THE psalmist well says: “The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork.” Ps. 19:7. The works of the material creation are wonderful. When we look at the countless globes in the heavens, and consider the inconceivable distances which separate them, and consider that they move in exact and harmonious order, compared with which the working of the most perfect machinery that man ever made is rough and jarring, we may somewhat appreciate the words of the psalmist; and we cannot wonder that Dr. Young said: “The undevout astronomer is mad.” Every well-executed work of design speaks the praise of the designer. And wherever we see arrangement, order, harmony, especially in mechanism, in movements, we know that there is a designer. We cannot be persuaded that any successful piece of machinery is an accident; we cannot by any effort bring our minds to believe that the works of a watch, or anything similar to them, came by chance, or happened so. They need no voice to speak to us to assure us that they had their origin in power and intelligence, or in mind. So said David of the material heavens: “There is no speech nor language; without these their voice is heard.” Or as Addison beautifully expressed it:—
“What though no real voice nor sound,
Amid their radiant orbs be found;
In reason’s ear they all rejoice,
And utter forth a glorious voice,
Forever singing as they shine—
The hand that made us is divine!”
But, while the works of nature may arouse us to devotional feelings, they cannot guide our devotions. They but give evidence of the existence of an almighty Designer, but they cannot reveal him to us. Man himself is “fearfully and wonderfully made;” and he may stand in awe at the thought of his Maker; he may feel a sense of responsibility and of accountability to his Creator; but if left to the voice of nature alone, the highest shrine at which he will bow will be that of “The Unknown God.” He may even recognize the voice of conscience within him reproving him of the wrongs which he is conscious that he commits; but nature does not reveal to him the manner of service which would be pleasing to his Creator and Preserver, nor the means of freeing him from the guilt and consequences of his wrongs.
The psalmist, no doubt, had this train of thought passing through his mind, for, after ascribing to the creation all that it can do to incite us to devotion, he abruptly turned his subject, saying: “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandments of the Lord are pure, enlightening the eyes.” Man is highly exalted as to his capacities; there are wonderful possibilities in his being. Yet left altogether to himself he is helpless, especially in the understanding of morals. And this is not at all surprising; for no one is expected to understand the will of a governor, or the laws of the Government under which he lives, unless they are revealed to him. The psalmist, as quoted in this paragraph, ascribes to the law of the Lord an office which it is not possible for creation or nature to fill. The commandments of the Lord impart instruction, important and necessary instruction, which we cannot learn by observation, nor by the study of the material universe. No proof ought to be required on this point. The most powerful telescope or microscope can never reveal a single moral duty, or point out a remedy for a single moral wrong.
Now we attach no blame to nature because it does not perform the office of a written revelation. No such purpose was embraced in its design. We do not learn the laws of our Government by walking through the fields, by studying her dimensions and natural advantages, nor by noting her public improvements. When we have learned all that we can possibly learn from nature, we find beyond that an absolute necessity for direct revelation.
Opposers of the Bible are often met who declare that the doctrines of Christianity are contrary to reason; contrary to the conclusions legitimately drawn from our study of nature, of the deepest researches of science. Especially has the doctrine of the Atonement been made the subject of strong opposition, some affirming that it is immoral in its tendency, and is based on principles which are not in conformity with justice. But we think the whole objection is founded on misapprehension; and the object of this present argument is to show that reason is not opposed to the idea of atonement, but rather leads to it; that a coincidence of strict justice and mercy demands it; and that it vindicates the majesty of law, and therefore honors the Government. It is also our object to show that a written revelation is but the supply of an acknowledged want; that the gift of such a revelation is but a conformity to the plainest, simplest principles of government, principles which are universally recognized. And, therefore, consistency requires that such a revelation, when given, should be universally received and accepted.
The present is a mixed state, of good and evil. It is not our purpose now to inquire why it is so; we are viewing it as we find it—as it is; not as we might wish it were. And confined in our views to the present state, and to observation alone, or merely to reason without a written revelation, it is impossible to vindicate the justice of the controlling power, whether that power be called God or nature. Virtue is often trampled in the dust, and ignominiously perishes in its representatives. Vice is exalted on high, triumphs over justice and right, and its very grave is decorated with flowers, and honored with a monument. In the operations of nature, there is no discrimination manifested, and without discrimination there can be no conformity to justice. True, we see many exhibitions of benevolence, but we see also many things which cannot be reconciled with it. The righteous and the wicked, the just and the unjust, the innocent and the guilty, the aged and the little child, alike share the bounties of Providence, and together fall by the pestilence, or sink beneath some sweeping destruction. These facts have troubled the minds of philosophers, and caused the short-sighted philanthropist to be faint of heart. Many, reflecting on these things, and judging in the light of their own unassisted reason, have doubted that the world was ruled in wisdom and justice, and even denied the existence of a supreme, intelligent Being.
It seems singular that they who discard the idea of an intelligent Cause, of a personal supreme Being, generally invest nature with the attributes of such a Being, and ascribe to it all the wisdom of design and the merit of virtue. They talk of the laws of nature, of their beauty, their harmony, their excellency, as if nature were the sole guide of correct action, and the proper arbiter of destinies. They lavish encomiums on her operations as if she never tortured an innocent person nor permitted the guilty to escape. As before remarked, we find no fault with nature; but we do find fault with the unreasonable position assumed by her devotees. The laws of nature answer well their purposes. But this class of philosophers endeavors to make them answer a purpose for which they never were designed, and which they cannot fulfill. And we think that by correct reasoning it will be easy to show that their ideas are mere fallacies.
We would raise the inquiry, When they who deny the work of a supreme, personal Creator, speak of “the laws of nature,” what do they mean by the expression? It cannot mean the laws made by nature, as we speak of the laws of man, or of the laws of God; for nature never made any laws. Nature never knew enough to make a law. She could not deliberate; she could not plan; she did not have a knowledge of the future, whereby she could judge what was suitable, and devise means adapted to the end. Or, if she made the laws, she must have existed before she made them. How, then, were her operations regulated before laws existed? Is there a man living who will claim this for nature? Not one.
We have been thus particular in our queries on this point because we wish to notice another phase of this subject. It has been said by some that they do not deny the existence of the God of the Bible—of a personal, supreme Being; but yet they believe in the eternity of matter; that there never was done such a work as that of creating, in the sense of causing things to exist. And that matter, or nature itself, being eternal, the laws of nature must be eternal also, because they inhere365in matter. Thus, they say, you cannot imagine that matter could exist and gravitation not exist. And so of all the laws of matter. But, we reply, this leads to the same result which we have been examining. If the laws inhere in matter, they are essential to the very existence of matter; and it follows that, to suspend or reverse these laws would be to suspend the existence of matter; that is, to destroy it. In this view a miracle is an impossibility. Thus: Matter is not dependent on any power in the universe for its existence. But its existing laws are necessary to its existence. Therefore the laws of matter, or of nature, are beyond and independent of any power in the universe.
Against this theory we have objections to bring. It is not a part of our present purpose to argue against it from the Bible, as we shall try first to establish principles, natural and legal, outside of Bible proof. It is possible to present an argument which must be conclusive to believers of the Bible, besides the direct declarations of that book in favor of the existence of miracles, such as causing iron to swim upon the water, raising the dead, etc. But we waive this, and affirm that, in admitting the existence of God, these have not changed the issue before examined. This theory is open to all the difficulties which we find in the hypothetical theory of nature making her own laws. We have, then, harmony of movement without intelligence; mechanism without a mechanic; a design without a designer; a result in marvelous wisdom without plan or deliberation. To avoid the unscientific fact of a miracle, they have presented before us the greatest miracle which could be imagined! And David was mistaken when he said “the heavens declare the glory of God;” for if nature, and its laws, and its harmonies, and its almost infinitely varied operations attendant upon them, existed from eternity, and not by the creative power and act of God, then we ask, with an earnest desire for information, What did God ever do? What can He do? Why does He exist? And would not nature and its laws “move and have their being,” as they did from eternity, if God did not exist? Other theories are projected to prove that God does not exist. This is complaisant—it is accommodating; it does not deny His existence; its object is only to prove that he is not needed! that everything existed by chance; it acts by chance; and the interference of an all-wise, supreme, personal God, could only destroy the harmony of the work! Great is the philosophy of the nineteenth century, and modest and reverent as it is great!
We think there is but one reasonable and allowable construction that can be put upon the phrase, namely: They are the laws which the Supreme Being made for the government of nature. The Infinite Creator, He who made nature, subjected her to the operations of those laws, under which she is held in control. And, of course, those laws are within the power and under the direction of their Maker. That which we term a miracle is but a temporary suspension of, or change in, the operations of those laws. And this can require no greater exercise of power on the part of the Almighty than to set, and to keep, these laws in operation.
It is truly strange that men, of ability and intelligence in other respects, will deny that there are any but natural laws, or laws of nature. They ignore the distinction between natural and moral laws. But when judged in such a light the laws of nature are found to be imperfect and incomplete. In what respect? In this, that they present no standard of right, and are therefore no sufficient guides for human action. We cannot shape our conduct after such a model with reference to the rights of our fellow-men. As lovers of the most expansive benevolence, we may strive to imitate nature when she spreads abroad her bounties: her precious fruits and golden grain. But again she withholds these, and famine is the dire result. Shall we imitate nature in the desolations of the whirlwind, the earthquake, and the pestilence? Shall we indiscriminately spread ruin and destruction around us, involving alike the innocent and the guilty, the gray-headed and the prattling child? All answer, No. But each hand that is raised to check such a mad career practically acknowledges that nature, which is so blindly worshiped by many, presents to us no example worthy of our imitation.
Thus in fact the laws of nature do not and cannot satisfy the aspirations of man; no one can accept them as a standard of action; no matter what his theory may be, because they are destitute of the element of morality. We cannot trace a single moral element in their frame-work or their execution. He who studies them intelligently must be convinced that they are designed solely for a natural system,—not at all for a moral system. And this being so, it follows that they have no penalties, but only consequences. On this point many well-meaning men err, who recognize the distinction of moral and natural law; they speak of the penalties of the laws of nature, when no such penalties exist. The violations of natural laws are attended with consequences, uniform in operation, so that in nature we see an unbroken series of causes and effects, the results being the same whether issuing upon a responsible or an irresponsible object, regarding no distinctions of moral good or evil. EDITOR.
PAUL perceived that the lame man at Lystra had faith to be healed. He had heard Paul preach the gospel—forgiveness of sins through Christ—and he believed. In this case, doubtless, as in that of the palsied man whom Christ healed (Matt. 9:2-8), forgiveness of sins preceded the miracle; the healing of the soul was first, the healing of the body second. As the man heard of the great love of Christ for suffering humanity, and his power and willingness to forgive sins, how naturally the question would arise in his mind, "Why may I not as well be healed of my lameness as of my sins?" As Christ said, "Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise and walk?" Divine power is required for both, and it is no more wonderful that the sick should be healed than that sins should be forgiven.
Most religious teachers at the present time scoff at the idea that in this age of the world God miraculously heals diseases in answer to prayer; yet they profess to believe in the forgiveness of sins. There is a close relation between the two acts. They go together in the promise in James 5:14, 15; also in Ps. 103:3. Why should not Christians depend on God for the healing of the body as well as of the soul? "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Rom. 8:32.
At Lystra the Lord wrought a notable miracle through Paul; a man was healed who had been a cripple from his birth. The people, in their astonishment, cried out that they were gods, and the priest of Jupiter, with the people, was about to offer sacrifices to them. But Paul earnestly spoke against their idolatry. Verses 18, 19, convey a striking lesson:—
"And with these sayings scarce restrained they the people, that they had not done sacrifice unto them.
"And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and having stoned Paul drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead."
The man was healed; the miracle remained among them. Yet the same people who were scarce restrained from offering sacrifices to them as gods, with a little persuasion stoned Paul, and supposing he was dead, drew him out of the city and left him as they would a dead dog.
This is a most remarkable illustration of the fickleness of man, and of the utter worthlessness of popular applause. A minister of God should never be elated when the multitude praise him. Especially if the hearts of the people are not stirred by the truth and the Spirit of God, and if the current of popular favor is setting in his direction for the time, he should look with great distrust upon words spoken in his praise. Satan would not at all object to having the priests of Jupiter or of Mammon do homage to the servants of God, if he could persuade those servants to accept the worship; for he well knows if they do accept it he has destroyed their influence for good. "Beware of the flatterers." Christian workers have no worse enemies.
NEITHER should the minister be discouraged if the people turn against him. It is no evidence that God is not with him. The well-worn saying: "The voice of the people is the voice of God," is a miserable falsehood, and will lure to ruin all who trust in it. The people of Lystra had not as good reason to stone Paul as they had to do him reverence; but while he could dissuade them from worshiping him, he could not prevent their stoning him. So it always was, and so it is. A little playing upon the evil passions of men will quickly cause them to forget the best deeds and the greatest benefits.
We have no doubt that if Paul had permitted them to worship him, they would not have been so easily persuaded to stone him; for man does not so readily turn against his own idols. Forgetting this, many a minister has gone to destruction because he measured his success in his work by the applause he received. It was not without an evident reason that the Saviour said: "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets."
ALTHOUGH God at one time suffered the nations to walk in their own ways, they were not without excuse. "He left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness." Paul uses the same argument in Rom. 1:19-21. Since the creation of the world, the eternal power and godhead of the Creator are clearly seen through the things that he has made, so that all unbelievers are without excuse, even though they have not his revealed word.
Paul did not preach Christ to these men of Lystra, on this occasion; that would have been beyond their comprehension. They must have a knowledge of the true God, and see that they had sinned against him, before they could receive Christ, the remedy for sin.
Many professed teachers of the gospel do not profit by Paul's example. They tell sinners to come to Christ, but do not tell them why they should come; or, if they tell them to come and find pardon for sins, they do not tell them what sin is, nor of what sins they must repent. We say that Paul did not preach Christ, but he was working toward it as fast as possible. He told the people that they were sinners; not in a general way, but directly. He pointed out the special sin of which they were guilty. Had they acknowledged that much, he would have proceeded to point them to Christ. The only true order is, first the law then the gospel of good news—the relief from sin.
THE testimony of Paul and Barnabas to the brethren was that "we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God." But we are told that the world is constantly growing better, and that soon the whole world will accept the gospel. If this be so, then those words of Paul do not apply now as they did when spoken, and there will come a time when they will not apply at all. In another place, however, Paul said that "all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution;" and by a further examination of the chapter in which these words occur, we find that they apply "in the last days;" and further, the reason why the godly will suffer persecution is that "men shall be lovers of their own selves," corrupt in mind, and "reprobate concerning the faith." This state of things will not improve as time passes, but "evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived." It must be, then, that Paul's words to the brethren apply to all, and to none so much as to those who live in the last days.
SUPPOSE that the time should come when we would not be obliged to enter the kingdom through tribulation. Then we should have the wonderful spectacle of the disciple being above his master, and the servant greater than his lord. Who is there that aspires to such a position? Who is there that would rejoice to hear the Master say, "This one endured nothing for me"? Said Christ, "Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers unto the false prophets." There are religious teachers who commend themselves to the world, and are applauded; but we never hear them boldly condemning all sorts of sin. They speak against sin in a general way, but they keep silent concerning sins that are popular. Such are not to be envied. The Christian may and should be like Daniel, so that no fault can be found in him except it be concerning the law of his God; but when he is universally popular, he should tremble for himself. Christ will purify to himself a "peculiar people," and peculiar people are not usually held in high repute. Their peculiarity consists not in grotesqueness, but in goodness.
IT does not necessarily follow from Paul's words in Acts 14:22 that all who strive to enter the kingdom will suffer outward persecution; that they will all be stoned, or burned at the stake, or cast into prison, or even brought before the council. Tribulation includes more than this. The word is derived from the Latin tribulum, a threshing-sledge. This was "a wooden platform studded underneath with pieces of flint, or with iron teeth." It was dragged over the grain to cut up the straw, and separating the chaff from the grain. All Christians have to undergo this process. Burdens that are very unpleasant have to be borne; duties the most distasteful have to be performed. We may take ourselves off from the threshing-floor of Christ, but the chaff of evil dispositions and inherited faults will remain upon us, effectually shutting us out of the heavenly garner.
When the clumsy instrument had finished its work, a strong wind was directed against the mass, and all the chaff was blown away; the sound, heavy kernels of grain alone remained. But if wheat was still encased in its natural covering, the chaff became as it were a sail, by which it was borne away to destruction. So it will be with us, if we do not submit to God's cleansing process, however hard it may be at the time.
E. J. W.
And He Leaped and Walked
"And he leaped and walked. Verse 10. The fact that he had never walked before made no difference. When he received an inspired command to walk, he sprang to his feet and stepped off as if he had been trained all his life to walking. Our expectations ought not to be limited to our former experiences. If we never successfully resisted the peculiar temptation which at present besets us, we ought to heed God's command, and have power over it now. If we have been hitherto unable to teach a class, or to lead in family worship, or to shake off a vicious companion, or to give liberally as God has supplied us, or to control our tempers or tongues, or to do any other duty assigned to us, we ought to stand upright now at the divine call, and start right out on the path before us. And we shall do this if we have faith to be made whole."—H. Clay Trumbull.
Preaching Truth Rather Than Popularity
By Chas. S. Robinson
MANY men like to have ministers who will preach what they believed before. What they hear, some will try to force into an indorsement of their fixed views. So popularity is within reach of most shrewd educated men, if they will surrender principle. But disappointed hearers will turn upon the preachers when they receive correction and rebuke.—Chas. S. Robinson, D. D.
Two Great Compromises
THE AMERICAN COMPROMISE.—CONTINUED.
THERE is another feature of the work pointed out in the prophecy of Rev. 13, closely allied to that which we presented last week. This beast with two horns Causes the earth, and its inhabitants, to worship the first beast. Among church writers there has been much query as to what constituted "the mark of the beast." When we were connected with the Baptist Church we were instructed that it was the institution of infant baptism, or the practice of sprinkling for baptism, these being papal innovations. We believe now as strongly as ever we did that these are indeed unauthorized by the Scriptures, and that they have no higher origin than the papal power, and are upheld by tradition. But we do not believe they constitute the mark of the beast. Last week we gave the testimony of the Church itself that the Sunday institution as a Christian festival or Christian Sabbath is regarded as the strong evidence of the power of the Church, even as the Sabbath of the Lord, the seventh day, is given in the Scriptures as the memorial or sign of the power of God as Creator. We shall now give other reasons for holding that the Sunday festival, the Church's rival of the Sabbath of the Lord, is the prominent subject of this prophecy.
Verse 12 says, he "causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast." There are many ways in which the dwellers upon the earth may do homage to the beast, but not many ways in which the earth, in distinction from its inhabitants, can be made to worship that power. Granting that sprinkling and infant baptism are of human origin, and rest solely upon papal authority, then they who practice them honor the power which established them in the Church. But while a part, and only a part, of the Protestant world do homage to the beast in that manner, it cannot be said that the earth itself is made to worship the beast by the same means. We have heard it advanced also, that the adoption of church creeds, which are too often made substitutes for the Bible, was the worship of the beast here spoken of; but that is open to the same objection which stands against the other theory. In that the earth does not worship.
There is but one thing in which this can be fulfilled. It is that institution which the papal power presents as the strongest evidence of the authority of the Church, namely, the Sunday-Sabbath. As a popular Catholic writer says: "The observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the Church." God commanded that man should rest upon the Sabbath, in seed-time and in harvest. But now, according to an ordinance of "the Church" the land must be neither sowed nor reaped on the Sunday. The earth must thus do homage to the papal power. In this, and in this alone, can the prophecy be fulfilled. No other institution of Catholic appointment can meet the case. We may reasonably ask two things of those who dissent from this: 1. Show that the Sunday is to be observed by divine appointment. 2. Produce some institution, or something, wherein the earth, as well as them that dwell therein, is caused to worship that power. Here we have a most important prophecy, coming home to every one of us, in process of fulfillment by the enforcement of the Sunday-Sabbath, in Protestant-Republican America. True, it is mild and lamb-like yet, even in this; but the dragon spirit is fast asserting itself wherever the issue is made.
And this is the only institution of man incorporated into the religious belief of the world which, by general consent can be enforced by the civil power. Infant baptism is only partially accepted, and by those who accept it, it is not proposed as a subject of legislation. And this is true of every innovation in the church, except of the so-called "Christian Sabbath." Without a particle of Bible proof to sustain it; with the confession of its ablest advocates that there is no specific requirement in the Scriptures that it shall be observed; upheld by inferences, weaker than many advanced in favor of rejected Catholic dogmas; it is yet declared to be the very "foundation of our holy religion," and fairly elevated to the highest place of adoration by those who cannot at all agree upon the reason for doing so! And it is not only accepted by nearly the entire religious world as an important part of their faith and practice, but singled out from all other points of religion as an institution to be upheld and enforced by human law. And the rulers and politicians stand ready to do the bidding of the churches, and inflict penalties upon all who dare to have a conscience for themselves; whose religious convictions lead them to accept the commandment just as Jehovah spoke it.
The prophecy points out a persecution on this subject. But here we are met with a disclaimer on the part of those who clamor for laws to enforce the Sunday upon those who keep the seventh day. They say that there is no persecution intended; that no wrong can grow out of such laws; and that no one can have any just right to complain of their operations. But of all fallacies ever put forth by prejudiced or bigoted men this seems the shallowest. Thus, in the report of a meeting in Minnesota, published in the Christian Statesman, the meeting being held by an agent of the Religious Amendment Association, it is said: "The discussion was made doubly interesting by the opposition of a Seventh-day Adventist." Hence the issue between the parties was in the mind of the writer of the report. He says:—
"In reply to the objection that this movement, if successful, would oppress all who keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, it was lamented that any society of people bearing the Christian name should ally themselves with infidels in opposing Sabbath laws; that as they are not persecuted now by the operation of our statute laws on the Sabbath, neither would they be if those laws were secured by constitutional amendment; and that while the vast majority of Christian people observe the first day of the week as the Sabbath, that must be the day recognized by law, and any disadvantage suffered by those who keep the seventh day arises from the peculiarity of position, and not from any injustice in the law."
Now notice the spirit already manifested by this people.
1. They who obey the law of God just as he gave it, are classed with infidels as opposers of Sabbath laws! Surely, this is a modern definition of infidelity, for this is the amount of the charge. To oppose the law of man when it conflicts with the law of God, is infidelity; to set aside the law of God and substitute for it the law of man, and compel others to do the same, is loyal and Christian! In this manner the nation is to be Christianized.
2. They who observe the seventh day would not be persecuted if the Sunday laws were upheld by constitutional amendment; why? because they are not now. But the complaint of that party is that these Sunday laws are not now enforced; that they need constitutional authority for their enforcement; and that the present laws allow exemption in favor of those who keep the seventh day, which they say is wrong and demoralizing. And further, the Christian Statesman has explicitly declared that, when this amendment shall be procured, no one who does not keep the Sunday shall be permitted to hold any office under the Government! Here they contemplate an entire change in the structure of the Government, of turning it into a religious sectarian machine, and then affirm that there will be no persecution when that change is made, and for proof of their affirmation offer the fact that there is no persecution now, when the structure of the Government will not permit it! People who expect us to accept such reasoning are blind and bigoted enough to do anything.
3. When all is accomplished for which they are now asking, and those who keep the seventh day are by human law compelled to observe Sunday also, there will be no injustice done to them by the law; they will suffer by reason of the peculiarity of their position!!! Reader, note that passage in the above extract. The law under which John Huss was burned was not an unjust law. If you doubt this statement ask "the Church." The law was not calculated to hurt anybody; he suffered because of the peculiarity of his position! It was solely through his own obduracy that John Rogers was burned at the stake. They who caused him to be burned were pious people; loving Christians, zealous for the glory of God; they would not have injured a hair of his head if he had only changed his position! Why will not Seventh-day Adventists learn a lesson from history and change their peculiar position so that the church will not be compelled to teach them as Gideon taught the men of Succoth? Judges 8:16.
If such is the blindness, the bigotry, the spirit already manifested among these "National Reformers," what may not be expected of them when they get the power in their hands? when the courts are compelled by the Constitution to decide religious questions according to the bidding of "the church"? When these things come—and come they surely will, for the current of public opinion is setting heavily in that direction—let all take notice that we have done our duty in warning the country of their coming, and of the consequences of uniting church and State by amending our National Constitution in such a manner as to make persecution possible.
One point more in the symbols of the prophecy we will notice, and then make our application on the compromise. When the image is formed, and the mark is enforced, it says the mark is received in the forehead, or in the right hand. The forehead is used to represent the intellect of man, as hand is used to represent power. The psalmist says he was delivered from the hand of the grave. There is no doubt about the use of these figures. This point in the prophecy brings to view two classes of Sunday-keepers: One composed of those who regard it as a religious institution; who observe it from their own convictions or profession of faith. The other, of those who keep it because the law, the civil power, commands them to do so. Intellectually, or as far as their own convictions are concerned, they care nothing about it. The former may well be represented in this system of symbols as receiving this mark—this distinctive feature of papal worship—in their foreheads; the latter, in their hands. It is with them a question of power solely; not at all of conviction or of worship. And the present agitation of the question of "Sunday in politics" is bringing the public mind up to the point where it will not be difficult for the people to take their stand; it is preparing them to act in conformity with this unrighteous decree whenever the time comes when it shall be enacted.
It will be noticed in Rev. 7:1–4, that a certain number are said to have the seal of God in their foreheads. And this, too, is received just before the day of wrath. Also in Rev. 14:1, the same number are said to have the Father's name written in their foreheads. These are triumphant, with the Lamb on Mount Sion. And yet again the victorious company, saved from the seven last plagues, Rev. 15, are said to have gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name. This is the company of those who keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus; who do not worship the beast and his image, nor receive his mark in their foreheads or in their hands. Rev. 14:9–12. It is to be noticed that God's servantsare sealedonlyin their foreheads. But they who set aside the commandments of God are quite well satisfied if men receive the mark in their hands. Nominal worship of a human institution is, to them, preferable to spiritual worship in obedience to the institution of Jehovah. So it was when the beast power had the supremacy; they who presumed to follow the plain reading of the Bible in preference to the teachings and ordinances of the Church were considered guilty of the vilest heresy. And this kind of religion is being revived in the last days. "History repeats itself." An infidel who keeps Sunday is to be preferred to the most conscientious Christian who keeps the seventh day because God commands it! Reader, you know we are speaking truth to you. It is being demonstrated in every State; and soon it will be in every neighborhood. Next week we will take a brief survey of the whole ground, and give additional reasons for expecting to soon see a compromise of all interests in favor of Sunday.
The Life and Work of Dr. Moffat
ONE of the most devoted missionaries of this century recently died in London. Dr. Moffat went to southern Africa in 1816, and made the moral elevation of the Bechuanas the object of the work of his life. He thoroughly identified himself with them, living in their midst more than half a century. He translated the Testament and Psalms into their tongue, and had the happy privilege of seeing them changed from a wandering tribe to an agricultural people, many of them becoming Christians. David Livingstone, the African explorer and missionary, was son-in-law to Dr. Moffat. There is a lesson in such a life as his.