifting. GEO. I. BUTLER. Review the Evidences.
By R. F. Cottrell
THERE are many persons who have, at some former time, been almost persuaded of the truth of the position held and taught by Seventh-day Adventists. They felt it duty to embrace the Sabbath, being persuaded of the perpetuity and immutability of the moral law, the ten commandments. But after wavering awhile in the balance, convenience and custom prevailed in their minds, and they decided against the truth. They have succeeded in pacifying their mind and conscience in a measure; but still they are not fully satisfied. They still have their convictions, and do not rest in full assurance. To such, I would say, Review the evidences. If Bible truth had been clearly in favor of the abolition or change of the Sabbath, you never would have had those convictions. Those who hold the truth and obey the plainly revealed commandments of God, never have conscientious convictions that they ought to give up their position and take another course. They may be tempted by convenience or custom to make such a change, hoping that for these things they may be excused; but to feel such a course to be duty is out of the question. Therefore you ought to know assuredly that your convictions were in accordance with truth. Those convictions were not in favor of error; there was strong evidence that produced them; hence you ought to take this as an evidence that the truth is found in the direction of those convictions. Candidly review the evidences in the fear of God, and you will find that those convictions were the fruit of truth bearing on your mind, and which ought certainly to be obeyed. Could you be persuaded for a moment that circumcision is still binding? By no means. The fact is the Bible is not so blind a book as men would make it. Those who will take its teachings in preference to tradition and custom, can find the path of duty. To illustrate: The person cannot be found, who, having accepted of, and practiced, immersion as baptism, afterward became dissatisfied with it, and came to the conscientious conviction that he must be sprinkled. But the reverse of this has often been true. So no man ever left the seventh-day Sabbath and embraced the first day instead, from a sense of duty; but thousands have turned from the first to the seventh day, out of the deepest sense of duty. Do not deceive yourself and procure your everlasting ruin, by thinking that another course is safe, besides the following of those convictions which the word and Spirit of God have made upon your hearts. Choose the path of duty, which is the way of the cross. Look at the evidences fairly, for this is your own interest. If you decide against the truth, you are to be the loser. Your unbelief and unwillingness to obey will not alter the truth; nor will these things change the judgment of God, which will be according to truth. Do review the evidences, and decide for truth and duty. Follow those convictions which you have been stifling. Choose the path of duty, though it be the way of the cross. Be faithful in this, and an everlasting crown of glory shall be yours. R. F. Cottrell. A Christian in Worldly Company
A CHRISTIAN in worldly company should be like a traveler in a storm—making haste out of it. Surrender Your Whole Heart to Jesus
Do not let a day pass over your head without a complete surrender to Jesus of your whole heart,—only believe, and thou shalt see the glory of God. Objections to the Sabbath Answered.
We are justified by faith and not by the works of the law. Answer. As there are several passages quoted on this point, I will transcribe them and answer them altogether. Rom. 1:17. “The just shall live by faith.” Exactly the same words are quoted in Gal. 3:11, and in Heb. 10:38. Rom. 3:20. “Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Verse 28. “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Eph. 2:8. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.” Many more passages to the same effect might be quoted, but these are some of the plainest. Our opponents quote these with a great flourish of trumpets, and try to make it appear that we are endeavoring to be justified, not by faith in Christ, but by keeping the law. Notwithstanding all our protests to the contrary and all our explanations, they still repeat this assertion, simply, it seems to us, because they can create a prejudice by it. When we urge them to keep God’s commandments, they say, “We are not saved by keeping the law, but by faith in Christ. Do you think keeping the Sabbath will save a man?” We reply, Can a man be saved while he continues to break the law? Can a man continue to lie or murder and still be justified and saved by faith? Certainly not. Well, then, if a man should keep those commandments against lying and murdering, would that save him? Certainly not. Then if he can not be saved by keeping those precepts, why urge him to keep them? Simply because he can not be saved unless he does keep them, and yet keeping them alone will not save him. A murderer can not be saved; and yet simply refraining from murder, and keeping that commandment, will not save him. So of any part of the law, the Sabbath as well as the rest. But the question is, Does justification by faith abolish the law and free us from keeping it? So it is claimed. Then the law was abolished 626 years before Christ by Habakkuk the prophet, for he said at that time the same as Paul did after him, “The just shall live by faith.” Chap. 2:4. Paul only quotes this from him. But this is abolishing the law a little too soon, even for our opponents. But let us come directly at the root of the matter. Why is it that the sinner is justified by faith and not by the deeds of the law? The reason may be thus stated: It is the duty of every man to do just right all his life, and not do wrong once. This is a self-evident truth. Thus Christ says, “So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.” Luke 17:10. If a man should live seventy years he should strictly keep God’s law all the time. But suppose that he lives a sinner, steals, swears, &c., till just half his life is gone, till he is thirty-five years old. Now he concludes that he will sin no more for fear he will be damned at the Judgment. So he turns square about and never does wrong again the last half of his life. He strictly keeps God’s law. Now will this obedience of his justify his past transgression? Will it atone for his former sins? No. Why not? Because during the last half of his life he simply does just what he ought to have done during that time even if he had never done wrong before. He ought to have done just right from his birth to his death; now doing this the last half of his life, is simply doing what is justly due his God during that last thirty-five years, provided he had never lived the first thirty-five years in sin. To illustrate: I trade at the store for a year and run into debt $100. Beginning with the first day of the next year I promptly pay as I go for everything. At the end of the second year, the merchant asks me to pay that $100 contracted the year before. Would he not be astonished if I should tell him that I had paid that debt by simply paying for all I got as I went along the last year? Does keeping out of debt in the future pay up past debts? No. Neither does obedience to God’s law in the future atone for past sins. Forty years ago a man in New York committed murder. He was not discovered. Now he is arrested and proved guilty. He confesses that he did it, but demands to be set free because he has kept the law ever since, and never murdered another man. But he ought to have kept the law all his life, and never murdered even one man. Simply refraining from murder in the future did not atone for that one murder. In short, a just law never should be violated, even once. So if a man once violates it, it is utterly and forever out of his power to pay for that one transgression by future obedience, for he ought to obey it all the time if he had never transgressed it at all. We have all violated the law of God some time in our lives. Now if we should keep the law ever so strictly in the future it could not possibly wipe out those past sins. Hence it is that Christ had to die “for the remission of sins that are past.” Rom. 3:25. Christ comes in to pardon and take away those past sins which it is out of our power to remove or atone for. All who repent of these sins and believe in Jesus are offered pardon. This pardon is granted for Christ’s sake, and not for our good deeds, for even the best are sinners. Could a sinner ever save himself by obedience to the law of God? Certainly not. Were not all men sinners before the time of Christ as well as since? Surely. Will not some of them be saved? Yes. How? By their good works? by keeping the law of God? No; but by faith, faith in Christ. But did not these men before the coming of Christ have to keep the law of God, the ten commandments? We know they did. Could they be saved and not keep them? All know they could not. If, then, faith did not free them from keeping the law, why will it free us from it? No; there is no reason, nor Scripture either, for teaching that we need not keep the law because we are justified by faith and not by works. Abraham was justified by faith, Rom. 4:1–3, and yet how carefully he kept the commandments. Gen. 26:5. So Paul, in Rom. 3, after strongly arguing that a man cannot be justified by the law, but only by faith, yet adds: “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; yea, we establish the law.” Verse 31. Be it known then that we are not seeking justification from our sins by keeping the law, but only through faith in the divine Son of God. Yet we do not therefore claim a license to sin, to steal, lie, or murder, nor to break the Sabbath either. Be careful, my friend, that you do not trample on one of God’s commandments under the vain plea that you believe in Jesus, for he has said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in Heaven.” Matt. 7:21. NINTH OBJECTION.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
We are not under the law, but under grace. Rom. 6:14. Answer. Probably this objection is urged oftener than any other by the advocates of the no-law theory. That the law here is, or at least includes, the decalogue, we both agree. What, then, is meant by the term, “under the law?” We understand it to mean, to be condemned by the law. Our opponents claim that it means to be under obligation to obey the law; and as Paul says we are not under the law, it follows that we are not now obliged to keep the law; Hence the Sabbath is gone. Can it be that we need not keep the commandments against adultery, murder, theft, idolatry, &c.? If their position is correct, this must follow, for these are a part of the law. Paul’s entire argument in this book shows that this is not his meaning. What subject has he under consideration in this chapter? It is not the difference between the old law and the new, the change from the old dispensation to the new; but the change which takes place in individuals at their conversion, a change from the old man to the new man, from sin to holiness, from condemnation to grace. He first asks, “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Verse 2. Then he says, “We are buried with him [Christ] by baptism.” Verse 4. This shows that he is speaking only of converted men. Next, he says, “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.” Verse 6. That this refers to conversion, and not to a change from the old covenant to the new, will be seen by every candid mind. “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Verse 11. Of whom is this true? Only the converted man. So he is not speaking of all men in general, but only of saints. Again: “Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.” Verse 12. What is sin? John says, “Sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. Paul then exhorts them not to let their fleshly members and passions lead them to transgress the law. “For,” said he, “sin shall not have dominion over you.” Verse 14. Why not? Because the law is abolished? No; but because they have left the service of sin, have ceased to transgress the law of God. His whole argument shows that this is what he means. “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Verse 14. That is, having broke off your sins, ceased to break the law, believed in Christ, and been baptized, you are now no longer ruled over by sin, nor condemned by the law, because you have found grace in the sight of God and your sins are pardoned. Then he asks in the next verse, “What then? shall we sin, [that is transgress the law, for, remember, ‘sin is the transgression of the law,’] because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.” This conclusion of Paul’s, utterly demolishes the theory of our opponents. For if “not under the law” means that we are not to obey the law, then it follows that we could transgress it at will. But this, Paul vetoes with a “God forbid.” Take two more places where Paul uses the term “under the law” as meaning, to be condemned by the law. Thus he says, in Gal. 5:16–18, “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law.” Now, in this case, who are not under the law? Those who are led of the Spirit, and those only. And who are those who are led by the Spirit? Those who do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh—that is, do not commit sin. Any other meaning cannot be given to this text. Then those who are not under the law, are converted men whose sins are pardoned, who have received the Spirit of God, and hence do not transgress his law any more. It has not the slightest reference to the abolition of the law. Paul says that those who are led of the Spirit are not under the law. Then it follows that those who are not led by the Spirit are under the law. This conclusion is so plain that no candid man will deny it. Well, are the wicked led by the Spirit? No. Then they are under the law. But if the law has been abolished, then no one can now be under it, no more the wicked than the righteous. This shows that the law does still exist and has power to condemn the transgressor. Now look a moment at the absurdity of our opponents’ position. They say that by the term “not under the law,” Paul means that the law is abolished, and hence we need not obey it. If this be true, then no one is under the law, whether he is led by the Spirit or not. But Paul declares that in order not to be under the law, we must be led by the Spirit. How plainly this contradicts their conclusion. Take one more case. Rom. 3:9–19, Paul says, “We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.” And so he goes on in several verses to prove that all are sinners. Then he concludes thus: “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” Verse 19. Now, what is the consequence of being under the law? Paul says, it is “that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” So that to be under the law is to have our mouths stopped and stand guilty and condemned before God. No better proof could be given that this is the simple meaning which Paul designs by the use of the phrase, “not under the law, but under grace.” That the term “under the law,” sometimes means to be under obligation to keep the law is probably true; as for instance in Gal. 4:21, but that does not prove that it is always used so. The connection and the subject must show what its meaning is. Should those professing present truth be individually faithful in all their callings, what a mighty phalanx of power it would be to bring against the works of the enemy! How mightily would the Lord work with them to bring the truth before the honest ones, who have not as yet heard the warning! The truth is a powerful lever in our hands for good, if by a holy example and apostolic faith we can recommend it to others. What incentive to faithfulness can be instituted that has not already been brought to bear upon us? God has done all on his part that can be done, until we act more fully on our part. There is opportunity for us, from day to day, of proving our calling, and how will it foot up at the last? Will it be time wasted? opportunities for doing good thrown away? Will our conversation be on subjects that will have a scattering influence, dividing our affections, leaving but half, if even that, for God? No language can express the importance of this time, the importance of a thorough work on our part. The young can shed a good influence for the truth, if they have been rightly trained. Young men and young women who have their hearts in the work can accomplish much; and how sweet the savor that will arise from such labor; while those with a larger experience and capacity, on whom the harness rests not too lightly, may each be a father and mother in Israel, and help to push forward the cause in all its departments. Perhaps even the aged are not aware how much they can severally do. They have long trodden the pathway of life, and their testimony has a peculiar weight, as it shows the value of their experience in addition to the preciousness of the truth. An aged friend, now nearly eighty years of age, comes to mind as I write, who, some twenty years ago, embraced present truth. Her attention was called to it by her daughter, a Sabbath-keeper, who often talked with her on the subject. She said to herself, “Either I am right, and A. is wrong, or, A. is right, and I am wrong.” She at once commenced an investigation of the Sabbath question, reading the New Testament through in search of that one text for Sunday-keeping, which, as she reached the closing chapter of the Revelation, she found had never been there, or had mysteriously disappeared. No foothold now for Sunday observance; but on the contrary, the clear truth shone out that there was no proof that God had repealed any part of the ten commandments; consequently, they were yet binding. She at once obeyed; and when visited by the minister and deacons of the church of which she was a member, stated to them her convictions and begged for a release from the Presbyterian church. They were unwilling to give her up, and held her name a number of years. Copies of the REVIEW were scattered by her at every opportunity. Meetings were held at the school house in her neighborhood, and the ministers of other denominations visited her. Her views were always set before them. On one occasion, she read to them some articles in the REVIEW, and said, “I wish the people could hear that.” Said they, “Come down this evening and read it to us,” thinking perhaps that she would not have confidence. But faithful to the invitation given, evening found her at the school-house with her paper. After the sermon, an opportunity was given her, and moving forward to the desk, she read the articles, and followed with an exhortation. And many will long remember her earnest words during those meetings. She stood alone, but let her light shine. Addicted from an early age to the use of snuff, the filthy habit, was no sooner seen and realized, than it was laid aside forever. Efforts to break from the use of tea, though at a later date, were alike successful. Those who were at the N. Y. camp-meeting, the past summer, will remember her childlike, yet earnest, heartfelt testimony on the point. Said a sister, in a letter, a few days since, “I can think just how her sweet testimony sounded.” A church of Sabbath-keepers now meets weekly in the house where she has lived for over fifty years. I have related this simply to show the bearing which the example of the aged may have, and the influence they can exert. Let us all be encouraged to act well our part. A. M. L.