With a seeming determination to take as limited and circumscribed views of things as possible, W. G. Springer comes to us again this week on the perpetuity of the Moral law. No doubt the subject is growing to him very complicated. It will grow more so still before he makes good his proposition that God's law varies in different ages of the world. He accuses us of raising in our last a number of points and side issues. We were only endeavoring to follow him and to reply to some of the minor or secondary points with which he opened this discussion. But that no more time might be spent in this manner, we proposed, at the close of our remarks, six questions which lie at the very foundation of this subject, for W. G. S. to answer. For it is utterly futile to think of conducting a discussion to profit by picking here and there at what we may consider flaws in another's theory, taking exceptions to an occasional mode of expression, and confining ourselves to secondary and so comparatively unimportant points. We must first agree upon some general principles to which we can appeal as authority; we must both have some common ground on which to anchor; then we can test the legitimacy of our deductions. If we cannot agree on any general principles, there, manifestly is the theater of our discussion till we can. To arrive at this ground was the object of those questions. How then does W. G. S. treat them? Does he proceed to their consideration so as to avoid in future these minor points and side issues against which he complains? Not at all; but he passes over them entirely, adhering strictly to his former policy which we can but regard as mere quibblings around the plainest principles. Whether or not he has taken this course to gain time in the consideration of those knotty questions the future will reveal. We could wish however that he had proceeded at once to the real question at issue which is contained in them. Had he done so, his present effort would have been saved entirely. Let us test it on one of the questions! The fourth question was, Will God judge the world at last by diverse rules of judgement? Had Bro. S. taken up this point, and answered this question in the negative, we should have had the admission that there is a standard of morality to which all our race, the first man as well as the last, are alike amenable, and by which we shall all be judged in the great day. By the side of such an admission, his present remarks about Adam and Eve, the "apples" and the forbidden fruit, are inconceivably puerile. But if he answers that question in the affirmative, and declares that God will judge the world at last by diverse rules of judgment, he "brings his sanity to serious doubt;" for this would be to admit that God who at all times has required his rational creatures to develop a holy character—to be holy for he is holy—has given them different standards by which to become so, thereby showing that what he esteemed essential to the development of a good character in one age he did not in another, thus making himself a changeable being, in contradiction to that unchangeableness which the Scriptures declare to be one of his especial attributes. He may take which horn of this dilemma he chooses: He will find either of them for his present belief very long and sharp.
Our friend wishes to know what we mean by the term "law," the "moral law," and the "law of Moses." Look at this a moment. He at first requested us to investigate with him the law question, because, having read our pamphlets, he could not agree with their teaching. If, now, he has read as he claims, he knows as well as we what we mean by the term "moral law;" but if he has not examined so far as this, he is altogether hasty in calling for a discussion, and had better suspend till he finds out what we do believe. Yet he pretends to be held of necessity to the supposition that we mean by the term law the prohibition that rested upon Adam in regard to the forbidden fruit; and that "the obedience of the law was eating apples and not eating of the forbidden fruit." A disputant who will make so ungenerous an application as this, gives every evidence of being hard pushed. We can define again if he wishes it. We mean then by the terms "law" and "moral law," that law which regulates our relation to God and our fellow-men, summarily contained in the ten commandments as uttered by God from Sinai. By the "law of Moses" we mean the regulations peculiar to the typical dispensation of which he was the mediator. The prohibition laid upon Adam in regard to a certain tree of the garden was not the moral law, but only a test of his obedience to that law. No better test could have been given under the circumstances. Thus, to infringe upon that prohibition, he had, first, to bring down the authority of God's declaration second to that of some other being; thus directly violating the first precept of the decalogue; second, he had to covet, and third, he had to steal, taking that fruit which did not belong to him. His plucking the forbidden fruit was, therefore, a direct violation of three out of the ten commandments. We do not believe he was ignorant of the rest, but that God had instructed him in all things necessary to the development of a perfect character. According to S.'s view, however, Adam might have blasphemed God and killed Eve, and yet been all right, provided he kept himself from that particular tree. Such a view, those may adopt who can.
We shall not now notice all the points Bro. S. has introduced in his present effort, lest in his next he should accuse us of having raised them. Some of them however claim attention. He charges us with reasoning as though there never was but one dispensation; let us remind him on the other hand that he talks as though every man had a dispensation of his own. According to his language no person was ever under the law that Adam and Eve were; they had it all to themselves. Cain and Abel no doubt had a dispensation of their own; and some how or other, it had become wrong in their dispensation to kill, though we find no recorded command against it at that time. Will W. G. S. take the position that therefore none existed, or that murder was not wrong? Then how can he reason thus in regard to the Sabbath? We find no one of the ten commandments written out previous to the exode; nor is there any need that they should be there written, when we consider that that record was not the rule for the first generation of men to walk by, but only a succinct history of those ages written twenty-five hundred years this side the creation. We do however find direct proof that there was a command for the Sabbath in existence, as we can show to any reasonable mind, Bro. S.'s denial to the contrary notwithstanding.
The record of Gen. ii, 2, 3, is of what God did on, and afterwards to, the seventh day. He rested on it, and afterwards blessed and sanctified it, because that on it he had rested. To sanctify is to set apart to a religious use. Now we ask how the Sabbath day could be set apart to a religious use, if no directions were given to man how to use it? Mark ii, 27. It could not be. Let W. G. S. think of this. An illustration of this use of the term sanctify, may be seen in Ex. xix, 12, 23. Moses said, verse 23, "The people cannot come up to Mount Sinai; for thou chargedst us, saying, Set bounds about the mount and sanctify it." Turn back to verse 12 where this charge was given and we read, "And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it," &c. To sanctify or set apart mount Sinai, then, was to tell the people how to regard it, and command them not to come near it. So with the Sabbath. Its sanctification consisted in God's telling Adam how to regard and use it; and this information must of course constitute a command for its observance. To say that Gen. ii, 2, 3, is spoken by prolepsis, as Paley has it, is without foundation in truth or reason.
A limited space compels us to defer a few remarks till next week.
A CORRECTION.
In the United Presbyterian dated Feb. 23, present year, we find the following, it being a portion of an article under the heading, "Our Western Correspondence." The writer after denouncing Spiritualism as it no doubt justly deserves, remarking upon the "elopements, seductions and divorces" which everywhere attest the character of that doctrine, proceeds as follows:
"A new phase of doctrines has, however, been lately hatched for the North-west. It is found that these gross sentiments have had their run, and having enlisted almost all the Infidels and Universalists, they cannot rationally expect many professors of Christianity to join them. Moreover, the universalism which they teach is suicidal to any organization; for if we are all going to heaven at any rate, why trouble ourselves with expensive churches and missionary operations. Decent women also shunned the mediums in consequence of their infidelity and lewdness. So Satan thinks it is time for him to amend his ways if he means to extend his teaching among the American people. Having tried us with the Ethiopian Minstrels, he is now hard at work washing them so as to give us a new entertainment by new characters, The Angels of Light.
"Battle Creek, Michigan, is the place honored by the first advent of these worthies. There they give revelations, print pamphlets, and ordain and send forth elders two and two, to proclaim the new gospel, to preach, to pray, to proclaim the coming of the millennium, the destruction of the ungodly by the fires of the last day—their entire annihilation soul and body—and to command all men and women to be immersed and receive the Spirit. They charge no fees, take no collections, sell their pamphlets at a moderate price, preach in plain, popular style, court no controversies, use abundance of Scripture language, and affect all the style of men who bear a divine commission. Though but a few months since they began their operations they have already sowed their seeds of error in many places, and have in almost every place visited, beguiled some unstable souls; principally from Baptist and Methodist churches, but not excluding Congregationalists and Presbyterians also. They will doubtless visit localities inhabited by the people of the Reformed Churches. They have in fact been prophesying alongside the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Mount Vernon, Iowa.
"We have no desire nor need to enter into any discussion of the truth of their claims to inspiration. They are all quite anxious to make this notion prominent, namely, that they have intercourse with spirits. One wretch near Dundee, Ill., affirms that he is en rapport with the spirits of Isaiah, Bonaparte, and Jesus Christ. It is said they perform wonderful tricks and undergo strange convulsions while receiving the spirits. It is not of any consequence whether or not. If they tell truth when they say they are under the influence of the spirits, they are lying spirits. The spirits of God's people departed are with Christ in heaven, and are not sent wandering over the earth at the bidding of necromancers. If they lie when they make such pretences, they are under the influence of lying spirits still—of the Devil, the father of lies. We know that God has before now given men who believed not the truth over to the influences of lying spirits—and we know most certainly that the great apostasy is to be introduced by giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines—teachings—of demons. Whether these be the unclean spirits which go out of the mouth of the dragon and the beast and the false prophet to deceive the nations and gather them to the great decisive battle, time will tell. It is quite certain that they are of the same character and have the same purpose in view.
"By one infallible work they are known, and may be condemned by any Sabbath School child—they profess to teach religious truth not contained in the Bible, and to derive authority for their prophesying other than the warrant of God's word. Therefore197they are false prophets. It is written, Rev. xxii, 18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Let no christian man or woman, boy or girl, assist them, or countenance them in any way. It is a sinful curiosity which would lead any man to hear them. Cease my son to hear the instruction which causeth thee to err. Remember what Eve got by listening to a medium. If any man come unto you and bring not gospel doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed. For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."
From the locality mentioned above, and a few other items, we conclude the remarks are designed as a description of ourselves. If so, we must protest against such a mixing up of things as is here presented. If the writer based his opinion on heresay, he was grossly misinformed. If he judged of us from personal observation, we must believe that that observation was lacking in extent and discrimination or he could not have failed to notice the distinction which exists between us and Spiritualists. A greater libel could hardly be put upon us than to be confounded with the Spiritualists of the present day. We believe that work emanated directly from, and is carried on by the direct agency of, the Devil; and if we, as another division of his army are marching under the same banner, certain it is that his kingdom is divided against itself: then the Presbyterian and all its correspondents can afford to watch with complacency and satisfaction the progress of the contest; for the Saviour assures us that a kingdom under such circumstances cannot stand.
Some of the inaccuracies of the above we will point out: 1. Battle Creek, Michigan, is not the place honored by the first advent of us, "worthies;" publications in defense of our faith having been issued within the last eleven years in the States of Maine, Connecticut and New York. 2. We do not here ordain elders and send them forth two and two. In fact, calls for labor are so numerous that our elders cannot half supply them by going out singly. 3. We are not engaged in proclaiming a new gospel, but the same which was promulgated by Christ and his apostles: "This gospel of the kingdom." We believe that whoever preaches another gospel than this (contradictory to this) he should be accursed. Gal. i, 8, 9. 4. We do not claim to be inspired men. 5. So far from being anxious to make it prominent that we have intercourse with spirits, we are anxious to impress upon all just the opposite of this; namely, that we do not hold intercourse with spirits, and that every intelligence that makes its appearance upon earth professing to be the spirit of a dead man comes to us with a lie in its mouth, and thus proves itself to be of the synagogue of Satan. The condition in which the dead are, is stated in Eccl. ix, 5, 6, 10. 6. As to the wretch near Dundee, Ills., he truly is a wretch if he is in the condition above set forth. The world may be assured he is not of us; nor have we any such diabolical term as "en rapport" (diabolical in the sense in which it is used) in our vocabulary. 7. And lastly, "the infallible work by which they are known," is not a characteristic of us; for we do not profess to teach religious truth not contained in the Bible," but believe on the contrary that whatever is not contained in the Bible nor may be proved thereby, is not binding upon the consciences of men.
The particular portion of our faith through which our enemies, either through ignorance or intentional misrepresentation, endeavor to fix upon us the stigma of Spiritualism, is a belief in the perpetuity of the gifts of the Spirit as brought to view in the New Testament. That our Lord when he ascended gave gifts unto men, [Eph. iv]; that he sent them the Comforter [John xv, 26]; that the Holy Spirit was designed to continue with the church [Matt. xxviii, 20]; that it would thus have continued, being manifested in its various operations [1 Cor. xii], had the church maintained that standard of purity and holiness which Christ and his apostles erected; that all
who now claim to be pastors and teachers for the work of the ministry, derive the authority of their mission, if they have any, from this very source [Eph. iv, 11, 12; 1 Cor. xii, 28]; and that we cannot divide this catalogue of gifts thus placed in the church, but that one has as good a claim to existence and acknowledgement as another, we have no doubt: notwithstanding, we are not Spiritualists. There is as much difference between us, as between the operation of the Spirit of God on the heart, and a fallen angel's coming and whispering into the ear malicious and blasphemous infidelity.
The writer says "that the spirits of God's people departed are with Christ in heaven." Perhaps he would not deny the prevailing and popular theology that they may sometimes be hovering over their mourning friends. Let us then suggest to him that here is the grand foundation of Spiritualism. The very track is laid for them upon which they are running their car of Juggernaut. And we must hold this doctrine now entertained by the mass of Protestant churches, as accountable for Spiritualism, until it can be shown that such is not its legitimate offspring. But when we lay the axe at the root of the tree, or apply the Bible truth that the dead sleep—that the grave is their unconscious resting-place until the resurrection, Spiritualism appears at once in its true character.
We presume the Presbyterian would not knowingly place a person or any class of persons in a wrong light before its readers. It will no doubt therefore be ready to correct the impression which the above extract must convey, that we are whitewashed Spiritualists.
REPORT FROM BRO. WHITE.
By James White
BRO. SMITH: We are now at Bro. Gerould's, in Caledonia, where we are enjoying rest and peace of mind. We had an excellent meeting here yesterday afternoon, and have an appointment to-day, at 4 P. M. Then we go to Monterey. We have now been from Battle Creek six days; have driven our team about one hundred and twenty miles, much of the way over desperate roads and held five meetings. And, be assured, rest is sweet to-day. Bro. and Sr. Gerould seem to know how to make pilgrims at home.
At Wright we met on the Sabbath a congregation of more than one hundred and fifty persons in their partly finished place of worship, hastily erected late last Autumn. This they design to finish soon, and perhaps add twenty feet to its length, as it will not comfortably seat the congregation when they have preaching. We spoke to the people on Sabbath, and to a crowded house on First-day with some freedom, and in the evening on the gifts and unity of the church. Monday at 9 A. M. near one hundred Sabbath-keepers assembled to attend to the ordinances of the Lord's supper and washing of feet, for the first time. Nearly every person took part, and felt the sweet blessing of Heaven. It was a blessed sight to see this large body of young Christian Sabbath-keepers heartily engage in the ordinances of the Lord's house.
The propriety of a regular monthly meeting, at which time to have a Messenger present if possible, was suggested; also Systematic Benevolence to help sustain Messengers, and the cause generally, and was approved by a unanimous vote of the congregation.
This church is able under ordinary circumstances, and willing to help forward the cause of Bible Truth. But it is extremely difficult for those who have not made previous arrangements, to raise cash now. The church in Wright are generally young, enterprising men and women, who having never professed religion until they heard present truth, have had no false theories of religion to unlearn and abandon. They have therefore stood free to learn the truth and to obey. The subject of the unity and gifts of the church is taking a strong hold with them, and we think it will be hard work for any one to cause division among them.
We are happily disappointed in finding that most of the Caledonia church stand firm. They have had grievous trials from several causes. One — a young man came among them and tried to preach, but failed. He is one of those little men, almost always out of his place, an everlasting talker, meddling with other people's business. His course has tried, perplexed, and disgusted many. Some have fallen through self-righteousness. In this state of things, O. R. L. Crozier regards it a good opening for him to come in, and, if possible, tear the church in pieces. The victories he has gained are exceedingly small as yet, and it is hoped that the sheep, as they may see the devouring wolf, will run together. It is certain that the subject of Bible union must be felt and acted upon by all our brethren, or they will be scattered to the four winds. We rejoice, however, that wherever it is presented, its necessity is felt, and the brethren are ready to come up to the high Bible standard.
REPORT FROM BRO. BATES.
By Joseph Bates
DEAR BRO. SMITH: When I wrote you last, we had just commenced a series of meetings in Blackman, which continued from April 12th to 24th. This was the first time our position had ever been announced in that neighborhood. I was told that for the last three years with few exceptions they had had no religious meetings there. After a few discourses some became interested. Some said, "He proves his doctrine;" others, "It is true, but I cannot keep the Sabbath on account of my business," &c., &c., so that quite a number were convicted, and I hope will yet decide to "keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus." I have since heard that they are still excited about the subject. I hope some one of our brethren will go there and help forward them into the keeping of the Sabbath. We had several invitations to come again. Bro. Van Horn became very much strengthened and fully settled henceforth to work for God. His father made us welcome at his house. In company with Bro. Van Horn we rode to Onondaga, where he with eleven others, decided to keep the Sabbath at the close of our meeting in March last. By request we appointed to preach in the same school-house again the 27th of April. When we came to the house, and were about to commence the services of the evening, a man arose and stated that I should not be allowed to preach in the house, because the doctrine which I preached was unscriptural and pernicious, and had caused distraction and was dividing families. As the meeting had been appointed by the consent and wish of one of the trustees of the house, who with his family had decided to keep the Sabbath of the Lord a few weeks previous, and he had not yet entered, I replied that the speaker was a stranger to me, and therefore as I did not know what authority he had in this matter, I should wait and learn. Said he, I am one of the owners of this house &c., and I will put it to vote; which was done by calling on all opposed to my preaching in the house to manifest it by uplifted hands. He then declared it a vote. A few moments after this, Bro. Wolcott, the director, came in, and objected to their proceeding as illegal, and that it was right to proceed with the meeting; instead of which two or three commenced in an outrageous manner upon the director, declaring their vote, and their right to abide by it. The speaker of the house left his seat and approached Bro. W. in a menacing attitude, declaring with a loud voice what he would do with him if he saw him at work again on the Sabbath day (Sunday.)
As soon as I could be heard I stated that it was not my wish, neither did I believe it was the will of the Lord that I should preach to them, and I should not attempt it. We were then invited, and appointed our meeting at Bro. W.'s house near by, with an invitation to all who wished to hear, and peaceably withdrew and enjoyed our meeting without interruption, leaving the voters to themselves rejoicing over their wonderful victory.
I was told that Eld. Tapley, Wesleyan Methodist, (their stated preacher) was with the voters, and raised198his hand and voice to prevent my preaching in that house. During the winter he held a series of meetings in said house for a revival, and reported a number of converts, two of which and some of his supporters and hearers, decided after hearing me, to keep the Sabbath of the Lord. He did not come while I was there, but soon after I left for another place he appointed to preach to sustain Sunday-keeping; but failing to do this to the satisfaction of many who heard him, and also to show a "thus saith the Lord" for the change or abolition of the Sabbath of the Lord, he next resorts to the unchristian course described above.
The grave charge, that the unscriptural doctrine which I preached was distracting and dividing families occurred as follows: viz.: 1st, a husband and wife became deeply interested in the Bible doctrine which we presented. The wife became fully satisfied and cheerfully commenced keeping the Sabbath; the husband did not. 2d. Another family, the father and daughter became so much interested that he first advocated, but afterwards denounced it. The daughter (one of Eld. P.'s converts) believed with all her heart, and commenced to keep the Lord's Sabbath. Her mother did not come to our meetings. She at first forbade her daughter keeping the Sabbath, and afterwards granted her the privilege to keep it. This father and mother were particular friends and leading members in Eld. P.'s congregation.
JOSEPH BATES.
Tompkins, Mich., May 4th, 1859.
"And they Rested on the Sabbath day According to the Commandment."
By D. W. Hull
PARTICULAR attention should here be paid to the phraseology of this sentence, "according to the commandment." What commandment? Was it one that Christ had reënacted? or was it the same that had been uttered amidst the thunderings of Sinai? It was some commandment that was known and understood at that age.
If Christ had abolished the law by his death, is it not strange that his most intimate friends knew nothing of it? Is it not exceedingly strange that those with whom he was conversant should observe the Sabbath, if he taught its abolition? And further, is it not strange that another person recording the fact should say, "they rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," when that commandment had been abolished and was no longer in force? In every instance we hear the apostles speaking of the law as a living letter, and this fact alone is sufficient to convince us that they believed, at least as late as the time of Christ's crucifixion, that the law of God was in full force.
Suppose Mr. A. were to tell me that he had "rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment," how would I understand him? Evidently that he believed that there was a commandment to rest one day out of every given number, and that that commandment was in full force yet. What would you think of a court in one of the New England States, having persons arrested on charge of witchcraft in accordance with the "old blue laws" of those countries? You would evidently think that they were assuming too much. "But," says the court, "upon conviction they shall be hung according to law." Now that court would not act more inconsistent than did the person who rested "according to the commandment," when there was no commandment existing. Why did they rest on the Sabbath? Because they were commanded to. It was in obedience to, in accordance with, or according to the commandment. Who commanded them to rest on the Sabbath day? Was it God, his Son, or the apostles? We are gravely told that the ten commandments written by the finger of God, are, some how or other (our opponents do not agree as to the manner) done away! that the whole code was abolished, and that another decalogue was given embracing all that was necessary. Whatever this code may be, or may have been (for out of several quotations from the decalogue we find no two embracing the same part of that body of moral principles) it enjoined the observance of the Sabbath day, if we have got the quotation at the head of this article right.
But we are told that they rested the Sabbath day because the Jews did. Why does it not say so then? Why does it say "they rested according to the commandment" when it was for fear of, or out of respect to, the Jews? We find if we follow the same writer to Acts xvi, 3, that Paul had Timotheus circumcised, (not because of the ancient Jewish law, but) "because of the Jews which were in those quarters;" and if the resting on the Sabbath was for the same reason, consistency demanded that the writer should have said so. But the way the quotation comes to us we have a virtual admission that there was at this time a commandment in full force embracing the Sabbath!
We might again ask, Why was it called the Sabbath or Rest day, if that was abolished? If such was the case there was no Sabbath, and to talk about resting upon the Sabbath when there was none would be worse than nonsense.
D. W. HULL.
Russierville, Ind., April 19th, 1859.
Rest.
By George Washington Amadon
"THERE remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God." What cheering language this is to the poor saint, who almost worn out with service is still bending his steps towards the Paradise of God. Trials come thick and fast, and often the billows of adversity almost overwhelm him, but these supporting words, "there remaineth a rest," seem as a sort of stimulant and at once he accelerates his pace. Well, blessed be the God of Paul, that these words ever found their way into the New Testament! What would the saints do if this text was not in the Bible? We should feel like David who longed for wings like a dove that he might wander afar off in the wilderness and there be at rest. But dear brethren and sisters, this blessed passage is in the Bible, and we may all read it just as often and when we please. Then let us bear in mind while we are urging our way through these low grounds of sin, that there is a "rest" just ahead, that our season of toil and fatigue for the Master's sake is almost passed, and soon we shall enjoy an eternal reprieve. Then let the winds blow, let the storms beat, let the tempests rage, for amidst it all we can look through the cheerless gloom, by faith descry the city of God, and whisper satisfaction to our soul in the quieting words, "there remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God."
What an ocean of comfort this little short verse must contain for the poor. They see the men of this world in great prosperity and spreading themselves abroad like a green bay-tree, while they have to toil and dig, and often with trickling tears and sweating face they barely get their daily bread. But never mind, dear brother, just go into the Sanctuary of God as David did, and when you understand their end, you will think that the lines are fallen to you in a "pleasant place," and that you have "a goodly heritage." Cheer up lone brother and sister! "there remaineth a rest for the people of God." "Abraham looked for a city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God," and so do we, and with the poet we can say,
"There's my home, there's my home."
There will be no rent to pay in the New Jerusalem, no taking land "on shares" in the New Earth, and never more shall the people of God have waters of a full cup wrung out to them by the "haters of the Lord." No, thanks be to God for the unspeakable promises, "the saints of the Most High shall take the kingdom," "Jerusalem which is above is free," and the "Canaanite shall no more dwell in the house of the Lord of hosts." Amen, cries my willing soul, for "there remaineth a rest to the people of God."
Brethren, sisters, one and all, old and young, listen while I tell you we are almost to Mount Zion. The parting skies will soon reveal the matchless form of our adorable Lord. Don't you feel well over this? Don't your heart ache for the freedom of the sons of God? Don't your spirit begin to grow restive while you anticipate the unutterable glory a little in the future? Mine does, and my impatient heart cries out, "Come Lord Jesus, come quickly." Brethren, let us bring the consummation nigh, and contemplate the glory soon to be revealed. We shall not be false prophets for doing this, and it will have the most salutary effect on our souls.
G. W. AMADON.
Battle Creek, May 6th, 1859.
“Weep with those that Weep.”
By Lucinda B. Kendall
TRULY my heart responds, I can weep with them, for the fountains of the deep of my heart too, have been stirred. While sorrow and affliction have rolled heavily over me for a few months that are past and gone, and while for a time I felt almost paralyzed with the blows that have fallen upon me, yet truly I can say, the Lord doeth all things well. I have been called to part with the two remaining sisters I had left me on earth, and our hearts were knit together like the hearts of David and Jonathan. Truly it was like severing limb from limb, and I sensibly feel the wound; but there is hope in their end that they will come again from the land of the enemy. Yes, blessed be the name of the Lord, the Life-giver is coming, and death will not hold its victims much longer.199
O what shouts of victory will rend the air when the house of death is thrown open, and the saints of all ages come up glorified, to die no more forever! The grave has lost its terrors, death has lost its sting. Our Saviour has sweetened the last resting-place of the saints, and given us a pledge of their blessed resurrection a little way in the future. Look up, lone brother and sister; your children shall soon come to their own border; and although your heart may be torn by sorrow and suffering they feel not your woe. They sweetly rest. They feel not the sorrows of earth. This is a source of joy to me when I am passing through deep anguish of spirit, I think the loved ones know it not. They are hid away from the awful time of trouble that is before us. Perhaps the Lord saw that they had suffered enough; and although myself and an aged father are all that remain of a family of eight members, yet I do not wish one of them back to suffer here with me in this dark world. Although I could not say it for a while after my last sister died, (dear sister Phillips,) yet truly I would not even wish for her sweet company, mixed up as it must be with her sufferings and tears. But I look forward a little in the future when, if faithful, I shall hail her with joy, safe in our Father's home. O, dear friends, bend under the afflicting stroke; kiss the hand that afflicts, and though we may not know why things are so now, yet we shall know hereafter, and Jesus will comfort your sorrowing hearts.
Yours in hope of seeing the saints soon gathered to their long sought rest.
Lucinda B. Kendall.
Roxbury, Vt., April 22d, 1859.
Punctuality.
By T. J. Butler
OUR great and most successful men in the business world unanimously affirm that punctuality is more than capital, better security than undersigners, the best and most ready friend in times of financial crisis, the first and last stepstone in human means to certain success and prosperity. Indeed the punctual man gets all his favors and accommodations many hundred per cent cheaper than his neighbor Slack-pay. We readily discover therefore that if poor men would act from enlightened selfish motives only, (saying nothing about true religious principle) they would be scrupulously punctual, for they would readily see that they could not really afford to be otherwise. It costs too much to be slack. The most wealthy might possibly afford to indulge in the fashionable luxury occasionally, but poor men never. True economy would say that it would be less improvident to work at an anvil and coalpit in gaudy silk costume than to follow debts with a slack hand. Slack hands almost invariably beget empty pockets. They are in ordinary circumstances inseparable comrades. If we would succeed in our callings we must be punctual. If we would be good citizens or good friends to any cause, we must be punctual. The continuance of our publications, the thousands of poor straying souls who are starving for the present truth, our plighted honor as brethren, and the pure principles of true christianity, earnestly entreat and most solemnly admonish us to unwavering punctuality. O brethren and friends of Bible truth, consider your high calling, your solemn responsibilities. The cause is that of down-trodden truth; truth that is renovating, sanctifying and elevating. God would have it sounded abroad from the press, and by his messengers; but upon the shoulders of the brotherhood rests the first responsibility. Let that responsibility be unfelt, undischarged, and the whole machinery by its own inertia and the superabundance of friction thus imparted must have its power and velocity wonderfully diminished, if not destroyed altogether.
You, my dear brethren, must act conjointly as an efficient mighty propelling engine on the great railway, while the press and messengers can only serve as freight cars, to carry the glorious message, the glad tidings of the kingdom.
Brethren, scattered abroad, let me cherish the fond hope that you will be punctual. That will enable the messengers to be punctual, and our mutual punctuality will enable our dear Editor to be punctual. Messengers cannot pay their indebtedness for books till they get the pay for them. Come, dear brethren, let us get all over into the work. Let us make one manly, energetic struggle to live out the apostolic injunction, Owe no man anything. If we would most effectually glorify the Lord with the means with which he has blessed us, it must be by applying it as he has directed.
May the Lord help us all to become living epistles. Yours in hope of eternal life when He who is our life shall appear.
T. J. BUTLER.
April 29th, 1859.