Earlier text: Examination of T. M. Preble’s First-day SabbathA WRITER in the London Leisure Hours, makes the following remarks, which are full of truth, as they are of good common sense: “The father who plunges into business so deeply that he has no leisure for domestic duties and pleasures, and whose only intercourse with his children consists in a brief word of authority, or a surly lamentation over their intolerable expensiveness, is equally to be pitied and to be blamed. What right has he to devote to other pursuits the time which God has allotted to his children? Nor is it an excuse to say that he cannot support his family in their present style of living without this effort. I ask, By what right can his family demand to live in a manner which requires him to neglect his most solemn and important duties? Nor is it an excuse to say that he wishes to leave them a competence. Is he under obligations to leave them that competence which he desires? Is it an advantage to be relieved from the necessity of labor? Besides, is money the only desirable bequest which a father can leave to his children? Surely, well-cultivated intellects; hearts sensible to domestic affection, the love of parents, of brothers and sisters; a taste for home pleasures; habits of order, regularity, and industry; hatred of vice and vicious men, and a lively sensibility to the excellence of virtue, are as valuable a legacy as an inheritance of property, simple property, purchased by the loss of every habit which would render that property a blessing.” Dangers of the Way.
By Jos. Clarke
ALL situations in life, all the professions, and arts, and employments, in which we as citizens are engaged, have each their peculiar temptations. The farmer, the mechanic, the man of traffic, the laborer, the teacher and the pupil, the master and his servant, the man of learning and the ignorant man, the professional man, and the capitalist, are all brothers, with like weaknesses and frailties. About each employment and business of life, Satan has woven a web of temptation, and has artfully set his hidden traps and nets. The servant is taught to practice eye-service; and the master is prompted to tyranny and oppression. The mechanic and merchant are taught to overreach and deceive; and the farmer is urged and inflamed to murmur and complain of the weather and the seasons, of blight and mildew, and of all the drawbacks which come to us in the wake of Adam's first sin; for which, thorns and thistles were the first installment, received in the line of recompense; and now ungrateful man gloomily and Cain-like, tills the earth with oaths and blasphemy, cursing his teams, his men, and even his God. The man of trade by ingenious artful silence, or open deceit, fills his pockets with ill-gotten gains, or murmurs at the gales, which wreck his ships, and swallow up his treasures. The teacher pines, or is angry, at the apathy, or ill temper of his pupils; while the pupil is stirred to rebellion, by the requirements of his teacher. The minister who preaches the truth to others may fail to apply it to his own heart; or he may be so intent upon establishing the truth of, and explaining, disputed points, that the more practical points are in danger of being forgotten, overlooked, and neglected, leaving him in worse than Egyptian darkness. The greatest danger to which all are exposed, arises from the fact that we do not often discover the peril until the disaster is upon us. Our business, whatever it may be, is so pleasant to us that we devote to it nearly every moment of time, and thus little is left for the more important affairs, of devotion, self-examination, and prayer. The heart and heart-work are neglected; the Bible, and especially the more practical portions, are too much neglected. How many who are thoroughly posted upon the prophecies, and other disputed points, are mere babes and novices in those portions which treat upon personal, living experience. Were the authors of such works as Flavel upon Keeping the Heart, Mason upon Self-knowledge, Doddridge's Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, to rise from their graves, and re-assume their testimony where they laid it down in death, what a shaking would their searching, close, practical, but sweet discourses, produce among us. What we want is, discernment to know the work of God's Spirit, and to distinguish it, even when obscured by the imperfection and frailty of the erring one. No amount of ability and knowledge, will atone for want of discernment (the eye-salve); and especially when religious teachers are in the fault, will such a lack be disastrous. A living daily experience (not of self-flattery, but) of humility, and self abasement, an experience of victories over the pride of one's own heart (not over others), an experience won by prayer and meditation, by watching and self-denial, and productive of good results, will bring about a state of things in the heart, fitting it for labor or rest. Sweet is the sound of that voice which brings liberty and peace to the soul bound by sin. Oh, the precious fruits of the Spirit! God grant that they may be revived. Had the friends of Job possessed the humility which the publican did, they would not have made so great a mistake, in their labor with Job; they came to him in pride, but they knew it not. They needed humility, a knowledge of the plague of their own hearts, and with it a knowledge of the work of God in the heart. It must be admitted that professors of religion need to begin the Christian life anew. It is greatly to be feared that the teaching alluded to in the former part of this article, would not be relished by many religious people. It is true, that all of these authors were more or less in the dark, upon some points of present truth; but we well know how to account for this; their blemishes we need not notice. Their depth of experience, their close study of their own hearts, and their knowledge of the things of God, we cannot afford to lose. Their mode of applying the word of God, practically, we should all understand; especially those intrusted with the care of souls. What a responsibility! yet what a privilege to move aright in this matter! What a terrible mistake, to mislead others; yet we may do this, while confident that we are doing just right. Let us all strive to realize this as we shall when probation closes, and so fit ourselves for the work that our works may bear the test of the Judgment. COULD'ST THOU NOT WATCH ONE HOUR?
Thy night is dark—behold! the shade was deeper
In the old garden of Gethsemane,
When that calm voice awoke the weary sleeper,
Could'st thou not watch one hour alone with Me? O thou, so weary of thy self-denials,
And so impatient of thy little cross,
Is it so hard to bear thy daily trials,
To count all earthly things a gainful loss? What if thou always suffer tribulation?
And if thy Christian warfare never cease?
The gaining of the quiet habitation
Shall gather thee to everlasting peace. But here we all must suffer, walking lonely
The path that Jesus once himself hath gone;
Watch thou in patience through this one hour only.
This one dark hour before the eternal dawn. The captive's oar may pause upon the galley,
The soldier sleep beneath his plumed crest,
And peace may fold her wings o'er hill and valley,
But thou, O Christian, must not take thy rest. Thou must walk on, however man upbraid thee,
With Him who trod the wine-press all alone;
Thou wilt not find one human hand to aid thee,
One human soul to comprehend thine own! Heed not the images forever thronging
From out the foregone life thou liv'st no more.
Faint-hearted mariner, still art thou longing
For the dim line of the receding shore? Wilt thou find rest of soul in thy returning
To that old path thou hast so vainly trod?
Hast thou forgotten all thy weary yearning
To walk among the children of thy God? Faithful and steadfast in their consecration,
Living by that high faith to thee so dim,
Declaring before God their dedication,
So far from thee, because so near to him. Canst thou forget thy Christian superscription—
“Behold we count them happy which endure!”
What treasure wouldst thou, in the land Egyptian,
Repass the stormy water to secure? And wilt thou yield thy sure and glorious promise
For the poor, fleeting joys earth can afford?
No hand can take away the treasure from us
That rests within the keeping of the Lord. Poor, wandering soul, I know that thou art seeking
Some easier way, as all have sought before,
To silence the reproachful inward speaking,
Some landward path unto an island shore! The cross is heavy in thy human measure,
Thy way too narrow for thine inward pride;
Thou canst not lay thine intellectual treasure
At the low footstool of the Crucified. Oh! that thy faithless soul, one hour only,
Would comprehend the Christian's perfect life,
Despised with Jesus, sorrowful and lonely,
Yet calmly looking upward in its strife. For poverty and self-renunciation
Their Father yieldeth back a thousand-fold;
In the calm stillness of regeneration
Cometh a joy they never knew of old. In meek obedience to the Heavenly Teacher
Thy weary soul can only find its peace;
Seeking no aid from any human creature,
Looking to God alone for thy release. And he will come in his own time and power
To set his earnest-hearted children free;
Watch only through this dark and painful hour,
And the bright morning yet will break for thee. You ask, “Of what use is it to acquire means of enjoyment, and then be unable to enjoy those means?” The wise man answered that question centuries ago; or rather, he made the assertion, “It is an evil under the sun.” This is a lesson I wish all young men would learn. May we seek that good part, which is sure to grow better as every thing else grows worse.—Sel. Charity That Spills Over the Rim
WHEN our cup runs over, we let others drink the drops that fall, but not a drop from within the rim; and we complacently call this charity. A. W. Spencer: For an exposition of Rom. 14:1-6, see History of the Sabbath by J. N. Andrews, pp. 183-186, and Both Sides, pp. 12- 14. Thos. Demmon: We think Paul in Galatians is speaking of that system by which the Jew supposed he secured justification from his transgressions of the ten commandments. And in his effort to expose their error and show them the need of Christ for the forgiveness of sin, he would sometimes speak of the moral law exclusively, as he evidently does in Gal. 3:13. N. P. Stearns: Do not take so much to heart the divisions that exist in the professedly religious world. The trouble is not in the Bible, but in the use people make of it. Take the teachings of that word without regard to human mysticisms. Interpret it as you would any other book, or rather let it be its own interpreter, the figurative language being explained by the literal, and the literal being understood as it reads. Most of the texts you mention as being urged to prove a return of the Jews were written before their captivity and evidently refer to their restoration therefrom. Others apply to the future introduction of the immortal state. To guard against being misled on the Jew question, always bear in mind one fact: The change that took place in relation to Israel at the first advent of Christ was not the plucking up and casting away of the entire Israelitish tree, but only the breaking off of the unbelieving branches, and the grafting in of the believing Gentiles to supply their place. This is set forth by Paul in Rom. 11, in a manner too clear to be mistaken. And since the days of Christ the Israelitish tree is composed of believing Gentiles and believing Jews; that is, such of them as believe in Christ. There is now no other tree and no other Israel. The broken-off branches, the unbelieving Jews, are entitled to no further promises unless they become again grafted into the tree by believing in Christ. And so whatever scriptures concerning Israel, no matter when written, nor where found, can be shown to have their application this side of Christ, they apply to the spiritual and not the literal seed. Thomas Hansen: The word “Jesus” in Heb. 4:8, should be translated Joshua. The original word is rendered both Jesus and Joshua; and the context shows that it should here be rendered Joshua. J. Hoff: For an exposition of Isa. 65:20, see article from Geo. J. Butler in REVIEW, Vol. 35, No. 4. W. J. Haynes: We think the five verses you name (Matt. 5:39-42) are to be taken as they read, and to be thus acted upon, always, however, under the guidance of a sober and sanctified judgment. Different circumstances will lead us to different actions, though the principle underlying those actions is exactly the same. Christ here lays down a principle. He refers to the practice followed under the former dispensation, of giving an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, &c., and then tells his disciples that if smitten on one cheek, rather than return the evil, they should suffer themselves to be smitten on the other, and if a man’s coat was taken, he should give his cloak also, or if compelled to go a mile, go two, rather than to prolong the strife, or endeavor, as the expression is, to pay a man back as good as he gives. So the giving and the lending, of verse 42, is to be governed by the reasonableness of the request. Suppose a person comes to us representing that his family is greatly in need, and wants the gift or the loan of fifty dollars. We are satisfied that what he has said is correct, but we know also that he has not judgment to make a judicious use of the money he asks. Now while it is our duty, if in our power, to help this man, it may not be our duty to do it in the way he asks, by the gift or loan of money. We may help the family to things they need, and may perhaps be of great service to them by giving them some good advice and counsel. What our Saviour would teach us is, that we are to render assistance to those in need, and do it on the principle of loving our neighbors as ourselves, and not on the principle of receiving as much in return. See Luke 6:35, 36; Rom. 12, &c. M. J. Church: For an explanation of Rev. 1:7, showing how they that crucified the Saviour can see him at his second coming, see Thoughts on Rev. 1:7, and Thoughts on Daniel 12:2. U. S. T. E. A.: You should have more fully explained the reason of your question. We do not understand that there is any difference between the Old and New Testaments in regard to the beginning of the day. J. H. W. To THE Seventh-day Adventists, Battle Creek is a point of great importance. Here are all our publishing interests which do very much in molding the destiny of the cause, and which are rapidly growing to be matters of considerable magnitude. And here also is our Health Institute in a most prosperous and growing condition, with the prospect, judging from the past, not only of being a means of relieving the sick, but of spreading the truth, and bringing men and women to Christ. Beside these, here is a large church. The Battle Creek church, from the nature of the case, must be a large church, and should be a very active and influential church. Those connected with our institutions alone as editors, mechanics, physicians, and helpers, with their families, would constitute a church of near one hundred members. And then it is important that there should also reside at Battle Creek others of the very best families among our people, from which suitable men may be selected as Trustees, Directors, counselors, and business men. The work suffers from want of good families that can board on liberal terms our young men and young women that work at our publishing house, and at the same time have a good influence over these young people. In short, we want at Battle Creek men and women who are able and willing to sacrifice for the good of our institutions. Let this state of things be established at Battle Creek, and prosperity will attend the work in all its branches. Confidence in the management of affairs at head quarters will then be established in the minds of our people everywhere, and they will only need to be informed of the wants of the cause to lead them promptly and liberally to cash over at every call. Our institutions are not the property of a few men. They are the property of all our people everywhere. And it is proper that the several conferences should send their best men to Battle Creek to represent, and care for, their interests in the cause at head quarters. In this they should, however, consult with the General Conference Committee. Our ministers are not capable of financial engineering. God has called them to another work. They must not leave the word of God to serve tables. We want men of experience, who have made life a success, so that they have character and wealth, and who can afford to nourish our institutions, instead of looking to them for pecuniary benefit. We can spare twenty families in Battle Creek for ten such. At present there is a great want of efficiency in the Battle Creek church. And for several years, this church, instead of being a benefit to our publishing work, has called from it much of the labors of those of our ministers who were connected with our publishing house, and wished to devote their entire time and strength to writing and editing. We have stood at this post as preacher, editor, business manager and general counselor, in the midst of a large, but very feeble church, that could not, or, at least, has not, given but little assistance, while, at the same time, it has frequently cast upon us burdens grievous to be borne. In our condition of comparative poverty, during the first ten years of our sojourn at Battle Creek, we served this church as preacher and pastor, for which services the church did not, directly, or indirectly, in any way whatever, make the least returns. This church has been made up, to a very large extent, of widows, orphans, and the poor generally, many of whom have shared our scanty purse at a time when we received for our entire services in the several departments of the cause only the amount paid to an ordinary printer. And what has added to the general discouragement, many that have composed the Battle Creek church have been, not only poor in this world's goods, but were of that almost valueless portion of community that are constantly shifting locality, who drifted into Battle Creek, not to help the cause, but were a burden to it. The result of all this has been, that at the very time we needed help in the work to which God had called us, we had our life well nigh pressed out of us from outside cares and troubles from an unworthy church. In view of these facts, sensible Christians will justify our efforts, in our worn condition, at the age of fifty, to either call around us suitable help, and those who will have a good influence, or to leave the work at Battle Creek to fresher and more able hands. The Sabbath Between.
By Uriah Smith
There are some who of late seem to take infinite satisfaction in the supposition that evidence is found in Acts 13:42 for Sunday-keeping. The text reads, “And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next Sabbath.” The margin says, “In the week between, or, in the Sabbath between.” The word rendered “next” is metaxu, and is defined by Greenfield, “between, Matt. 23:35. &c.; to metaxu, intervening time, en to metaxu, sc. chrono, in the mean time, meanwhile, John 4:31; by turns mutually, Rom. 2:12; ho metaxu, subsequent, following, succeeding, next. Acts 13:42.” 1. This is all the material with which they are furnished by this text. How do they manipulate it into proof for a first-day Sabbath? That the day in which Paul delivered the discourse of which this verse is a part, was the Sabbath, the seventh day of the week, as stated in verse 14, is on all hands conceded. Now granting that metaxu here means between (which is only one of its meanings), and that the request was that another meeting should be held on the Sabbath between, how does this prove that the first day of the week is here intended? The first day is not named; no day of the week is specified; and nothing is proved for the first day over any other of the days of the week. 2. The term Sabbaton is applied in the New Testament to only three objects: 1st. The Sabbath proper, the last day of each week. 2d. The space of time included between these Sabbaths, or the week. 3d. The yearly or ceremonial sabbaths of the Jews. Our friends will not claim that Acts 13:42 refers to any ceremonial sabbath. They contend that it does not refer to the Sabbath upon the last day of the week, as observed by the Jews. It must, then, in this instance, mean the only other thing to which it is ever applied, namely, the space between, or the whole week, as the margin of our common version reads, “In the week between.” But this would prove nothing for a first-day Sabbath. 3. If it means as is claimed, a Sabbath between, then we inquire, Between what? Between two seventh-day Sabbaths certainly; between that Sabbath on which Paul spoke and the next one like it. But what was there between these? There were six whole days of the week. And if one of these is a Sabbath between, who will tell us which one it is? This text neither tells nor intimates. It does not therefore look well for our friends to assume it too positively. 4. We inquire further, Who were the ones who made this request of Paul? Answer. The Gentiles. They were neither Jews nor Christians. They could not have been keeping the Sunday in honor of Christ’s resurrection, or in any sense as a Christian institution; for they made no profession of the Christian religion. This is proof positive that their request had no reference to the observance of the first day as a Christian Sabbath. 5. For these reasons, metaxu cannot here have the meaning of between, but that of next subsequent, next in order, following; and we do no violence to the language by giving it this definition; for it has this meaning equally with the other. So Dr. Bloomfield says: “The sense expressed in our common version is, no doubt, the true one. It is adopted by the best recent commentators and confirmed by the ancient versions.” 6. Having seen that there is no proof in verse 42 for a first-day Sabbath, we come now to verse 44, which forever annihilates the first-day claim by showing what day that next Sabbath was, namely, the next seventh day of the week. For we read: “And the next Sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God.” This record shows how Paul complied with the request of those Gentiles, and so determines what that request was. They did not ask him to speak on another. No; this “next Sabbath” of verse 44, on which Paul spoke, was the “next Sabbath” of verse 42, on which they requested him to speak. And does any one say that this was the Sabbath between? Let us see if it was. It is claimed on verse 42 that it was the Sabbath between because the word metaxu is used, which, among others, has that meaning. Now if this had been what the writer of the Acts designed to teach, he would have used in verse 44, this same word metaxu, which sometimes means between, or, more properly some stronger word which always has this meaning. But so far from this, he uses a word which never has this meaning. The word used in this case is erchomeno, a participle from the verb erchomai, which means primarily to come. So here it is the coming or next Sabbath, and so far as we have been able to learn is uniformly so translated. So Bloomfield says that the supposition that verse 42 means some intermediate week day is refuted by verse 44. But was not the envy of the Jews stirred as mentioned in verse 45, because they saw a new Sabbath supplanting the one they had always observed? Nothing of this kind is stated. But it says that when they saw the multitudes they were filled with envy. They were envious that the preaching of the gospel should call forth such crowds, while their own worship excited comparatively little attention. It is truly surprising that any one should urge such an argument as this in proof of a change of the Sabbath. It is not singular that first-day advocates should be anxious to dispose of this case; for as it stands, it effectually cuts off the claim that Paul made use of the seventh day for the purpose of getting the ears of the Jews, inasmuch as this meeting on the Sabbath pertained wholly to the Gentiles. But they do their cause no service by the method of argument which they adopt. U. S. “Will a Man Rob God?”
By J. H. W.
S. B. Treasurers frequently ask me, “What shall I do about brethren who do not pay their pledges? Some are even a year or more behind, and I cannot keep up my returns to the Conference.” I do not feel that I have any particular responsibility on me in regard to this query. It is a difficult matter with which to deal. It is to be regretted that there are brethren who do not feel the obligation that really rests upon them. Indebtedness in other directions is a matter of thought, and calculations are made accordingly. But many act as if there was no binding force in a promise made to God. They do not realize that their consciences become weak under the influence of violation of pledges, until there is a discount upon their honesty. This is one reason why our action in regard to our S. B. pledges is often an index to our spiritual standing. True, many will pray well, talk well, sing well, and perhaps feel well, while their pledges are utterly neglected; but we cannot help thinking their religious feeling is like that of the man who was so zealous, so demonstrative, that his shouts became really troublesome. Said a minister to his brother in the pulpit, “I will stop him.” He went, and whispered to the noisy man, and no more was heard from him. “How did you stop him?” queried his brother, fearful that he might have injured the good man’s feelings. “I asked him to give a dollar for the missionary fund,” was the answer. This religion that is so high in feeling and so low in doing may answer for popular, worldly purposes, but will scarcely give its possessor power and strength to stand in the time of trouble. But this does not answer the question; and in truth, it is hard to answer. But we want to raise another query. Why not treat these accounts as business men do in similar cases? Why not make out bills quarterly or half yearly, and send to delinquents? Remind them of their standing and remissness. Perhaps this would correct the evil—perhaps not. It may be worth the trial. In the meantime we would recommend to all who are needlessly in arrears to61 study every word of Eccl. 5:4. It informs us just how God regards this matter. The Rise of this Nation.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
THAT the two-horned beast of Rev. 13:11–18, symbolizes this nation, is clearly proved by all the specifications being exactly met here. John saw the two-horned beast “coming up out of the earth.” No other beast thus arose. All the others came up out of the sea. Dan. 7:3; Rev. 13:1. The winds blew upon the sea, and those beasts arose. The waters represent peoples and nations; Rev. 17:15; that is, there was war and commotion among the nations. Some fell, and upon their ruins arose another kingdom. The kingdoms of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, arose by aggression and conquest, by overthrowing other nations, and taking their places. But not so of this nation. It came up out of the earth. To illustrate: You plant some seeds in the ground. They spring up, grow, become very large, and spread themselves over much ground; so with this nation. The pilgrim fathers landed at Plymouth, felled the trees, erected their cabins, and began a settlement. One village sprang up, and then another, as it were, out of the earth. The seed has grown and spread from one little boat load to thirty-eight millions of people, and from one weak colony to forty great States. No other kingdom has been overthrown, no conquests made, but, unlike other nations, we have grown up out of the soil. See how villages and cities come up here in the West. A railroad depot is made miles from any habitation. In four years’ time there is a city of thousands! It seems like magic. Where did it come from? Who could describe it better than John?—it came “up out of the earth.” Says the Christian Statesman:— “We are a strange people, having no parallel in the history of the world as to our early origin. The nations of the old world are composed of peoples that have had their homes in the lands in which they live, they and their fathers, time out of mind. But our nation is composed of a different class of population. The land which we occupy was not known to civilization until a few hundred years ago.” Brief Thoughts on Various Passages.
By John Nevins Andrews
SEVERAL OLD TESTAMENT FACTS WHICH ARE ONLY MENTIONED IN THE NEW.
THE Old Testament does not state the length of the famine in the time of Elijah. He said to Ahab, “There shall not be dew nor rain THESE YEARS but according to my word.” 1 Kings 17:1. But our Lord and the apostle James each give it at three years and six months. Luke 4:25; James 5:17. We have also from James an important fact not given in the Old Testament. It is that Elijah prayed earnestly that the rain might be withheld as well as that it might again be sent when Baal had been put away from Israel. The drought was in answer to his prayer, as well as the rain at the close. It is likely Ahab had heard of this prayer for the drought, and that it was to this he alluded when he addressed Elijah as the one that troubled Israel. 1 Kings 18:17. We are indebted to the New Testament also for another impressive incident in the history of the Old. The book of Hebrews tells us what Moses the man of God said in the presence of God’s glory upon Sinai. “So terrible was the sight that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake.” Heb. 12:21. Well might even Moses tremble when he witnessed the descent of the Lord in fire upon it, and heard the voice of the trumpet exceedingly loud. Ex. 19:16, 18. This was the Father who thus descended. Jesus is to descend in flaming fire, in all his Father’s glory and with the loud blast of that same trumpet. See Matt. 16:27; 24:30, 31; 2 Thess. 1:7, 8. If Moses trembled at that revelation of the Father’s glory, the very counterpart of the second advent, how ought such as ourselves to tremble at the thought of beholding the revelation of the Son of God in flaming fire! To love the appearing of Jesus is indeed the certain consequence of loving him that is to appear. 2 Tim. 4:8. But if we are desiring that event, that it may end our troubles, while we are making no adequate preparation for it, we may consider the words of Amos as addressed directly to ourselves: “Woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on a wall, and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?” Amos 5:18—20. Such is an exact representation of the day of God as it will be to the self-deceived. Will it be such to the reader? Another important Old Testament fact is preserved to us in the New Testament only. It is that Enoch, who walked with God three hundred years, and who was then taken to be with God, was a prophet, and that he in express terms predicted the second coming of Christ: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.” Jude 14, 15. Wicked men will be astonished to find all their ungodly deeds and all their hard speeches preserved in the book of God, for them to answer to in that day. SAYINGS OF CHRIST PRESERVED TO US BY PAUL.
A precious saying of our Lord not on record in the evangelists, is preserved to us by Paul. In his farewell address to the elders of the church of Ephesus, he bade them “remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.” Acts 20:35. How this admirable saying of the Redeemer breathes the unselfish spirit of the Christian religion! How few of us act as though we believed it! Paul gives us one other of our Lord’s sayings, 2 Cor. 12:9, “My grace is sufficient for you.” THE PROMISE OF THE RESURRECTION AND IMMORTAL LIFE CONTAINED IN THE NEW COVENANT.
Our Lord proved the resurrection by that declaration of the Most High, “I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Ex. 3:6. He declared that God was not the God of the dead (for the dead cannot worship him. See Ps. 115:17; Isa. 38:18, 19); and that these words did therefore prove the resurrection of these men; also that they live to HIM, though dead, simply because that in his purpose they are to live. So God having their names in the book of life calls himself their God, a sure pledge, as our divine Teacher asserts, that they shall be resurrected. Compare Luke 20:37, 38; Rom. 4:17. And now observe the promise of the new covenant; “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” Jer. 31:33. This is a promise made to all the subjects of the new covenant. They are, with the exception of the present generation, in the same condition as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when the Saviour proved their resurrection by this declaration, “I am the God of Abraham,” &c. The new covenant pledges the Most High to be the God of those with whom it is made. Therefore these persons must live, though now nearly all numbered with the silent dead. And when made alive to receive the fulfillment of this promise, they can die NO MORE. Luke 20:36. In the light of this declaration of our great Teacher concerning what is implied in the words spoken at the bush, how precious is the following declaration: “At the same time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel, and they shall be my people.” Jer. 31:1. This is a certain promise that all that are “the Israel of God” shall be made alive with immortal life. Compare on Israel, Rom. 9:6; 11:17, 18; Gal. 6:16; Rev. 21:12. See also this promise involving the resurrection in Rev. 21:3, 7. The time which the Holy Spirit so emphasizes for this thing in Jer. 31:1, is the day of God’s wrath upon the ungodly. See the close of the previous chapter, Jer. 30:22–24. So the hymn is true which declares: “When the foe’s distress comes,
Then the church’s rest comes.”
D. T. BOURDEAU
By D. T. Bourdeau
We are all more or less creatures of extremes. In nothing is this more apparent than in our business deal. Unless self in us is wholly crucified, we are liable to rush on in attending to our own selfish interests and wants to the neglect of the sacred obligations and pledges that we owe to God and his cause; and thus it is that many are behind in their dues on Systematic Benevolence, on our periodicals, etc. One common extreme that we are liable to run into is to manifest especial interest in one branch of the cause to the exclusion of other branches. In order to prosper as individuals, as churches, and as conferences, we should be balanced in our minds with regard to the wants of the cause in all of its branches. The cause is one, and it is sacred in all of its claims upon us. If one branch of it is neglected, thus far it is lame, and must necessarily be retarded in its progress. The wants of the cause abroad are just as important as the wants of the cause nearer home, and vice versa. This rule works both ways. Therefore those who, when calls are made to advance the cause abroad, will strain every nerve to respond to those calls, and yet will neglect to pay their Systematic Benevolence to meet home wants, etc., make a mistake, to say the least. But better by far run into this extreme than to do nothing at all, as those are often inclined to do who are able to donate largely to the different enterprises in this great work. And frequently some overdo in lifting in foreign enterprises, because they see that something must be done, and those do little or nothing who should do much to prosper in the Lord. Another extreme is for small and weak churches in poor conferences to build large meeting-houses, or meeting-houses with expensive extras, and then keep all their Systematic Benevolence money out of the conference treasury for years. This course has a withering and discouraging influence. But even in such cases the past can be redeemed by following the advice of experienced brethren, and showing, as far as in us lies, and as soon as possible, a willingness to help advance the cause outside of our own locality. Such a course will often touch the heart-strings of others, and induce them to help us out of trouble. “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” This is true of churches and conferences as well as of individuals. It is not sacrilege for those who are behind on Systematic Benevolence, etc., to borrow money to cancel their indebtedness. Indeed, in many instances such a course would be justifiable. Men often do so in their worldly matters; and why not manifest at least as much interest for the Lord as we do for ourselves? To prosper in the Lord we must be willing to do more than this.