Pilate enquired, "what is truth?" Jesus said, "Father sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth." We would attempt, therefore in this article, to show from his word what the Bride, the Lamb's wife is. It has been taught and hitherto universally believed that it is the church, or all who believe in Jesus. But to the law and testimony. Rev. xxi, 9—11. One of the seven angels said to John, come hither and I will show thee the Bride, or Lamb's wife. Now what did he present to John's vision? "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the Holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God." Thus we are taught by the angel, that she is a city most distinctly and gloriously described.
2d Witness, Paul the Apostle—Jerusalem that now is (or exists) is in bondage with her children. How? I answer, she is, and will be trodden down of the Gentiles until the seven times of the Gentiles run out, then the Lord will appear in his glory and build up Zion. "But Jerusalem that is above is free, which is the mother of us all;" for it is written, rejoice thou barren, that bearest not: Gal. iv, 22—28. Here also Jerusalem is styled a mother, and Christ's disciples her offspring.
3d Witness, The prophets who have written and whom Paul quotes, Isa. liv. He begins by saying, "sing O! barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into singing, and cry aloud. Enlarge the place of thy tent; for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the [now] desolate cities to be inhabited." He then describes her and says, "Thy Maker is thy husband. The God of the whole earth shall he be called." Verse 11. "I will lay thy stones of fair colors, and thy foundation with sapphires, and I will make thy windows of agates and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and great shall be the peace of thy children." Let us here pause and ask, Is this a figurative picture of the church, or is it a literal city, which is to have a husband, around which the wicked are to be gathered, but not by me saith the Lord? See Isa. liv, 15. Rev. xx, 9. Let the 17th verse decide; it reads, "This is the heritage or inheritance of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me saith the Lord."
Thus Isaiah, Paul, and the Angel, three good witnesses, by the mouth of which every word should be established, unite and testify that the "Bride of Christ" is the New Jerusalem and NOT THE CHURCH, and that we must attain to the divine righteousness in order to inherit it. As Abraham believed God and his faith was accounted unto him for righteousness, let us do likewise, that when Abraham is blessed with an inheritance in the city for which he looked, we may be blessed with him, see our Lord in his glory, and reign forever and ever.
Again according to the Bible, Zion has not yet borne her children; she is desolate or barren; but she will soon bring forth a nation at once, in a moment in the twinkling of an eye; then Zion, our mother, will bring forth all her children. Isa. lxvi, 8—14. How this will be effected, is explained by Paul. "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed in a moment at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound and the dead shall be raised incorruptible." Then the living shall be changed; for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with the voice of the archangel and trump of God, the dead in Christ shall be raised—then we which are alive shall be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air, and from thenceforth they will ever be with the Lord. "The bridegroom" adds, "comfort one another with these words." If the disciple is cheered by these words now, how much more glorious his consolation, and how perfectly satisfied will he be when he awakes "in his likeness," or is "born from the dead," and dwells at Zion, in Jerusalem. See Isa. xxx, 19, lxvi; xii, 4. "Ye shall be borne upon her sides and dandled upon her knees, as one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem."
1st Objection. But some will say, It is presumption and folly to believe, "that Christ will have a literal city as described in Rev. xxi, 1—27, and in the prophets, for his bride or wife. Reader, please turn to Isa. lxii, 1—7. and read, "For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest. Thou shalt be called by a new name which the Lord shall name." Verse 4. "Thou shalt be called Hephzi-bah"—that is, my delight is in her, and thy land shall be called Beulah,—i. e. married, for the Lord delighteth in thee and thy land shall be married.
2d Objection. Rev. xix, 7. "And his wife hath made herself ready." It is asked, how can a city make herself ready? I answer, if the objector will read the previous verses he will see that it is the whole church who says this. They sing, "the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his bride or wife hath made herself" not we have made ourselves ready. Moreover, often persons and cities are said to do things when the Lord is the author of it, see Jer. i, 10. Paul in speaking of Abraham and Christ says, God hath prepared for them a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God. Heb. xi, 10. Peter said it was reserved in heaven, and READY to be revealed, in the last time. Christ declared, in his Father's house were many mansions.
When this glorious city shall from thence appear, and the saints are raised and robed in righteousness divine, then will come the marriage of the Lamb; and as it is written, Blessed are they which are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb. Thus, God prepares the city or bride for Christ and the guests.
3d Objection. As the bride is arrayed in fine linen, clean and white, afterwards explained to be the righteousness of saints, it is argued that the bride must certainly be the saints.
But I would still contend that the bride is a literal city, and the saints her children, who are to ornament the Bride. In Isa. xlix, 13, we read, "Sing O! heavens, and be joyful O! earth;" why? "for the Lord hath comforted his people and will have mercy on his afflicted." Thus far he speaks of the saints. Now of the Bride. "But Zion said, the Lord hath forsaken me, my Lord hath forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee: I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands, THY WALLS are continually before me. Thy children shall make haste. Lift up thine eyes, all these [children] gather themselves together and come to thee. As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt clothe thee with them all as an ornament, and bind them on thee as a bride doth." Then according to this testimony, the New Jerusalem is to be adorned, or ornamented with the saints in fine linen, clean and bright.
Once more. I regard the parable in Matt. xxii; 1—14, as a strong objection to the theory that the church is the "Bride." It is conceded that God is the King, his Son, the Bridegroom—the man without a wedding garment, sinners; and the guests robed, the church. I ask, who then is the Bride? certainly not the guests. Who then? Let the angel tell us "that great city, the holy Jerusalem."
Finally, throughout the sacred oracles there is a plain distinction kept up between Zion and her daughter, between the New Jerusalem our mother, and the church of the first born, and between the glorious city, and her immortal inhabitants—selah, i. e. mark that. In addition to the above passages, see Matt. ix, 15. Can the children of the Bridegroom mourn as long as he is with them? but the days will come when he will be taken away from them and they shall fast, or mourn. But at his return, second advent, they will cease to mourn; for they will be comforted in Jerusalem, and the days of her mourning shall be ended: see Isa. lx. He adds, "Thy people shall be all righteous, they shall inherit the land (not the church) forever; this the prophet describes as having a city located on it, with walls and gates, which is to be their residence.
And now, dear reader, strive for that inheritance, walk in all the ordinances and commands of Christ, that you may be found of him without spot and blameless; for such only will have a right to the tree of life and enter through the gates into the City, where sickness, sorrow, death, nor any evil will ever come.
The Sabbath in Bangor
By Horace W. Lawrence
From Bro. Lawrance.
DEAR BRO. WHITE: I am much interested in the paper and wish it continued. Affliction and death in my small family has prevented me from expressing my feelings before. A few of us in Bangor (Franklin Co.) have embraced the Sabbath. Also, a few in St. Lawrence Co. I purpose to give information, if I find any receiving the "Review and Herald" who are not interested in it.
In my short observation, where the Sabbath has obtained, I find elements of opposition stirred similar to what the truth produced in 1843 and 1844. I have believed for some time that there was truth in the Word that would single out God's people, and make manifest the right.
I cannot say that I think all the light now shines. I am not satisfied with regard to all points of doctrine as I am with regard to the Sabbath. But I feel like exhorting brethren to beware how they decide against any idea of truth that brings them into friendship with the world.
HORACE W. LAWRENCE.
Norfolk, N. Y., March, 1st, 1855.
The Sealing Time
By John Hamilton
From Bro. Hamilton.
MY DEAR BRO. IN CHRIST, J. WHITE, AND OTHERS OF LIKE PRECIOUS FAITH: I take the liberty to address these lines to you, that you may know that there are in this place a few that sigh and cry for the desolations of Israel, and are striving to keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. And we hope to join in the singing of the "new song," with the 144,000, having the seal of God in their foreheads. We feel that the sealing time is passing, and God's people are being sealed, that they may stand in the day of trouble.
We feel to praise God that he guided his servants this way with the last message of mercy. It first came to us by Brn. J. N. Andrews and H. Edson. The truth caused some of God's children to tremble, and they began anew to search the Word, and found much evidence for the seventh-day Sabbath. But opposition came like a flood, and caused some to stagger, but not to turn about. No, bless the Lord.
Then Bro. Edson came, and strengthened the feeble hands that hung down, and one "Mary" chose that good part that I trust will not be taken from her.
Then on the 20th of the present month, directed by the Spirit of the living God, came Brn. J. Bates and H. Edson and expounded to us the word of God more fully, and Bro. and Sr. Miller, and myself and wife are rejoicing that we have, in this eleventh hour, learned that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord our God, and that he has never changed nor altered it. And that we cannot be found keeping the commandments of God, and leave out or violate the fourth. The last two Sabbaths we have tried to keep according to the commandment, and we feel that in keeping them there is great reward.
Dear Brethren and Sisters, pray for us that our loins may be girt about with truth, and our lamps burning, and that we may be found waiting for our Lord when he shall return from the wedding. Oh, ye tried ones of our Saviour, you know what we are passing through, while, by the power of truth, we are compelled to take a stand, and embrace views that are opposed by those we dearly love, and who profess to be looking for the Saviour; but he tells us, if we love father or mother, brother or sister more than him, we are not worthy of him. May we all be overcomers, that we may be clothed in white, and that our names may not be blotted out of the Lamb's book of life. Are any of our dear brethren that are keeping the Sabbath, traveling this way, I hope they will remember where we live, and call and see us.
I wish you to continue to send me the "Review and Herald." We have received two numbers of late. Before that, it had stopped, I know not why.
Yours in the strong bonds of Christian love, waiting for redemption, when Jesus shall come.
JOHN HAMILTON.
Fredonia, N. Y., Feb. 29th, 1852.
UNCHANGEABLE DURATION OF THE MORAL LAW.
Extract from a Sermon by Joseph Stennett.
"Those persons subvert the doctrine of our blessed Saviour, who deny their obligation to the moral law, and pretend that Christ hath delivered us from the obligation of it, as some have had the confidence to assert. As if it did not now oblige us in point of duty; or, however, that all the regard we were to have to it, was only to arise from a principle of generosity, so as to make some thankful returns to God for his favors, but not because we are obliged to it. In answer to this absurd notion, no more needs be added to what hath been already said concerning the establishment of the moral law: but however, we may remark the pride and arrogance of those persons, who would fain fancy themselves in such a condition, that there is no duty encumbent on them; as if they might act as they pleased, and yet incur no guilt. And their great folly, as well as arrogance, further appears, in that since they pretend nothing can be required of them in a way of duty; consequently, all that they perform is a sort of work of supererogation, more than is required of them. Thus they who pretend to abdicate all merit, seem to seek something or other which may look meritorious; for if they do something more than they are obliged to do, then it may be fairly enough said there is something of merit in what they do. How far is this from the temper which Christ requires in his disciples, who, when they have done all those things which are commanded them, are taught to say we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do; and to acknowledge their imperfections in what they have done. But then it is absurd, on the other hand, for them to pretend many things are good, as they are performed from a principle of generosity, but that they are not so in point of duty; for if the obligation of the law was taken away, and so their conformity to it were not a duty; to what purpose should they shew their generosity this way? For if there were no duty, the transgression of the law could be no sin, and if no sin, God could not be displeased with them. And then, if they did something conformable to the law, seeing it was no duty, what thank could they have from man, or what applause from God himself? So that according to their notion, good and evil would be things indifferent. So strangely absurd are men when they abandon this rule which God has laid down in his word; this rule of duty, to which we ought to be conformable under all dispensations."
This shows how guilty they are who break any part of the moral law, and establish principles which may dispose men to do so; as those of the Romish communion do.
One of these laws forbids idolatry, and commands that we should worship the only true God, and serve him only; and another forbids our worshiping of images. How do these make void the laws of God by their own traditions, when they multiply to themselves objects to worship, and bow down to graven images, contrary to the express letter of the divine law? These are highly to be reproved, in that they act contrary to the express words of our Saviour, who says, that not one jot or tittle of the law is to pass away.
Another instance I may give you, in which many others transgress this righteous rule: and that is, in not observing the fourth command according to its precise and literal meaning, but imposing other interpretations upon it, as if at least it were partly vacated and abrogated; when according to the tenor of the words of Christ in our text, it appears to remain still in its full force. It will not be sufficient for men to say, it is enough that some time be devoted to the worship and service of God: for that must necessarily have been, had there never been any fourth command in the world. It is also in vain to say that that law requires only a seventh part of time, and leaves it to us to determine what part that shall be: for God himself hath determined that for us, as every one may see. Nor will it be to any purpose for men to pretend they keep this law, when they keep another day which God hath appointed for work, instead of the Sabbath, and work on that day, which God hath appointed for rest. Would this be understood, as a just observation of a law amongst men? If a day of fasting or thanksgiving were appointed by public authority; would it excuse any who neglected the observation of that determined day, which was appointed by authority, to say they kept a day, though it were not the precise day appointed? Would this way of reasoning do amongst men? And thus can it be called obedience to the fourth command, to keep another day than that which God hath required therein? Is keeping the first day of the week obedience to that law which requires our keeping the seventh? Then Jeroboam said well, that he obeyed the law of God in keeping the feast on the eighth month, because he kept it on one of the months of the year, though the law appointed it should be kept on the seventh. Men do not trifle so in the observance of human laws; why should they then trifle with the laws of God? Every one understands, if such a law requires such a day of the week and month to be observed, what the meaning of it is. And why should it be supposed so difficult in this case, of keeping the Sabbath, when God speaks in the most decisive terms that can be? Can it be supposed that this law is partly vacated, or abolished, when our Saviour says, that not one jot or tittle of this law shall pass away; heaven and earth may sooner pass away than this law? Is there any place in the New Testament wherein this is precisely declared to be abolished? On the contrary, did not our Saviour and his own apostles practice this law punctually and precisely? Is there any instance of the Jews taxing them with the breach of any one of these laws, from any fair color and pretence? It is not therefore a sufficient excuse for men to say they keep some part or some parcel of the law, when our Saviour declares the whole is obligatory on us; and not one jot or tittle of it is to be abolished. Does not the apostle James say the same thing, and declare, that he who offends in one point, is guilty of all: that is, violates the whole law; because it is the same authority that enjoins all."
Sermons, Vol. 2, p. 480. London, 1731.
To Correspondents.
By Editor
J. Hamilton. We are happy to send you the paper again. A short time after the "Bible Class on the Sabbath Question" was held at Fredonia your paper was returned, and, if we mistake not, on it was written "Refused." We supposed that it was returned by your request, and therefore discontinued it. Who returned it?
M. M. Truesdell. We have sent the paper regularly to John Easterbrook, Painted Post, Steuben Co. We now send the numbers requested.
F. Wright. We have sent the paper to your address regularly, and very much regret that you have not received it. We have sent you again all the back numbers.
D. D. Corcoron. We have sent the paper regularly to you and Sr. E. Young, and since you have written twice we have sent the back numbers twice. We shall for the future pre-pay the postage on all papers sent to Canada West. Those who wish the paper will of course send us the money to pay the postage.
Wm. G. Sheffield. We have sent the paper to A. Mott, P. Champlain, S. A. Steadman, A. R. Mott, B. Dunn, S. N. Littlefield and yourself to North Shoreham, Block Island, R. I. We now send your paper and S. N. Littlefield's to New Shoreham. If this is not right please inform us. We have sent you the pamphlets requested, also the back numbers of the present volume of the paper.
Letters received since March 2.
By Editor
I. Alden, E. D. Cook, E. Wiles, C. B. Preston 2, B. Benson, A. Woodruff, M. M. Truesdell, S. W. Rhodes, H. W. Lawrence, W. Morse, J. N. Andrews, F. Wright, O. Nichols, Wm. Camp, A. S. Stevens, D. D. Corcoron, G. P. Cushman, S. B. French, C. K. Farnsworth, J. Pomeroy, J. Griswold, G. H. Knight, H. O. Nichols, E. Andrews, P. Stevens, H. Patten, L. Carpenter, W. Bates, R. R. Chapin, H. Cole, J. Bates, M. Gates, L. O. Stowell, E. R. Seaman, C. E. Harris, P. R. Chamberlain, R. F. Cottrell, W. G. Sheffield, C. W. Sperry, N. A. Hollis.
Receipts.
By Editor
S. W. Gove, J. Hamilton, B. Clark, E. Rew, W. Mayhew, Sister Thatcher, H. Peck, R. Peck, L. Freeto, W. Bixby, C. B. Spaulding, M. M. Truesdell, J. Barrows, E. P. Burdict, E. R. Seamen, A. Miller, each $1.
S. G. Russel, D. Barrett, E. A. Miller, R. Moran, J. Claxton, each $2. A. Hazeltine, $3. M. North, $4.
J. Locke, N. R. Rigby, S. Elmer, C. Totman, L. Winchel, L. T. Ingraham, L. Priest, P. Folsom, a Friend, S. Anthony, S. R. C. Denison, R. Smally, C. Salisbury, S. B. Pratt, S. Frank, each 50 cents.
H. S. Case, $1.25, A. B. Pearsall, 75 cents, F. Eastman, 25 cents.
For the Pamphlet entitled "Experience and Views"
A. Smith 50 cents.
CHANGE OF POST OFFICE ADDRESS.
By Editor
All communications, orders and remittances for the paper, should hereafter be addressed to James White, Editor of the Review and Herald, Rochester N. Y. As there are probably a number of the same name in Rochester, it will be necessary that our letters should have Editor of the Review and Herald plainly written upon them, that they may not fall into other hands.
Brn. Baker and Ingraham may be expected to attend the following meetings: East Bethel, Vt. March 27 and 28; Unity, N. H. at the house of Bro. John Jones April 3 and 4; Ashfield, Mass. April 10 and 11; and April 17 and 18 at such place as Bro. Luther Payne of Ware, Mass. may appoint.
Bro. G. W. Holt and another brother, may be expected at Manlius, N. Y. March 27 and 28; Lincklaen, where Bro. E. A. Pool may appoint March 30. Elmira, April 3 and 4; Martin's Hill, April 6; Bath, April 8; Wheeler, April 10 and 11; Ulysses, Pa. April 17.
N. A. Hollis’s New Address
By Editor
Bro. N. A. Hollis wishes us to say that his Post Office address will be North Hyde Park, Vt. after the first of April.
J. N. Andrews’s Address
By Editor
The Post Office address of Bro. J. N. Andrews is Rochester, N. Y.