In an article with the above title in Scribner's for March, Dr. Holland writes as follows:—
“Let us have a plain word about the greed for sermons, so prevalent in these latter days. We doubt whether there ever was a time in the history of the Christian church when the ministers were placed in so awkward, difficult, and unjust a position as they are to-day. Great, expensive edifices of worship are built, for which the builders are heavily in debt. That debt can only be handled, the interest on it paid, and the principal reduced, by filling it with a large and interested congregation. The congregation cannot be collected and held without brilliant preaching. Brilliant preaching is scarce, because, and only because, brilliant men are scarce, and scarcer still the brilliant men who have the gift of eloquence.
So soon, therefore, as a man shows that he cannot attract a crowd, “down goes his house.” He may be a scholar, a saint, or a man whose example is the sweetest sermon that a human life ever uttered, a lowly friend, a faithful pastor, a wise spiritual adviser, and even a sermonizer of rare attainments and skill, but if he cannot draw a crowd by the attractive skill of popular eloquence, he must be sacrificed to the exigencies of finance. The church must be filled, the interest on the debt must be paid, and nothing can do this but a man who will “draw.” The whole thing is managed like a theater. If an actor cannot draw full houses the rent cannot be paid. So the actor is dismissed and a new one called in his place.
There is an old-fashioned idea that a church is built for the purpose of public worship. It is not a bad idea, and that exhibition of Christianity which presents a thousand lazy people sitting bolt upright in their best clothes gorging sugar plums, is not a particularly brilliant one. It was once supposed that a Christian had something to do even as a layman, and that a pastor was a leader and a director in Christian work. There certainly was a time when the burden of a church was not laid crushingly upon the shoulders of its minister, and Christian men and women stood by the man who was true to his office and true to them. We seem to have outlived it, and a thousand American churches, particularly among the great centers of population, are groaning over discomfiture in the sad result. Instead of paying their debts like men, they lay them on the backs of their floundering ministers, and if they cannot lift them they go hunting for spinal columns that will, or for tongues that hold a charm for their dissipation. It is a wrong and a shame which ought to be abolished just as soon as sensible men have read this article.
Who was primarily to blame for this condition of things we do not know, but we suspect the ministers themselves ought to bear a portion of it. Beginning in New England years ago, the sermon in America has been made too much of. The great preachers, by going into their pulpits Sunday after Sunday with their supreme intellectual efforts, have created the demand for such efforts. Metaphysics, didactics, apologetics, arrayed in robes of rhetoric, have held high converse with them. The great theological wrestlers have made the pulpit their arena of conflict. Homilies have grown into sermons, and sermons into orations. Preachers have set aside the teacher’s simple task for that of the orator. Even to-day they cannot see, or they will not admit, that they have been in the wrong. With a knowledge of the human mind which cannot but make them aware that no more than a single good sermon can be digested by a congregation in a day, and that every added word goes to the glut of intellect and feeling, and the confusion of impressions, they still go on preaching twice and thrice, and seem more averse than any others to a change of policy. It is all intellectual gormandizing and no activity, rest and no reflection. It is all cram and no conflict, and they seem just as averse to stop cramming as before they apprehended and bemoaned the poverty of its results.
If the lazy, over-fed, loosely articulated dragon could only be split up into active men and women, who would shut their mouths and open their eyes and hands, we could have something different. But the sermon is the great thing; the people think so, and the preachers agree with them. We should like to know what the Master thinks about it.”
TREASURE
“What I spent, that I had; what I kept, that I lost; what I gave, that I have.”—Old Epitaph.
EVERY coin of earthly treasure
We have lavished upon earth,
For our simple worldly pleasure,
May be reckoned something worth;
For the spending was not losing,
Though the purchase were but small;
It has perished with the using;
We have had it—that is all!
All the gold we leave behind us
When we turn to dust again
(Though our avarice may blind us),
We have gathered quite in vain;
Since we neither can direct it,
By the winds of fortune tossed,
Nor in other worlds expect it;
What we hoarded—we have lost.
But each merciful oblation
(Seed of pity wisely sown),
Which we give in self-negation,
We may safely call our own.
Thus of treasure freely given,
For the future we may hoard;
For the angels keep in Heaven
What is lent unto the Lord.
ABOUT GOD'S BEAUTIFUL HOME
By M. M. Osgood
Some Things Learned from God's Family Record.—No. 3.
ABOUT GOD'S BEAUTIFUL HOME.
Isa. 57:15: “Thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy: I dwell in the high and holy place.” Ps. 103:19: “The Lord has prepared his throne in the heavens.”
It is where the river and tree of life are. Rev. 22:1, 2: “And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God, and of the Lamb. In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bear twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month.”
The tree of life is in paradise. Rev. 2:7: “To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.” “Paradise, a Greek word signifying a park, or garden, with trees.”—Bible Dict.
Paradise is in the third Heaven. 2 Cor. 12: 2-4: “I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, . . . such an one caught up to the third Heaven, . . . caught up into paradise.”
The formation of the first heaven is described in Gen. 1: 6-8, and refers to the atmosphere, or air, that surrounds the earth to the depth of forty-five miles or more. The suns and planets occupy a space beyond that, which is also called heaven. This is probably the second heaven of Paul's reckoning, but the third Heaven is the dwelling-place of God.
In this heavenly country is a beautifully situated mountain, and on this mount God's city is built. Heb. 12: 22: “But ye are come unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”
This city is also called the New Jerusalem, and is to come down to this earth, when it is made new and God comes here to live. Rev. 3: 12: “And I will write upon him [the overcomer] the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is New Jerusalem, which cometh down out of Heaven from my God.”
This is the city that Abraham looked for. Heb. 11:10: “For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
When John was on the isle of Patmos, the Lord showed him in vision how this city with foundations looked, as it was coming down out of heaven. Rev. 21: 1, 2: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away. . . . And I John saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down from God out of Heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” What this adorning was, we may learn hereafter. M. M. OSGOOD.
That Is it Exactly.
By Jesse Dorcas
In the concluding remarks of a sermon on “Christianity a National Law,” delivered by the Rev. R. G. Green, in 1874, and published in the Christian Statesman, May 8, 1875, we find the following: “We may infer, that the great governmental problem with man never has been, and never will be—Religion or not?—but always—What religion? This, then, is the form of the question now before the American people.”
Can a question of the magnitude of the one before us be stated in fewer words? Shall we have a pure Bible religion, or a mixed and adulterated one? Let every one carefully settle this question “before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon” us, and be ready for the event.
JESSE DORCAS.
Tipton, Iowa, May 29, 1875.
Israel and the Sabbath.
By Orlando Soule
“Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever.” Ex. 31:16, 17. We have here a beautiful figure. The Lord is the first party in the covenant, Israel the second, and the Sabbath a connecting link between them; and the Lord informed Moses that this relation should exist perpetually—forever.
The day thus honored is the seventh, as shown by verse 15; hence it becomes a question of moment to know how long a period of time is embraced by the terms perpetual and forever. The former signifies without end (Webster), and the latter, in its most limited sense, denotes duration as long as the person or thing exists to which it is applied. Therefore, as the Lord’s existence will not be disputed, it only remains to be shown that Israel continues as really and as complete as it ever did, and the seventh-day Sabbath is placed upon a firm foundation.
This evidence can be easily given.
Paul says, “They are not all Israel which are of Israel;” and “they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.” Rom. 9:6, 8. Who, then, are Israelites? Abraham was the father of ancient Israel, and the promise that he should be heir of the world was made to him through the righteousness of faith. Rom. 4:13. Again, Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. And Paul says, “Know ye therefore that they which be of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Gal. 3:6, 7. Therefore, every true child of faith is an Israelite indeed.
This relation is fitly illustrated by the words of Jeremiah and Paul. Israel is called “a green olive tree, fair and of goodly fruit,” and “with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled a fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.” Jer. 11:16. Paul comments on this passage, Rom. 11:17–20, showing that the natural branches, the Jews, were broken off, because of unbelief, and that the believing Gentiles were grafted in, and thereby became partakers of all the blessings of God’s people and of the duties enjoined upon them, the observance of the seventh day not excepted.
No one can be a follower of Christ, and not be an Israelite. Gal. 3:29: “If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” James, writing to Christians, A. D. 60, addresses them as the twelve tribes of Israel. James 1:1. And the holy city, the New Jerusalem, that has the names of the apostles upon its very foundations, showing it to be a Christian city, also has the names of the twelve tribes written upon its gates, indicating that admittance will be given to such only as belong to these tribes. Rev. 21:12–14. Then, according to Paul, John, James, and Jeremiah, to be a Christian is to become an Israelite, and the sign between God and an Israelite is the Sabbath.
The Lord help us to observe it.
ORLANDO SOULE.
It Don't Pay.
AMONG the things that don't pay, and will never pay so long as whisky is sold to the extent it now is, are the following startling facts. They are so true that they speak for themselves. Democrats as well as republicans cannot but admit their force.
It don't pay to keep fifty working men poor and ragged, in order to have one hotel keeper dressed in broadcloth and flush of money.
It don't pay to have the mothers and children of twenty families dressed in rags, starved into resemblances of emaciated scarecrows, and live in hovels, in order that the hotel keeper's wife may dress in satin, and her children grow fat and hearty, and live in a bay-window parlor.
It don't pay to have one citizen in the county jail because another citizen sells him liquor.
It don't pay to have ten smart, active and intelligent boys transformed into hoodlums and thieves, to enable one man to lead an easy life by selling them liquor.
It don't pay to have one thousand homes blasted, ruined, defiled, and turned into halls of discord and misery, in order that one wholesale liquor dealer may amass a large fortune.
It don't pay to keep five hundred men in the penitentiaries and prisons and hospitals of the State, and one thousand in the lunatic asylums, at the expense of the honest, industrious taxpayers, in order that a few may grow rich by the manufacture of whisky, and by swindling the government out of three-fourths of the revenue tax on the liquor they make.
It don't pay to permit the existence of a traffic which only results in poverty, crime, misery and death, and which never did, never does, never can, and never will, do any good.
It never pays to do wrong; your sin will find you out, whether others find it out or not. The sin knows where you are, and will always keep posted of the fact.—Exchange.
Worshiping in Letter and Spirit.
By J. H. W.
There are views widely differing on the subject of worshiping in letter and in spirit. Those who object to the law, and lay claim to a system of license, for this is what no-lawism amounts to, affirm that to serve God according to the letter of the law is a slavish service, a service of bondage; being bound and hedged in by forms which leave no freedom to the human spirit and will. They say there is a higher and purer service, a voluntary service, one of the affections only; not guided by any expressed rules and regulations, but in which all is left to the choice and will of the worshiper. They declare that where there are legal injunctions and restrictions there is no freedom, and therefore no pure spiritual worship.
This theory appears plausible to many; and to such as love to have their own way it is captivating. But it is both defective as a theory and contrary to Scripture.
The true theory of choice or of freedom of the will, is the choice between that which God requires and that which our own hearts would suggest. This choice God gives to every one. This is probation. Of course true worship is to do that which God requires; false worship is to offer to God that which our own hearts devise, or, in other words, to choose our own way.
If we try that theory in the State or in the family circle, we shall find it to be destructive to order, and subversive of every correct principle. A citizen scorns the restraints of legal enactments. His ideas of serving the government he thinks are far too exalted to be trammelled. He loves the service of his country, but he must be left to serve in a manner dictated by his own mind and approved only by his own will. If he is a soldier, he refuses to obey the orders of his superior, and manoeuvres according to tactics of his own devising; and moves only when he chooses, without regard to the rules adopted for the army. If he is a civil officer, he disregards the statutes and forms for the government of his office, and adopts forms and regulations of his own. If he is a private citizen, he pays no heed to the enactments of the State, but acts as the impulse of his own heart may prompt at all times and on all occasions.
Now, what shall we say of such a citizen as this? As a soldier, he would soon be tried for insubordination, and punished for his disloyalty. As a civil officer, he would be broken of his office, and have to retire in disgrace. As a private citizen, he would soon end his career in prison. And why not? Is not the best service to the State rendered by obeying the laws of the State? Rather, is not this the only service the State can accept? Certainly it is. Any other course has its origin in self-will and leads to open rebellion. This much for no-lawism in the State.
Take it in the family circle. A child professes great love for his father; he assumes to be very exceedingly anxious to honor and serve his father. When his father commands him to do a certain thing, he considers it altogether beneath such exalted love as he bears to his father to obey the command; he must do what the father orders in a manner quite different from that in which the father said it should be done; or he must substitute something entirely different in the place of that which is required by the father. He says he loves to serve his father, but his love must not be cramped, nor forced, nor restrained, by rules and restrictions laid down by his father. He must be left free to carry out those plans formed in his own mind, and to follow the promptings of his own heart. This, he claims, is the only way to manifest pure love for his father. But what shall we say to such love as that. Without hesitation we pronounce it spurious—a mere mockery of love. Such a son would constantly dishonor his father, and become a disgrace to the family to which he belonged.
When we refer it to Scripture, we find such a system always and everywhere denounced. Both the word of God and the providence of God have always been against it. This spirit led the priests to offer strange fire before the Lord, instead of that fire prescribed by the Lord. It caused them to offer polluted bread upon his altar; and to change his offerings, substituting the lame and the blind at their own wills. It is the fruit of this perverse spirit of which the Lord asks, “Who hath required this at your hand?” It is such professed service to God which Paul calls “voluntary humility,” and of such persons he says: “Intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind.” Col. 2:18. The “fleshly mind” is the same as the “carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God,” which volunteers an offering not required, and withholds that which is commanded. All such is “will worship.”
Of such voluntary worshipers the Lord says: “Woe unto the foolish prophets that have followed their own spirits, and have seen nothing. . . . Have ye not seen a vain vision, and have ye not spoken a lying divination, whereas ye say, The Lord saith it; albeit I have not spoken?” Eze. 13:3–7. They declare that to be the will of God, of which the Lord hath not spoken. Truly, they have followed their own spirit. They claim this as “true Christian liberty.” To do that which the Lord has spoken is to them bondage, a legal service, worshiping in the letter; not by them to be borne. But the Lord pronounces a woe upon them.
Thus we learn that to be guided by our feelings and our will, and to disregard God’s commandments is will worship—is to follow our own spirits. This is not worshiping God in Spirit, though by some supposed to be so. Such, instead of worshiping God in Spirit, are vainly puffed up by their fleshly mind.
There may be a false worship in the letter. For this we never plead. This is a Pharisaical, heartless, outward observance of precepts, without the promptings of love. Some are so blind that they think all obedience to commandments is of this kind. A greater mistake cannot be made. The Lord himself has distinctly assured us, “This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” Obedience is required of the citizen in the State. Obedience of the child is the only evidence of love in the family. Obedience is the only manifestation of love recognized in the Bible. “If I be a father, where is mine honor? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts.” Mal. 1:6. Paul says, “We know that the law is spiritual.” Therefore loving obedience to it is spiritual service, the only true worship. To disobey is to deny the Lord the honor and fear which are his due. Professed worship in willful disobedience is will worship and mockery. J. H. W.
The Law in Galatians Examined.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
What object did Paul have in view in writing this letter to the Galatians? Does he find fault with them for keeping any one of the ten commandments? No such thing is mentioned in the whole letter. In the first chapter he appeals to them thus: “For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it; and profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.” Gal. 1: 13, 14. Here he mentions the traditions of the fathers, for which he had been very zealous. He further says that the gospel which he preached was directly revealed to him by Christ himself, and was not taught him by any man. See verses 15-24.
Next, Paul refers these Gentile Galatians back to that great council at Jerusalem; which he and Barnabas attended, as recorded in Acts 15, where the question about circumcision and that whole law was fully discussed and settled. Compare Acts 15: 1-5, with Gal. 2: 1-3, and it will be seen that both refer to the same time and the same question. Hence the decision of that council had a direct bearing upon the question that was troubling the Galatians. So he refers to that council and to the action there taken to convince these Gentile Galatians that they were regarding a law that was no longer to be kept by the disciples. Thus he says: “Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also. . . . But neither Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” Gal. 2: 1, 3.
Though Titus was a minister, still it was decided that he, being a Gentile, need not be circumcised. This fact, of course, would have great weight with the Gentile Galatians in deciding their duty touching the same question. This fact shows to which law this letter relates. There is no question raised with regard to any precept of the moral law; but every reference is to the ceremonial law. See chap. 2: 11-14: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” How does this affect the question which Paul is arguing with the Galatians, if the moral law is the one under consideration? It could have no bearing upon it whatever. But if it be the ceremonial law, it is indeed very much to the point.
Peter, a Jew, and an apostle, goes to Antioch and freely eats with the Gentiles, which is a direct violation of the ceremonial law. But when certain zealous Jews come from Jerusalem, Peter withdrew from the Gentiles and would eat with them no more, thus showing that he regarded the ceremonial law as still in force and binding on Christians. Paul justly reproved him for this. “If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” In other words, if Peter, a Jew, could disregard that law, how much more the Gentiles. What law had he violated? Any one of the ten commandments? No, he had simply eaten with the Gentiles, and thus broken the ceremonial law of the Jews. This fact is decisive in showing what law is under consideration here.
Further on Paul asks them, “Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?” Chap. 3: 3. This has plain reference to the fleshly or carnal ordinances of the ceremonial law, of which Paul in another place says: “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” Heb. 9: 10. It could not refer to the decalogue, because those precepts are spiritual and directly opposed to the flesh. Rom. 7: 14; 8: 7. Again, Paul says: “As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh, they constrain you to be circumcised; only lest they should suffer persecution for the cross of Christ.” Gal. 6: 12.
Here these works of the flesh are directly connected with circumcision; and those who kept that law did it to avoid the cross of Christ, because by regarding the ceremonies of the Jews, they would please them and so escape persecution. That the law here spoken of is that which was written by Moses in the book and not the one on the tables of stone, is shown by the following: “For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.” Chap. 3: 10. But verse 19 is decisive: “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.” To the question, What is the object of this law? Paul answers that it was added because of transgression. Transgression is the violation of the law. 1 John 3: 4. Again, “where there is no law, there is no transgression.” Rom. 4: 15.
Then it follows that some law existed and was transgressed before this law was given. Nor would it have been given if the other law had not previously been transgressed. We have already seen how this was. When man violated the moral law he became a sinner, needing a Saviour to redeem him. To point to this coming Saviour it became necessary to offer sacrifices. Then there must be priests to offer these, an altar, and a temple. All these things required a law to regulate them. Hence it became necessary, as we have seen, to institute the ceremonial law. How long were these sacrifices, the temple, altar, priests, &c., to continue? Till Christ should come to whom they pointed. Hence that law ended there of necessity. So Paul says it was added till the seed should come. But why should the moral law terminate there? Paul further says, “It was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator”—precisely the way in which the law of Moses was given. But the decalogue was given by God himself, written by his own finger, not in a book, but on tables of stone. Then what follows puts it beyond question that it was only the typical law of which Paul was writing. “Wherefore the law was our school-master to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school-master.” Verses 24, 25.
The law here spoken of is one that pointed to Christ, the sole object for which the law of types and shadows was given. Col. 2: 17; Heb. 10: 1. Christ was the grand center to which the whole law pointed. But what does the moral law say about Christ? Nothing at all. It points out man's duty, but does not point to Christ. Chapter 5: 1-3, furnishes further proof that the ten commandments were under consideration: “Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”
It will be seen that there is no reference here to the decalogue, but to the law of circumcision. If ye be circumcised, says Paul, Christ shall profit you nothing. This he keeps constantly before their minds. He says, “Whoever is circumcised is bound to keep the whole law, that is, the whole of that law of which circumcision is a part; because if one part is binding, it all is. Hence they must offer sacrifices, &c. He calls it a yoke of bondage, the same term which Peter applies to the law of Moses. Acts 15: 10. Can this apply to the ten commandments? Is it a yoke of bondage to obey them?189Who will stand up and say that these are a yoke of bondage to him? The man who does will declare himself to be a wicked, carnal man.
The above facts clearly show that it is only the ceremonial law of which Paul is treating in Galatians. It furnishes strong proof of our position that all Bible writers recognized the distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws.
D. M. CANRIGHT.
The Age to Come.
By Uriah Smith
The Age to Come, a paper published monthly in Boston, Mass., by Mrs. A. E. Davis, has made its appearance upon our table. The object of the paper is sufficiently indicated by the heading. It is to advocate, we suppose, the doctrine which goes by that name. We think that earnest attention to the duties of the present, such as keeping “the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus,” is of more importance than to devote one's time wholly to speculating in regard to the future. But when we find it advocating probation, and opportunity for repentance after Christ comes, we can but regard it as teaching one of the most pernicious of errors, and one which is in the plainest terms discountenanced in the word of God.
Perhaps the reader would like to see a specimen of that reasoning by which an attempt is made to prove that even after the sentence has gone forth, just before the coming of Christ, “He which is filthy let him be filthy still, and he that is holy let him be holy still,” Rev. 22:11, 12, the holy may become filthy, and the filthy, holy. We have it in the last number. Speaking of the dens and rocks to which the wicked flee in the great day of the wrath of the Lamb, and their calling upon the mountains and rocks to fall upon and hide them from his presence, the Age to Come says:—
“We next inquire, What do the dens, and rocks, and mountains, symbolize? Mountains, in symbolic prophecy, represent governments. The dens and rocks are parts of and belonging to the mountains; hence, they would represent branches of the governments, eminent persons, families of note and influence, clans, tribes, sects, or parties belonging to the governments.
“Has the condition of things been such in this age of wrath, that all classes of men, from the king to the slave, have sought protection in foreign countries from the afflictions which have been brought upon them? All are familiar with such cases. It is but recently that the slaves of our own country sought refuge in Canada, as well as other places; and, soon after, their masters asked for protection from the same quarters. And thus has it been in all lands. It was so before this age, but not to that extent it has been in it. Other ages were ages of wrath, but this is the great day of His wrath.”
Much more might be quoted of the same kind of reasoning. This is from an article to prove probation after Christ comes; and this is the way the Scriptures are manipulated to sustain that idea. Now when the fleeing of our slaves to Canada, the reaching of which place they considered a boon worth risking their lives to obtain,—when this is made the fulfillment of the prophecy which represents the wicked as fleeing in terror to the rocks and mountains and calling upon them to bury them from the presence and wrath of the Lamb, we have a specimen of recklessness in Biblical interpretation which is simply appalling. When the Bible is handled with such freedom, to use no harsher term, there is no chimera the mind of man is capable of conjuring into existence, which may not be proved by its testimony.
Nine numbers of the paper herein referred to have been issued. Viewed from our standpoint, we must seriously say, we think that is a plenty. Let the expense be appropriated to some more useful purpose. U. S.
Directions for Reading the Scriptures.
By M. M. O.
[I FIND a note to the student of God's word appended by Tyndale to his version of the New Testament. The suggestions seem to me very good. I copy a part of it, and if you think proper, you will please give it a place in the REVIEW. M. M. O.]
“TO THE READER.—Give diligence, reader (I exhort thee), that thou come with a pure mind, and as the Scripture saith, with a single eye unto the words of health, and of eternal life; by the which (if we repent and believe them) we are born anew, created afresh, and enjoy the fruits of the blood of Christ; which blood crieth not for vengeance as the blood of Abel, but hath purchased life, favor, grace, blessing, and whatsoever is promised in the Scriptures to those that believe and obey God; and standeth between us and wrath, vengeance, curse, and whatsoever the Scripture threateneth against the unbelievers and disobedient, which resist, and consent not in their hearts to the law of God, that it is holy, just, and ought so to be. Mark the plain and manifest places of the Scriptures, and in doubtful places see thou add no interpretation contrary to them; but (as Paul saith) let all be conformable and agreeing to the faith.
“Note the difference of the law and the gospel. The one asketh and requireth, the other pardoneth and forgiveth. The one threateneth, the other promiseth all good things to them that set their trust in Christ only. The gospel signifieth glad tidings, and is nothing but the promise of good things. All is not gospel that is written in the gospel book. For if the law were away, thou couldst not know what the gospel meant; even as thou couldst not see pardon, favor, and grace, except the law rebuked thee, and declared unto thee thy sin, misdeed, and trespass. Repent and believe the gospel, as saith Christ in the first of Mark. Apply always the law to thy deeds, whether thou find lust in the bottom of thine heart to the law-ward; and so shalt thou no doubt repent, and feel in thyself a certain sorrow, pain, and grief to thine heart, because thou canst not with full lust (i. e., desire) do the deeds of the law. Apply the gospel, that is to say, the promises, unto the deserving of Christ, and to the mercy of God and his truth, and so shalt thou not despair, but shalt feel God as a kind and merciful Father. And his Spirit shall dwell in thee; and shall be strong in thee; and the promises shall be given thee at the last, (though not by-and-by, lest thou shouldst forget thyself and be negligent), and all threatenings shall be forgiven thee for Christ's blood's sake, to whom commit thyself altogether, without respect either of thy good deeds or of thy bad.
“WILLIAM TYNDALE.”
Who first printed the New Testament in English in 1525, and was martyred at Vilvoord, near Brussels, in 1536.
Healthfulness of Michigan.
At the present time people are eagerly seeking after those localities which from their natural healthfulness afford the best prospect of long life to their inhabitants. Thousands of invalids have gone to Colorado and California. Many more have sought a home in Minnesota; while others have chosen the warmer climate of Florida. Some have sought in foreign lands what they imagined to be a more salubrious climate than our own varied country affords. But if we may credit a recent report of Dr. Baker, Secretary of the Michigan State Board of Health, we may find in the peninsular State a climate quite equal, even superior, to many of those which have been so eagerly sought by invalids. According to this report, the death rate in Lansing, one of the principal cities of the central portion of this State, in 1874, was only 10.2 per thousand inhabitants. In Knoxville, it was 11.4; in Jacksonville, Florida (1872), 13.4; Pittsburg, 26.46; San Francisco (1873), 19.33; New York (1874), 27.62; Denver, Col. (1873), 17.28; New Orleans (1872), 30.6; Memphis (1872), 46.6. The death from consumption was also much less than in any other of the localities mentioned, being only 1.6 per thousand.
These facts are worthy of notice by those who are contemplating a change of residence for the sake of health. Battle Creek is one of the most healthful cities in the whole State, besides being one of the most pleasant; and the Health Institute is located in the most healthful and delightful portion of the city. It is a most inviting retreat for the sick and suffering. Send for a circular.
The Sabbath in China.
By J. H. W.
EVERY reader of the REVIEW doubtless read with interest, the extracts published a few months since concerning the Sabbath-keepers in China. To many of us it seemed almost like a romance; and especially to those who are somewhat acquainted with the Chinese in California, among whom the idea of moral obligation seems scarcely to be entertained. But there is room for much reflection on this subject. Doubtless most of those who come to America are of the lower classes, but even among them there is evidence of intelligence. They can all read and write, and they are all experts in figures, or numbers. Though they are slaves to custom, they show that they are able to adjust themselves to almost any situation.
While in Woodland, Cal., with the family of Bro. Saunders, they related to me the following: A Chinaman was one day doing a job of work for them, who understood that they kept the seventh day. He questioned them about it, and remarked, “My father studied law twenty years in China, and he kept the seventh day; he said it was right.”
I regret that they did not further inquire into the matter, and learn more about it. With the facts recently developed in Europe, reported by Bro. Andrews, all these items become interesting. The remark above cited seems to be a link in the chain of evidence that the Lord’s ancient Sabbath has witnesses in the Chinese empire.
J. H. W.
Stockton, Cal., May 27.
Deaf and Blind.
By Joseph Clarke
“Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not.” Isa. 42: 20. This language was applied by the prophet to Christ. In his daily intercourse with mankind, during his sojourn upon the earth, he did not seek to defend himself from every lisp of slander, but endured the contradiction of sinners against himself (Heb. 12: 3), and went on doing one good deed after another, just as the sun proceeds on in its daily course, leaving only a track of light, as the best reply to such as through envy and ill-will sought to destroy him.
Deaf and blind—yes, deaf to the hiss of envy, blind to the grimaces of demons and fools, and walking grandly forward in the humble but useful path of daily duty. He healed the sick, restored the blind, the deaf, and the lame, and was deaf only to the wicked who daily harassed his soul with their sour questions and dark hints. Daily he looked about for something to do for the unfortunate—blind only to the religious detectives who sought to turn his good into evil, and, in the most pious manner, to injure his influence with the people.
Deaf and blind; but never so to the poor and the needy. Never deaf or blind to the call of duty! Ah! how noble was this personage! He brought this kingly trait from Heaven! He did not find it here, and he set us a bright example which he wishes us strictly to follow.