Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 2.

DEBTS
Earlier text: DEBTS

COUNTING NOSES.

If the doctrine of endless sin and punishment is now getting more discussion and finding more opponents than our conservative theologians like, they have themselves to thank for it. It was they who precipitated the discussion by rejecting a confessedly pious and edifying pastor, who never made a bruit of his peculiar doubts, whose people would hardly have thought to inquire what were his doubts on the subject, just because he could not affirm the doctrine. But for this the installation at North Adams of a pastor who held similar views by a council including Ex-President Hopkins, President Porter, and other able and influential ministers, would have passed without notice and would not have been significant. And now it is The Congregationalist, which makes itself the champion of the majority in the Indian Orchard Council, that has opened the floodgates of error still wider by asking a hundred representative Congregational clergymen their opinion on the subject, and printing their answers. The result is more important than anything else that has yet occurred in the discussion. We get the following results:—
Seventy-three replies are published in response to a hundred applications. Of these, the great majority, as was expected, hold that there should be no relaxation; but that only those should be recognized as pastors whose faith in hell is positive. But there are fourteen who are just as clear that a denial or doubt of the truth of the doctrine should not always disqualify a man from Congregational pastorship. Three others express themselves with such doubt as to show that they are to be counted with the minority, rather than with the majority. How many of the twenty-seven who refuse to reply, or whose replies have not yet been published, would have swelled the minority we cannot judge; but probably more than a proportional number. As it stands, seventeen out of seventy-three, or one less than a quarter of those who cared to respond, would not refuse to ordain a man, otherwise unexceptionable, who does not hold to the endlessness of sin.
This settles the matter. If a quarter of the Congregational ministry take that position, the three-quarters could not keep a man like Mr. Dale or Baldwin Brown out of the Congregational ministry. Still clearer will this appear when the character of the men answering in the negative is observed. They include some of the most honored men in the denomination, and, though none of the theological professors were written to, it is well enough known that a very respectable number of them would take the same position.
From Connecticut three out of seven—Dr. N. J. Burton, G. B. Willcox, and E. W. Bacon—plant themselves on the platform of comprehension. “Under the above view”—that of Evangelical faith—“there is, in my judgment,” says Dr. Burton, “a large range for an innocent diversity of opinion touching the eternal future.” “If he were faithful and earnest,” says Mr. Willcox, “but only beset by metaphysical doubts and questions as to the literal endlessness of penal suffering, I should consent.” Of the four from Maine, Mr. A. L. Park says, “In my opinion, we may safely leave some latitude to individual judgment in this matter.” And Mr. A. P. Tinker says, “I know Mr. Merriam well, and in his case should have voted with the minority of the Council.”
The sixteen from Massachusetts are more nearly unanimous. Yet so clear-headed a man as W. S. Leavitt, of Northampton, says, “No universal rule can be given. Each case must be judged on its own merits.” Letters were addressed to but two New Jersey ministers—Dr. Wm. B. Brown, the Father of New Jersey Congregationalists and most honored among them, and to Mr. R. G. Greene. Dr. Brown says that, if the candidate “in all other respects were an eminently worthy candidate for the pastorate, I should not judge that I could withhold my approbation from him, without, at the same time, withholding it from many other excellent clergymen on other grounds of equal importance;” while Mr. Greene declares: “It is not in charity alone, but in duty, that I forbid not one who in Christ’s name casts out devils. The fact that a church is Congregational is irrelevant. When Congregationalism insists on terms of fellowship other than are written in the Word, its own principles deprive it of all authority.”
There is the same feeling in the West, where we are wont to suppose that Congregationalism is especially conservative. Of the four written to from Wisconsin, Mr. G. T. Ladd, pastor of the largest Milwaukee church, says, “Perhaps it is safest to allow it [the question of disqualification] to be raised and answered in each case for itself.” And C. H. Richards, of the Madison church, says that “if Dr. Dale (Annihilationist), or George Macdonald (Restorationist), or Christlieb (who leaves this as an open question) knocked at its doors, it would welcome them to membership and ordain them to the ministry. . . . There is no more danger from errors on this point than from the Plymouth Brethrenism of Moody or the fatalism of Hodge. Congregationalism will not suffer half so much from ‘inconsistency’ as from silencing a true prophet of God.” From Minnesota so influential and sound a scholar as Pres. J. W. Strong, D. D., says, “Each case should stand on its own merits; but to be free from doubts or to cherish on this point a dogmatic spirit, surely ought not to be prerequisite to the ministry in our Congregational churches.”
After this, as we have said, the question is decided. There will be two cases of admission like that of Mr. Munger where there will be one of exclusion like that of Mr. Merriam. The battle is won; and, while no council will give its sanction to a man who makes it his business to preach Universalism rather than the gospel, no minister need be afraid to be known as approaching the subject with a tender and questioning or even a hopeful doubt.—The Independent.

THE LEGEND OF ST. MARK.

By J. G. Whittier

The day is closing dark and cold, With roaring blast and sleety showers; And through the dusk the lilacs wear The bloom of snow, instead of flowers.
I turn me from the gloom without, To ponder o’er a tale of old, A legend of the age of faith, By dreaming monk or abbess told.
On Tintoretto’s canvas lives That fancy of a loving heart, In graceful lines and shapes of power, And hues immortal as his art.
In Provence (so the story runs) There lived a lord, to whom, as slave, A peasant-boy of tender years The chance of trade or conquest gave.
Forth-looking from the castle tower, Beyond the hills with almonds dark, The straining eye could scarce discern The chapel of the good St. Mark.
And there, when bitter word or fare The service of the youth repaid, By stealth, before that holy shrine, For grace to bear his wrong, he prayed.
The steed stamped at the castle gate, The boar-hunt sounded on the hill; Why stayed the Baron from the chase, With looks so stern, and words so ill?
“Go, bind yon slave! and let him learn, By scath of fire and strain of cord, How ill they speed who give dead saints The homage due their living lord!”
They bound him on the fearful rack, When, through the dungeon’s vaulted dark, He saw the light of shining robes, And knew the face of good St. Mark.
Then sank the iron rack apart, The cords released their cruel clasp, The pincers, with their teeth of fire, Fell broken from the torturer’s grasp.
And lo! before the youth and saint, Barred door and wall of stone gave way; And up from bondage and the night They passed to freedom and the day!
O dreaming monk! thy tale is true;— O painter! true thy pencil’s art; In tones of hope and prophecy, Ye whisper to my listening heart!
Unheard no burdened heart’s appeal Moans up to God’s inclining ear; Unheeded by his tender eye, Falls to the earth no sufferer’s tear.
For still the Lord alone is God! The pomp and power of tyrant man Are scattered at his lightest breath, Like chaff before the winnower’s fan.
Not always shall the slave uplift His heavy hands to Heaven in vain. God’s angel, like the good St. Mark, Comes shining down to break his chain!
O weary ones! ye may not see Your helpers in their downward flight; Nor hear the sound of silver wings Slow beating through the hush of night!
But not the less gray Dothan shone, With sunbright watchers bending low, That fear’s dim eye beheld alone The spear-heads of the Syrian foe.
There are, who, like the seer of old, Can see the helpers God has sent, And how life’s rugged mountain-side Is white with many an angel tent!
They hear the heralds whom our Lord Sends down his pathway to prepare; And light, from others hidden, shines On their high place of faith and prayer.
Let such, for earth’s despairing ones, Hopeless, yet longing to be free, Breathe once again the prophet’s prayer: “Lord, ope their eyes, that they may see!”
—J. G. Whittier.

“DEM SUPPOSES.”

Those who are so anxious about the future as to be unhappy in the present may learn a lesson from a poor colored woman. Her name was Nancy, and she earned a moderate living by washing. She was, however, always happy. One day, one of those anxious Christians who are constantly “taking thought” about the morrow, said to her,—
“Ah, Nancy, it is well enough to be happy now, but I should think your thoughts of the future would sober you. Suppose, for instance, that you should be sick and unable to work; or suppose that your present employers should move away and no one else should give you anything to do; or suppose?”—
“Stop!” cried Nancy, “I never supposes. De Lord is my Shepherd, and I knows I shall not want. And, honey,” she added to her gloomy friend, “it's all dem supposes as is makin' you so mis'ble. You'd orter give dem all up an' jes' trus' in de Lord.”—The Presbyterian.

Keeping Pace with Christian Work Demands

Every year makes new demands upon the Christian, as to manner and means of accomplishing his work for Christ. He must read up, move up, and keep abreast, or, like the indolent farmer, unprogressive mechanic, the unstudious teacher, lawyer, or doctor, he will fall behind and be left on the shelf.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Is there a difference between a righteous person and a holy one, or so much difference that a righteous man will not be saved unless he goes on unto the perfection of holiness? CORRESPONDENT.
ANS. There can certainly be no such difference. A righteous man is one who does right, and that right-doing makes him a holy man. There is this difference between the words holy and righteous: The former may be used with reference to things as well as with reference to persons; the latter, with reference to persons only. We could speak of the holy vessels of the sanctuary, not the righteous vessels. Righteousness implies the action of a free moral agent. But when applied to persons, both words must mean the same thing.
Is the payment of S. B. or the one-third compulsory, or a test of fellowship? D. H. L.
ANS. The remark has often been made, that the plan adopted by our people for raising means, is systematic benevolence, not systematic compulsion. It is not a tax, nor compulsory, nor a matter of church fellowship. Everything should be voluntary, and of the person's own free will. So, at least, we have supposed it to be held.
L. HASKINS: We send your request to the president of the Ohio Conference, H. A. St. John, Clyde, O.
ANNIS F. COATS: For an answer to your questions on the sanctuary, see the work lately published on that subject. In regard to the question of lyceums, we do not see why one could not be so conducted among S. D. Adventists as to be beneficial to those engaging in it.
ANSWERED BY LETTER: H. A. St. John, G. I. Butler, J. H. Waggoner, J. L. Lewis, M. Stratton, M. W. Harris, S. J. Hersum, J. O. Carlson, D. C. Babcock.

THE PENALTY DONE AWAY.

It is frequently urged that the Sabbath has been done away because the penalty attached to its violation under the former dispensation, has been done away. Those who urge this objection seem to lose sight of the fatal flaw in their argument; which is, that the same penalty was attached to the violation of every one of the ten commandments that was attached to the violation of the Sabbath, and that the penalty has been done away just as much in reference to the other nine, as in reference to the Sabbath.
It is a significant fact that every argument brought against the Sabbath from either the Old Testament or the New, is just as much an argument against all the other commandments of the decalogue. That ten-commandment law is a unit; its ten words are inseparably united, and stand or fall together.
The following references show that the penalty of death was attached to a violation of other commandments besides the Sabbath:—
Idolatry was punished with death. Lev. 20: 1-5; Deut. 13: 6-11.
Dishonoring parents was punished with death. Lev. 20: 9; Ex. 21: 17.
Adultery was punished with death. Lev. 20: 10.
Murder was punished with death. Lev. 24: 17.
Taking God's name in vain was punished with death. Lev. 24: 16.
Theft was punished with death. Deut. 24: 7.
Here are six commandments besides the Sabbath, specified as having the penalty of death attached to them. And Lev. 18: 26-30; 20: 22, show that all God's commandments were then enforced in the same manner. But this penalty was all done away with the introduction of this dispensation. Now it is wholly outside of reason, it is unworthy any candid person, it shows but a superficial, one-eyed view of the subject, to claim that the Sabbath has been done away because the penalty has been abolished, and that other commandments the penalty of which has been done away just as fully, still remain.
But some may perhaps query whether all the commandments may not have been done away, because the penalty has been abolished. Have we then no commandments against the acts forbidden in the decalogue? Oh! yes, say some, they have been re-enacted. Then we ask, When? how? where? by whom? How long after the old was abolished before the new was introduced and made binding? This idea of the re-enactment will not stand. It is compassed with difficulties absolutely insuperable. The ten commandments, or even nine of them, cannot be found repeated in the New Testament. The three shortest are given verbatim, evidently because they could not well be given more briefly. There is a reference to the commandments, but no re-enactment of them.
It still remains to be explained how the penalty could be done away and the law survive. It can be easily done. All the difficulty arises from overlooking the fact that there were in that dispensation different kinds of laws, and that the principles of the same law appeared in different relations. Thus God gave them his moral law, the ten commandments, as spoken by himself from Sinai, and written by himself on tables of stone. These circumstances sharply distinguish this from any other law; besides, these commandments are called by themselves a law. But, secondly, the form of government was theocratic. The people took God to be their king, and he took them to be his people. As such he gave them a civil law peculiar to them as a people during the time they should bear such a relation to himself; and in that law he incorporated the principles of the ten commandments, and to them, there, he attached the civil penalty of death, to be inflicted by the hands of men. But that people have ceased to be God's people, as a nation; that the theocratic form of government has passed away; that civil law is no longer in force; the penalty attached to it is, of course, no longer inflicted. But the ten commandments stand on their original basis, as the moral law, expressing God's will to men, just as they stood before.
If this distinction should be denied, then we ask, Does any one suppose that when the murderer suffered death in the Mosaic dispensation, he thus paid the full penalty of his crime? Has he no further account to settle at the bar of God?
Illustrate this by the laws of our own time. When a man for murder is hanged, or serves out the rest of his natural life in prison, is that the whole of his punishment? Has he not still to answer for his crime at the bar of divine justice? The law of the land says, Thou shalt not kill. He breaks it and pays the civil penalty by hanging or imprisonment for life. But the law of God says also, Thou shalt not kill. And for the violation of that law he is still to answer to his Maker. Now if the penalty of the law against murder should be abolished, and the murderer go absolutely unpunished here, would that affect the law of God, or the man's accountability to him? Not in the least. Neither does it in the other case.
The penalty has been abolished only as the civil penalty of a civil law. The penalty of the commandments as a moral law has not been abolished. For it is still true that “the soul that sinneth it shall die,” and that “the wages of sin is death.” The Lord now leaves it to men to regulate their own civil law, and reserves still to himself the execution of the moral penalty, to be inflicted at the time of which he speaks when he says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.”

THE BEST WAY THEY HAVE.

A WRITER in the N. Y. Weekly Express, of Nov. 30, 1877, suggests the following plan to bring all into harmony on the day of the Sabbath:—
“In order to bring about complete harmony among the sects in regard to the day to be observed as Sunday, it is proposed to send the most influential ministers and elders of the Seventh-day Baptists around the world to the westward, furnishing each one with a printed diary, and arranging with the captain of the ship not to make the usual change in the calendar in the Pacific. When the delegates keep their first Sabbath on returning home, they will find themselves going to church with their neighbors, and all will be serene.”
This plan would be very nice, if it was sure to work as the inventor thereof designed. But it is just possible that the S. D. Baptist elders might know enough themselves to change their calendar as they crossed the day line. If not, perhaps those who remained at home would think they had kept just as good reckoning as the few who had been around the world, and would not be so ready to change their reckoning at the suggestion of these few, however “influential” they might be.
Such suggestions, designed, of course, as mere pleasantries, are, nevertheless, a confession that they have nothing better to offer. If they could disprove the position of the observers of the seventh day by the Bible, they certainly would do it. As they tacitly confess that they cannot, would it not be a much better way, both to bring about harmony and conserve their own eternal interests, to bring themselves into harmony with the truth, by joining the few who are keeping the seventh day, and are thus standing upon the sure foundation of the Bible?

BEAUTIFUL CALIFORNIA.

By James White

The State of California is putting on her green garments. There has been considerable rain this season, and the mountains and valleys are looking green. While we pen these lines the rain is gently falling. Farmers are now plowing and sowing in earnest, and the young blade of new wheat is casting a shade of green across the rich valleys. The tender grass invites the numerous herds of cattle, horses, and sheep to climb the mountain sides. And the birds are here more numerous and in greater varieties than can be found in summer in the Eastern States.
What a contrast with New England. There ponds and rivers are freezing, and wheels will soon be exchanged for runners. The robin and other sweet singers have gone to a warmer clime, winter has begun in earnest, and the ground will soon be closed by frost. We here mingle with families of children grown in the State who have never seen the ground covered with snow, and who inquire, “What kind of looking things are sleighs, skates, and sleigh-bells?” Yet these young people are not without their means of amusement, which are quite as enjoyable as the sleigh-ride, or skating on thanksgiving day. These young men and women have ponies at their command, which they mount and gallop across the green valleys, and over the roads which wind up among the mountains.
We have seen about fifty of those severe eastern winters, and decide that we wish to suffer no more of them. Our escape to this mild, beautiful climate was timely. As we were shaking the hand of Mr. Meacham, Esq., when we left Battle Creek, he expressed the wish that we might return when the birds should sing. But they are singing here now. We have no objection to returning with them and hearing their merry songs in good Michigan, if it please God. However, we shall be careful not to go in advance of them. The distance is a long, weary one, and we cannot go as easily and cheaply as they, and having passed the distance already nine times, we may wait until money is more plenty before going over the mountains a tenth time.
We are now looking around for a retired home at some healthful location. Oakland is as beautiful a city as can be found on the globe; but there is too much work and care there, of which we have already had too much at the sacrifice of mental improvement and health. At present, we divide our time between carriage and horseback riding and walking. When the rainy season shall close, we hope to find happy employment in the cultivation of flowers and small fruits, when not engaged in the work to which God has called us.
Christmas eve has come with the usual preparations to please the children, according with the time-honored custom of professing Christians. But there are no chinking sleigh-bells here as in some parts of New England. Instead, we hear the happy notes of the robin. These seem very happy now, and in a few weeks will build their nests and establish family regulations. Beautiful California is full of birds, the most beautiful of which, both in dress and song, are never seen in cold climates.
But California, like all other fertile countries, has its evils. Extravagance, idleness, and drunkenness curse this fair land. The Puritans were, in the providence of God, landed on the rock-bound shore of New England to keep them pure. Nearly all the purity of Europe is crowded up in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. We urge none to come to California excepting for health. The air is pure, the climate mild, and the scenery delightful. In a few weeks the valleys and mountain sides will be covered with flowers, which for variety and beauty will fully equal those produced by the great Rochester florist, Vick.
But there is a heavenly land where there will be no frosts, no excess of cold and heat. To that “evergreen shore” our eager, longing eyes are turned. No drunkard can enter the kingdom of Christ and of God. There will be neither sin, sorrow, nor death there. “O that beautiful world!” “We’ll be there in a little while,” where the dim beauties of this land will not be “remembered nor come into mind.” Here we are separated by distance and by death. But happy reunions hasten.
“Roll swiftly round, ye wheels of time, And bring the welcome day.”
J. W.

Dedication at Flint, Mich.

Meetings were held at Flint, Dec. 29 and 30, according to appointment, and the new S. D. A. meeting-house was dedicated on the afternoon of the 30th. The house has been built in an economical, plain, and substantial manner, but it is a marvel of neatness, and presents an inviting and cheerful appearance both without and within. It is peculiarly fortunate in the formation of the audience room, speaking being very easy, and the faintest sounds being distinctly heard in the farthest point in the house. About two hundred and fifty can be comfortably seated. It is an honor to our cause in Flint. And what is as good a feature as any, is, that provision is already made to meet every dollar of the expense incurred in building, as fast as the bills shall mature.
The dedication of a new meeting-house is something like launching a new ship at sea. It is now ready to do good service in the cause of the Lord. The sight of what has been accomplished here by the truth was cheering. A little over two years ago Bro. D. H. Lamson and E. R. Jones laid siege to the city of Flint in their cotton fort. A good company of believers was raised up. These have passed through experiences calculated to put them pretty thoroughly to the test, and their numbers have been somewhat reduced by removals; but a good company still remain, and they are joined together in that union and harmony in which there is great strength. Bro. Lamson has had the burden of this meeting-house enterprise upon him, assisted by the faithful brethren of Flint. And now their hearts are all made glad by the successful accomplishment of the work.
The house was filled to its utmost capacity at the dedication, and on the evening following. The best of attention was paid to the word spoken, and a good impression seemed to be made. A few weeks of judicious labor there now would doubtless add largely to their membership.

A TROUBLESOME QUESTION.

The religious world is just now greatly excited over the question of the endless suffering of the wicked. The commotion created by the strong utterances of Henry Ward Beecher against the doctrine, and the refusal by the Congregationalists to install a minister because he denied it, have brought to light the fact that outspoken opposition to the dogma is more extensive than was supposed, indifference still greater, and belief in and defense of the doctrine quite weak indeed.
The papers are commenting freely upon this state of things, and the old orthodox doctrine is passing through a severe ordeal of agitation and inquiry. A correspondent of the Detroit Evening News now boldly affirms that the professed defenders of the doctrine do not really believe it. This, doubtless, is not far from the truth; for, as Bp. Newton says, “You cannot seriously believe it, nor reconcile it to God and goodness.” This writer says:—
“The Chicago Ministers’ Meeting last Monday morning closed a protracted and specially earnest discussion of the Final Doom of the Wicked by their half-yearly dinner at the Grand Pacific Hotel.”
“So says a floating paragraph. The satire is not misplaced. Nothing has so undermined the popular belief in the endlessness of hell as the indifference which orthodox Christians manifest with reference to the doctrine. If it is true that people are to be punished everlastingly for the sins of this short life, it seems to us that those who think it to be so take the matter very coolly, and manifest an inexplicable indifference to the direful fate of their neighbors and friends; yea, in many cases, of their own kinsmen. If they really believed this important doctrine, they would make the very skies echo with appeals to flee from the wrath to come. But they go on just as the world’s people do, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, and in all possible ways giving the contradiction to their creeds. Whoever hears the doctrine of everlasting punishment mentioned now-a-days in our pulpits, except incidentally and (as it were) apologetically?—whereas it is the keystone of orthodoxy, and, if it be true, is the most appalling disclosure to be found in God’s word.”

A HORRIBLE SCENE.

THE following heart-sickening picture of the condition of Plevna when taken by the Russians, will serve to convey something of an idea of what will take place on a larger scale when Rev. 19:17-20 shall be fulfilled in the time of trouble before us. There is a force we as yet little realize in Christ’s instruction, “Watch ye, therefore, and pray always that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.” Luke 21:36.
New York, Dec. 26.—Details of the condition of Plevna when captured confirm the reported horrors there. The famished dogs were feeding on the corpses of the dead and the bodies of still living wounded. The savage howls of the greedy brutes as they tore the putrid flesh of the dead or crunched the bones beneath their teeth, and the cries and groans of the wounded as they vainly struggled with the dogs, might be heard for miles around, and made the soul sick. Birds were pecking at skulls, hopping from body to body with beaks and plumage besmeared with human blood, and screaming with fiendish delight. Dogs fought among themselves, and bird struggled with bird for possession of a morsel of human flesh, and the most indescribable horror prevailed. In one house alone 37 dead and 53 wounded Turks were found, some of the former half decomposed and putrid, and the wounded in a condition that can be more easily imagined than described. Some of the wounded were able to crawl about, and clutched at odd morsels of food found in the hands of the dead, devouring it with feverish avidity; but thousands were utterly helpless, and awaited death or succor with a listless fatalism. Eighteen hundred prisoners were huddled together on the banks of the Vid, and the horrors of their position equalled those of the plague. The living and dead were piled together promiscuously in heaps like wood, and carted away. There were only three carts available for this work, and the confusion was indescribable.

AVOID THEM.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

No more sensible instruction was ever given than that by Paul in his letter to Titus, namely, “Avoid foolish questions.” Many have, evidently, never read this, or they have forgotten it, or they do not care for it. Sometimes such questions are even introduced into the Bible-class, and there become sources of contention, whereby the Spirit of God, given to be our Guide into all truth, is grieved away, the object of the class is lost sight of, and a failure to receive any benefit is the result. We give examples.
No more fruitful theme for cavilers has ever been got up than this query, Where did Cain get his wife? Did he find her in the land of Nod? and if so, How did she come to be there? and finally, as the grand result, How, ay, how, can the Bible record of creation be true?
The editor of the Cincinnati Gazette, in answer to a correspondent, suggested that Cain took his wife with him when he journeyed to the East. Perhaps this answer will give rest to some troubled souls. Another position, believed to be truth by some, is this: the Hebrew word nod (long o, node) means a vagabond. The Lord told Cain he should be a fugitive and a vagabond; in the Hebrew it is, he should be a node. Some scholars insist that it should be thus rendered: “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land, a vagabond,” a nod.
But more suggestive, and better in fact, than all these solutions, is the answer given by a pious negro to a would-be wise caviler. “You believe the Bible,” said the railer, “you ask the Lord for wisdom; I suppose you can tell me where Cain got his wife.” Said the negro, “I never asked de Lord dat question; I asked him what I should do to be saved.” We commend this thought to the consideration of the multitude of restless ones who are submissively willing to throw away their Bibles, and to go down to destruction, because they cannot tell, to a certainty, the pedigree of Mrs. Cain! If they cannot rest, under the burden of this momentous question, perhaps they may find a pleasing diversion in the question, Where did Seth get his wife? or, Where did Lamech get his two wives? The folly of some people is almost beyond endurance.
Parallel to this (in practical importance!) is the query, If the Lord raised up Pharaoh for the purpose specified in the book of Exodus, was Pharaoh to blame for doing as he did? and, Could he do otherwise than he did? The only interest that can possibly attach to this question, as we see it, is to make it bring this result, namely, If the Lord determined that Pharaoh should do as he did, is it not also in his determination that I shall do as I do? If Pharaoh was compelled so to act, and therefore was not to be blamed, am I not likewise compelled to act as I do, and therefore not worthy of blame? This conclusion is easy to arrive at, and very gratifying to selfishness and carnality. We recommend to the notice of such querists, another conclusion, thus: If Pharaoh was destroyed for his rebellion against God, will I not also be destroyed for my sins? This may be found a far more profitable theme for meditation than the other.
If some persons searched the Scriptures as diligently to learn their meaning, and to read duty there, as they search them to find a way of self-justification, they would learn that the rising up, or standing up, of a king, means his reigning. See Daniel, chapters 11 and 12. To raise up a king, is to bring him to the throne. Egypt was to be punished for its wickedness, and because this Pharaoh was a stubborn, selfish, wilful person, the Lord raised him up; that is, he brought him to the throne—caused him to reign—that the ruin might be under his hand. If this Pharaoh had been a man of a kind, gentle spirit, the Lord would have so ordered in his providence that he should not reign at that time. Another would have been raised up—caused to reign in his stead.
An illustration of this truth is found in the case of Ahab. The Lord threatened to cut off his house entirely, but because Ahab greatly humbled himself, the Lord said he would not bring the evil in his day, but in the day of his son, who did evil even as Ahab had done, but did not manifest the same contrition for his sin.
This is a most profitable Scripture text—“Avoid foolish questions.”
Leesburg, O. J. H. WAGGONER.

THE ADVENT REVIEW AND SABBATH HERALD.

By S. N. Haskell

In the efforts of the tract societies to circulate the SIGNS and the REFORMER, the ADVENT REVIEW should not be neglected. As a pioneer paper to introduce the present truth, THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES accomplishes more than any other periodical. It has many advantages over tracts, the reading matter being both doctrinal, practical, and miscellaneous. For attracting the attention of a prejudiced public, nothing is so well calculated as THE HEALTH REFORMER and health publications.
But it is not designed that the SIGNS OF THE TIMES or THE HEALTH REFORMER should in any case take the place of the REVIEW. This is our church paper, and no other paper can take its place. The tract society officers should see that all our brethren and sisters have THE REVIEW AND HERALD.
There are many poor among us who are unable to pay for the paper, and many who are able are not taking it. Their subscription has run out, and they borrow the paper of their neighbors, and neglect to renew their subscription for it. Every family of our brethren and sisters should take the REVIEW. There are few families that cannot pay two dollars in twelve months. When I find that the paper is missing in a family, I also find a waning interest in the truth. Such families are not as particular on the Sabbath as they were formerly; they have lost a sense of the sweetness of the holy rest-day. In short, imperceptibly to themselves they are drifting downward, and unless they realize their situation sooner or later, they will leave the present truth.
Each church should look after its own members. The Vigilant Missionary Society should make this one branch of its work. Every family should not only take the REVIEW, but read it. They should read it through each week. Watch the Progress Department. Notice the editorials and the sermon. These articles are just what you need to make you intelligent upon the present condition of the cause. Without them you meet with a loss that nothing can make up; and that so many of our brethren do sustain this loss, our missionary workers are in a degree responsible.
The same may be said of the REFORMER. The enemy is watching in every possible way to come in upon us, and to wound one here and another there, and to destroy the third, and so on. God's providence has furnished us many helps, and the REVIEW is one of them; and all should avail themselves of every such means, lest they be found wanting in the day of God. When a course of lectures is given, and people embrace the Sabbath, the REVIEW is the paper wanted. It is well for our brethren to take both that and the SIGNS, but in no case let the SIGNS take the place of the REVIEW, and so some of our brethren fail to receive its weekly visits.
S. N. HASKELL.

QUESTIONS ON THE COVENANTS.

By R. F. C.

“Does the expression, ‘my covenant,’ in Ps. 89:28, 34, apply to the law, as in Ex. 19:5 and Deut. 4:13?” A. M. M.
Ans. 1. The law of God is the basis of both the first and the second covenant. Ex. 19:5; Jer. 31:33. Christ, the Son of David, is the person spoken of in this psalm, verses 19–37. The covenant of the “better promises,” the forgiveness of sins and the “eternal inheritance” (Heb. 8:12 and 9:15), “shall stand fast with him.” There are two parts to the covenant, the conditions and the promises. In verse 34, God promises not to fail in the fulfillment of the promises,—“My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that has gone out of my lips.” It is evident, from verses 30–32, that the keeping of the commandments is the condition of the covenant required of the children of Christ.
2. It is evident that the “strangers” that lay hold of God’s covenant (Isa. 56:4–6), not only embrace Christ and become heirs of the promises through him, but they also keep the Sabbath as a condition; for this is expressed. What Christian will deny that they keep the other nine? since they are to keep their “hand from doing any evil.”
3. From Ex. 31:16, we learn that the “children of Israel” are bound by a “perpetual covenant” to keep the Sabbath. This may not be understood as applying to the old covenant or the new; but this perpetual, Sabbath covenant must endure as long as Israel endures; and from Jer. 31:35, 36, we learn that as long as the sun, moon, and stars endure, Israel shall not “cease from being a nation” forever. They will keep the Sabbath. Isa. 66:22.
4. Moses does not specifically promise eternal life to those that keep the commandments; but a comparison of Deut. 30:19 and 32:46, 47, with Eze. 18:4; Matt. 19:16, 17 and Rom. 6:23, will show that the keeping of the ten commandments is a condition of eternal life.
5. The application of the terms “law of God” and “law of the Lord,” must be determined by the context, whether they apply to the moral or the ceremonial law. R. F. C.
Continue reading: PROGRESS OF THE WORK