Earlier text: The Promised ReturnPERPETUITY OF THE MORAL LAW NO. 3.
If the dust and smoke of explosion of No. 3, as found in another column, on this subject, has somewhat cleared away from the mind of the reader, we will venture cautiously to explore the field, and estimate, if possible, the amount of damage that has been done. Bro. S. can hardly be expecting a reply from one who has been so often 'nailed down and clinched,' 'stranded,' 'transfixed,' and 'swept by the board.' But whatever may be our condition in his eyes, we are not personally conscious of having suffered any more disability from the 'fish-hook' attacks to which we have been subjected, than our friend is inclined to think accrued to Adam from the fall. We will however try the strength of these cords with which our friend has endeavored to bind us. Perhaps they will prove before the truth, as weak and powerless, as certain green withs and new ropes did upon one of old. (See Judg. xvi, 6-12; and let not any one suppose we make this comparison in reference to anything but truth.) And perhaps upon examination, we shall find that, in reality, there is nothing there; but that our friend occupies in some measure, the position of the man who endeavored to build his chimney from the top; he found some difficulty in making the first brick stick. He attributes to us certain 'flings,' and reminds us that they are 'cheap commodities.' Now we are conscious of having dealt in no cheaper articles than Bro. S. himself. He has met point after point, as the reader is aware, with nothing but his bare assertion. We can suggest to him, if he has not been aware of it before, that all such arguments are far below par here at the 'mint;' and so far as we can learn, they are in no better repute with our readers. He asks with some surprise if he caused us to raise the points of Repentance before faith, Adam's inability, and the ten commands in the garden? We reply, Yes, and leave the candid reader to judge whether we raised a single point, in our first reply, not relevant as an answer to his article. We did not say that it was inconceivably possible to discuss these points, but that his remarks about the 'apples,' forbidden fruit, &c., were so; and he has done nothing as yet to correct the impression. As he seems to regard it however as an unchristian fling, we refer to it once more. In his article, No. 2, (see Vol. xiii, 25) he remarks, 'I must go upon the supposition then that the term 'the law,' . . . means the law regulating the relation existing between the fleshly Adam and the literal fruit of the garden of Eden.' 'Then the obedience of the law was eating apples and not eating of the forbidden tree.' Again referring to our inquiry concerning the law after the fall, he says, 'What law? Why, the law given to Adam, regulating his eating apples in the garden.' Now what have 'apples' to do in this matter? Where does he find any law about 'apples;' that Adam should eat 'apples' while abstaining from the forbidden tree. To limit the term law to that test of Adam's obedience not to partake of a certain tree, and then endeavor to make us say that the same prohibition is the test of character now—if such talk and such a course is not puerile—if not inconceivably so, at least beyond anything we have yet conceived of—we mistake the meaning of the term. We are almost prepared to hear him next exclaim with Volney, 'Is it just that God should damn a whole race because a man and woman ate an 'apple' about six thousand years ago?' W. G. S. must be well aware that we believe the moral law to be contained summarily in the ten commandments, as uttered by the voice of God from Sinai; and that we believe that Adam and all men previous to the time of that promulgation, were as amenable to that law as any people have been since. Does he take exception to this belief? If so, why does he not state his reasons for so-doing? He well knows, if he has carefully examined Bro. Waggoner's work on the Law of God, which was the subject of his attack in the opening of this discussion, that we can show from the Bible that the principles of all these commandments were in existence and well understood by mankind previous to their utterance from Sinai. Does he object to this position? If so, let him refuse our arguments on this point, and give proof on the other side. And until he does thus disprove this testimony, it is altogether a waste of ammunition for him to endeavor to show from secondary considerations that they originated at Sinai. As to general principles he thinks the Bible is of sufficient authority as umpire. So do we, most assuredly; but at the same time we want to know what position our opponent occupies. When we are called upon to abandon our present position, we want to know what position we are to take in the place of it. It is not enough for us to be dislodged from where we are, and set adrift upon the wide ocean; but if a man has a better craft than ours, we wish him to bring it up alongside, which he will be willing to do, that we may test its superiority, and have something to stop upon when we abandon our own. But this is not the course of W. G. S. He does not come out fairly and frankly and state his position that all may clearly see and keep in view the principles between which lies our controversy. Some few isolated particulars, to be sure, he has mentioned, and left us to infer some others; but his main effort, thus far, has consisted in hurling missiles at our belief, out of the dark and hidden recesses of his own. Is this the course of an honest seeker after truth, who between two conflicting principles is anxious to know and embrace the right? We have no desire to heighten the unenviable light in which he has placed himself by his treatment of the six questions; but one of them we cannot forbear to notice. If man had never broken the law would he have needed a Saviour? This, says W. G. S., is a foolish and unlearned question. It is foolish then to inquire into the plan of salvation to learn its cause? It is foolish to inquire the reason of our present condition and why and from what we need a redemption? Foolish to inquire what made it necessary for the Saviour to come down and die for our perishing race? 'Show me the book,' says W. G. S., 'which tells what would have been if Adam had not violated the law.' Is there a reader of the Bible who does not know that sin is the transgression of the law, and that sin is the ruin of our race, the cause which makes a Saviour necessary? and that if the cause had not existed the effect could not have followed, and the remedy would have been unnecessary? Oh, but this is a foolish and unlearned question! And thus he dismisses the subject. Shame on such trifling! 'The Sabbath,' says our friend, 'was not a moral commandment.' Moral laws are those which 'prescribe to men their religious and social duties; in other words, their duties to God and to each other.' Webster. W. G. S. then takes the position that the Sabbath commandment did not prescribe to men any duty to God! He gives us his assertion, and that only, as proof. But all such proof (?) we disposed of in the commencement of this article. The Sabbath, if moral, as we learn, not only from the above definition, but also from the fact of its being placed by God himself in the very bottom of a moral code; and whatever he affirms to the contrary, we deny and challenge him to the proof. In regard to the two laws, our friend is going to show some law abolished; and he doubtless flatters himself with the hope that he can show some law to be off law. We however take our stand upon the broad distinction which the Bible recognizes between those laws which define universal obligation, and are of course of universal and perpetual application, and those which are local and ceremonial in their nature, and we have no misgivings about the issue here. It seems to us that all who carefully read the word of God, must be aware of this distinction. We wait with some curiosity for his attempt to break it down. If he copies from the fantastic efforts of those who have before him labored for the same end, the friends of truth may expect a rare treat. It will be time enough for us to come to the defense of this part of the edifice, when we shall see it particularly attacked. In reference to our proof that the Sabbath was made and sanctified in Eden, he exclaims, 'Was it sanctified as the Sabbath then?' (!) What a flash of light is this! What sublime reasoning! The Sabbath was sanctified in Eden, but was it sanctified as the Sabbath then! In our last we brought up, as an illustration, the sanctification of Mt. Sinai on a certain occasion. That sanctification consisted in telling the people how to regard it, i. e., not to come near nor touch it. But really was it set apart as a mountain not to be touched then? Perhaps, after all, it was not till 2500 years after that, that people were to refrain from touching it as a sanctified mount!! That the Sabbath was sanctified in Eden, our friend admits. To sanctify is to set apart to a religious use. He cannot deny this definition. Now for whose religious use was the Sabbath set apart? God certainly did not need it for any such purpose; and our Lord informs us, according to Mark, that it was made for man. For the religious use of man, then, the Sabbath was set apart in Eden. Now will our friend be so kind as to tell us what religious use man did make, or could have made, of it, except to keep it as a Sabbath? And if it was not sanctified as the Sabbath then, will he please tell us when and where it was sanctified as such? for we challenge any man to point to any other record, or any other period, of its sanctification. Yet our friend denies that our Lord's declaration that the Sabbath was made for man, applies to the Sabbath when it was made, and to supply the deficiency thus created, he treats us to the barefaced assertion that God made it, and set it apart unto himself! Where does he learn this? Nowhere: it is groundless assertion; a mere shift to get over a difficult spot. But hear him further: 'God did set this day apart as a peculiar day unto himself; not only to divide time into weeks (as there was no natural division of this kind) but to be ominous in its bearings, of the thunders and awful grandeur of Sinai!' Reader, what can we expect next? It was set apart 'to be ominous in its bearings, of the thunders and awful grandeur of Sinai.' We might here declaim, and multiply exclamation points after the manner of our friend; but our loftiest efforts would only detract from the 'ominous' sublimity of this declaration. We will only remark in passing that it is not always because a proposition is deep that we cannot see the bottom of it; for a little mud is equally effective in that respect. But seriously, let our friend look well to his position as relating to Eden. The Sabbath in Eden is a nail in a sure place. The declarations of God's word are plain and unequivocal here, and cannot be invalidated nor set aside. Being made before the fall, there is of course nothing typical or ceremonial in its nature. Will he pass on, and leave such a magazine of truth as this behind him uncaptured? If so, we can promise him warm work in the rear as he advances, and forewarn him, that this is more than sufficient to blow into invisible atoms every theory which he can fabricate in the wilderness of Sin. But it may be expected that we notice some of his arguments touching the institution of the Sabbath after the exode. He says the facts on which the command is based had not all transpired till that time. He greatly mistakes here. There is not a fact recorded in the word of God, as entering into, or in any wise affecting, the institution of the Sabbath, except such as took place at the close of the first week of time. From this point, as might be expected, he jumps45 to the vth of Deuteronomy. Why did he not stop at Ex. xx, where God pronounced with his own voice, not only the law, but the facts and reasons on which it is based? We can answer for him: Because an appeal to that scripture would have been fatal to his attempt to base the Sabbath upon the deliverance from Egypt. He therefore passes over the law itself, as uttered and written by God, and goes to Deut. v, which is but a rehearsal by Moses of the principal events of Israelitish history, forty years this side of Sinai. Did the Israelites keep the Sabbath forty years, before they knew all the facts upon which it was based? Their deliverance from Egypt where they could not keep the Sabbath, might be urged upon them with peculiar force as a reason for its observance; but to make this a fact on which the institution is based, is shown to be wrong from the fact that it will not hold on other points. See Deut. xxiv, 17, 18. Here we find a command to the Israelites not to pervert the judgment of the stranger nor of the fatherless, nor take a widow's raiment to pledge, but to remember that they were bondmen in Egypt, and the Lord redeemed them from thence; 'therefore,' reads the record, 'I command thee to do this thing.' Now can we suppose that obligations to be merciful to the widow, the afflicted and poor, were based upon the deliverance from Egypt, and binding upon those only who were connected with that deliverance? No more so than in regard to the Sabbath. But in both cases the fact that they had been bondmen and strangers in Egypt, and God had granted them a glorious deliverance, might be urged as peculiar motives why they should be faithful to him in these respects. Our friend quotes Ezekiel and Nehemiah as proving that the statutes and commandments, including the Sabbath, which were given to Israel in the wilderness were unknown to men before. If this is the meaning of those passages, and these principles were before unknown, he is bound by every rule of fair disputation to tell us what the condition of mankind was, previous to that time, in reference to law, what rule of life they had to walk by, and by what they will be judged at last; for he has admitted that every dispensation must have its standard of character. But this is not the intent of these passages; and in endeavoring to make out his case he has fallen into Nehemiah's snare as many have before him. He contends that the expressions 'gavest' and 'madest known,' signify that the things so made known were before unknown, or did not exist. Now hear Nehemiah in reference to the Sabbath: 'Thou camest down also upon mount Sinai, . . . and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath.' Now does this mean that the Sabbath was unknown before they came to Sinai? Stop! we learn by Ex. xvi, that they had it enforced upon them nearly a month at least, before they came to that place. Therefore the expression, 'madest known,' is not to be understood as signifying that it was before unknown, and was then first brought to their knowledge. What then is its meaning? We answer, It must refer to the public proclamation and writing of the law which then took place. One more remark upon Nehemiah: He does not say in chap. ix, 13, 14, that God made known the Sabbath by the hand of Moses. There are two classes of laws plainly brought to view in his testimony. 1. 'Thou . . . gavest them right judgments and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and madest known unto them thy holy Sabbath.' This is one class, which God himself directly made known to the people, from the summit of Sinai. 2. The other class is brought to view by this language: 'And commandest them precepts, statutes and laws by the hand of Moses thy servant;' referring directly to their local and ceremonial laws which were written, not by the finger of God on stone, but by the hand of Moses in a book. Ex. xxiv, 4; Deut. xxxi, 9, 36. Our friend will therefore please take notice that the testimony he has adduced, is something that it devolves upon him, not us, to 'get away from if he can.' In relation to the covenant, W. G. S. stumbles again. What was the covenant which was made with Israel, [Deut. v,] but not with the fathers? Was it the ten commandments? We will see. A covenant is a mutual agreement between two parties. The agreement between God and Israel which constituted the covenant here referred to, is found in Ex. xix, 5, 6, God there agreed, if they would obey his voice, &c., to make them a peculiar people unto him. They agreed to do it. He then spoke in their hearing the ten commandments as the basis or conditions of the covenant, which they were to fulfill on their part; and if they did this they should be to him a peculiar people. These commandments being the basis of the covenant, are sometimes put for the covenant itself, or are called the covenant commanded, as in Deut. iv, 13. These commandments Israel did not keep, hence the covenant was broken. What does God say then? See Jer. xxxi, 31-34. 'Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . . I will put my law (the basis of the former covenant) in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people,' &c. This new covenant was made at the first advent. It was confirmed to Israel and Judah by the Messiah and his apostles for one week. Dan. ix, 27; Heb. ii, 3. The Jews then having as a nation rejected it, the apostles turned and offered its blessings to the Gentiles. Acts xiii, 46, 47. And in this new covenant, the law—that which God could call in the days of Jeremiah, 'my law,'—so far from being blotted out and abolished, is written in the hearts of believers. And our Lord Jesus Christ, the minister of this covenant, when he came into the world to establish it, said: 'I delight to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart.' Ps. xl, 6-8; Heb. x, 5-7. And a prophecy that heralded his coming [Isa. xlii,] declares plainly, not that he should abolish the law, and nail it to his cross, but that he should magnify and make it honorable. Verse 21. With much assurance Rom. ii, 14, is quoted, to prove, we presume, that the Gentiles had nothing to do with the law there spoken of. But did not W. G. S. notice the declaration that verse contains, that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law? and show the work of the law written in their hearts? The law of God, then, is the law of nature. And does he suppose that there was ever a solitary Gentile who did by nature any of the ceremonial requirements of the Jews? He cannot suppose it. Then here is some law, a law, too, given to the Jews [verse 17,] vividly distinct from all the ceremonial and typical requirements of their national polity. The Jews' having the law in distinction from the Gentiles who are spoken of as not having it, can only refer to their being made the depositaries of the written code. But we can show from Genesis that the knowledge of the law of God was general in the earth, long before it was set down in writing on Sinai. For more on this point we refer him to Waggoner on the Law, pp. 46-48. In reference to our ability to obey God acceptably, of ourselves, he seems still inclined to doubt. He makes no attempt to dispose of the text we brought up on this point, viz., Rom. viii, 7. To this we will now add another equally explicit, namely, John xv, 5: 'Without me ye can do nothing.' If these two passages do not refer to 'power' and 'ability,' we know not what language could. He presumes we believe in 'total depravity;' and so we do, when by that term is meant simply our inability to render, unaided by Christ, acceptable obedience to God. We regret his perversion of our language about being released from the law as a conditional covenant of life. He endeavors to make 'covenant' read 'rule,' but cannot. We expressly guarded against this perversion in article No. 1, where we were particular to state that we are not released from the law, as a rule of moral obligation. This has been sufficiently explained already. A final remark on repentance and faith. Another grand distinction is here ignored by the negative. We claim, then, that there is a wide difference between the assent of our judgment and reason to certain facts, and that faith in Christ which the Bible requires as a condition of acceptance with him. We may believe all the great facts of the gospel, and yet have no faith nor interest in Christ as our Saviour. There are doubtless thousands in our land who have no doubt of these facts, who have yet to obey the injunctions to repent, believe and be baptized, ere they can become members of the fold of Christ. As to belief as a mere admission of great facts, we read that 'the devils also believe and tremble;' [Jas. ii, 19.] but who believes that they have taken the first step towards justification? We have now done with this point, because it is immaterial to the question at issue whether it comes first or last. It is enough for us, and fatal enough to our friend's theory, that repentance is required as one of the conditions of justification through Christ, whatever may be its order; for repentance supposes sin; and 'sin is the transgression of the law,' not of the gospel. To be dead to sin and dead to the law are one and the same thing. But we are only dead to sin when living in perfect obedience to the law; for the moment we transgress the law, we are again in sin. 1 John iii, 4. To be under the moral law is to be under its condemnation. Rom. iii, 19. We say then with our friend, let us not live any longer 'thereunder,' let us not live in sin; and we avoid both these conditions, so long as we live in obedience to God, having had our past transgressions pardoned through Christ. The treatment which our questions have received at the hands of the negative, places us under no obligation to notice the three appended to his present article. But as we have no disposition to retaliate, we will give them a fair consideration. '1. Must we comply with the commands of the law in order to our justification through Christ?' Ans. We have abundantly shown that we must. '2. Must we comply with the commands of the gospel in order to our justification by Christ?' Ans. The gospel is good news of salvation through Christ. It is placed, of course, like all other blessings, upon conditions; and all the commands contained in the conditions we must of course comply with. This is what we understand to be meant by the expression, obeying the gospel. 2 Thess. i, 8. '3. Is Christ our divine lawgiver?' Ans. He is not. There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Jas. iv, 13; Isa. xxxiii, 22. And between this lawgiver and man the lawbreaker, stands Christ as our advocate and mediator. 1 Jno. ii, 1. P. S. We would inquire of Bro. S. how many more articles he will want in which to state his objections, or lay before us his position? And as the REVIEW is limited in its dimensions, and a reply cannot be put in any less space than an objection, we would request him to be as brief as consistent with a fair and concise statement of his views. PREACHER WANTED.
By Wm. S. Higley Jr.
Bro. White: By request of the church, I respond to your invitation (in the article headed "A complaint") to "the churches to send in their claims for a preacher." We do not pretend any claim. We are very grateful for the past, and hope for the future. We should be very glad to have a messenger's family with us, and himself when not engaged elsewhere. We would not press our wishes to the injury of any other church. But if in the minds of those who have the oversight, and interest of all the churches at heart, it shall appear that it is for the good of the cause of Present Truth that one of the messengers be located here, then please advise us, and we shall be happy to do duty in preparing for his reception and comfortable stay among us. We will build a house, or an addition to one already occupied, as may be thought best. We will support or part support, as may be necessary. Our prayer is Lord, show us duty and we will try to do it; for we wish to have the faith of our Redeemer and keep all the commandments of God. We wish to be consistent and have our actions correspond with our profession as Adventists, patiently waiting and anxiously looking for the soon appearing of our Saviour. Please advise us as soon as convenient, for we shall need some little time to prepare. Lapeer, Mich., June 2d 1859. Letters.
By Joseph G. Wood
'Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.' BRO. SMITH: It has been about fifteen months since we had the privilege of hearing the third angel's message in this place, and we feel to thank God that he ever directed his messengers this way. I first went to hear with my heart filled with prejudice, and opposed the truth because I thought it was an erroneous doctrine; but the more I opposed, and sought Bible truths to withstand it, the more clearly the light shone in upon my mind, showing that it was the more sure word of prophecy whereunto I should do well to take heed; and truly it was as a light shining in a dark place. At length, unwilling to fight against God, I, together with my companion and some others, embraced the truth gladly. Some that started for mount Zion have fallen out by the way, the path being too straight and narrow for them to walk in; but the greater part remain unto the present, living epistles, known and read of all around them. One of our number (my companion) has been taken from us, but not as those that have no hope do I mourn. While I feel lonely in the family circle, and she is missed in our prayer-meetings also, I can look forward with an eye of faith to the time when God's promise shall be fulfilled, and rejoice that his children shall be brought back from the land of the enemy. Yes, praise the Lord; Jesus says, "And I will raise them up at the last day." The cause seems to be on the rise here. Last First-day we had the privilege of seeing five buried with Christ by baptism, and we understand that three more were planted in the likeness of his death the next morning. The little church here seem to be waking up to a sense of their duty, and although they are somewhat involved in worldly matters, yet I think they are willing to take hold of the work and help push it forward, and would have done so long ago if there had been any one authorized to look after the wants of the cause. And is not this the great lack in the West? the want of organization? Do not brethren feel rather delicate about urging the necessity of contributing of our substance to the support of the ministry, the tent operations &c., for fear it may give offense, or some may think they are out of their place? Does it not need some one in every church to see to its wants? We have adopted the plan of systematic benevolence, and believe it to be a good one; have chosen a secretary and treasurer, and intend laying by on the first day of the week as God shall prosper us, something for the advancement of his cause. The object at present is mostly to help run a tent here this summer. Two have put down 20 cents per week, eight, 10 cents, five sisters 5 cents, one three cents, one sister gives one dollar for the cause, and there are some others that I think will cast in their mites into the treasury. Although this is but a small sum and can easily be paid, yet in one year it will amount to $77,46. Brethren and sisters, is not all we have of this world's goods what the Lord has lent us? Truly it is. Then let us render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and unto God the things that are God's. Let us remember there is a work for us to do. God would not destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah until his people were led out of the city. Neither will the declaration go forth, "Let him that is righteous be righteous still; and let him that is filthy be filthy still," until the honest ones are brought out of the city of error and traditions of men, on to Bible ground, and into Bible truths. Let us act consistently, and seek for glory, honor, immortality and eternal life, by patient continuance in well doing. Spring Grove, N. Y., May 29th, 1859. Sister Labounty’s Testimony
By Martha Labounty
Dear Brethren and Sisters. It is now more than five years since the Lord called me by his Spirit to walk in his ways, and I was not disobedient to the gracious call, but felt that it was my reasonable service to love and obey one who had done so much for me. My heart was melted in contrition and love to God, as from time to time I retired in secret to read his word, and to call upon his name. His word seems a new book to me, and I determined that it should be my guide through life. Its precious promises I claimed as my own. I was a firm believer in the second appearing of Christ at the door, and the feelings of my heart were,
> "Fly, fly on wings of morning,
> Ye who the truth can tell,
> And sound the awful warning,
> *To rescue souls from hell."` But the Lord opened my eyes to see that the professed Adventists were sliding backward instead of advancing, and I resolved not to be like them. There I stood until the Lord sent Bro. Andrews with the life boat of truth which I believe will gather all the honest in heart. I felt that he and others that were with him had a good spirit, yet I did not feel the importance of the truth which he preached. But this feeling did not last long. I heard him again, and went home from the meeting feeling that it was of great importance to know whether I was breaking one of God's commandments or not. In my room on my knees before the Lord, I besought him to show me the truth, and I believed he would do so. I soon saw clearly my duty and decided to keep the commandments let the world say what it would. Since that time I have walked with the remnant people of God. For a few months in the past I have been passing through deep trials and afflictions, and at times have feared that I should sink under them. Not that I believed they were not designed for my good, but I feared that I should not rightly improve them. But my hope has been in the mercy of the Lord, and hitherto the Lord has blessed me. O I want grace to endure the searchings of the Lord, believing that he will take nothing from me that is for my good. My heart is sad when I think of the loved ones who will not be persuaded to leave the world and go with us. I shudder when I think of their awful end. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, neighbors and friends, will you come with us? For you we have prayed, for you we have wept, for you we have mourned. O I ask will you not come and be saved? Must we leave you behind to partake of the seven last plagues that shall be so soon poured upon the wicked? "Why will you die?" I entreat you to stop and think before it is too late. The last sands of time are fast slipping from under your feet. Look around you and see that the harvest of the earth is almost ripe. The servants of God are doing their last work. Their last sermon will soon be preached, their last prayer offered. Mercy will soon cease to plead for you. Improve the precious moments. Come and keep God's commandments "that you may have right to the tree of life and enter in through the gates into the city." O let us who have put our hands to the plough be careful that we look not back, but let us "seek righteousness, seek meekness, it may be we shall be hid in the day of the Lord's anger." From your sister, striving to overcome.
Martha Labounty. A Practical Christian Life
By Wm. Martin
Bro. SMITH: I realize there is a work for us all to do in order to be prepared to meet our soon coming Saviour in peace. Often I have thought of speaking to the people of God through the Review and let them know that I had a love for the truth that is so plainly taught in God's word, but on account47 of my circumstances, being indebted for the paper and not able to do anything without distressing my family, as I am poor, my heart would fail me. But I praise God for his goodness, and I can say as many have said, the Review is a welcome visitor. I love the views contained therein. I realize that the time has come when men will not endure sound doctrine, but are turned unto fables. My prayer to God is that we may all take good heed and be careful that our ways please the Lord. Yes dear brethren, may we realize that we are not our own, but are bought with a price, and may we yield perfect obedience to the law of God. I do realize that it is a great thing to be a practical christian. The word says without the Spirit of Christ we are none of his. May the Lord help us to worship him in Spirit and in truth is my prayer,
WM. MARTIN.
Colon, Mich. ENTREAT ME NOT TO LEAVE THEE.
By L. J. Richmond
Entreat me not to leave thee,
I'll onward, homeward, go;
Thy people mine shall be,
In sorrow and in woe;
I'll ne'er forsake this little band,
Till on mount Zion we shall stand. Entreat me not to leave thee,
Nor turn my feet aside;
Thy presence is more cheering
Than all the world beside;
I'll follow wheresoe'er ye go,
I'll share your sorrows and your woe. Entreat me not to leave thee;
For where thy footsteps tend,
There I will journey with thee,
Until this life shall end.
If death perchance my lot shall be,
I'll have a resting place with thee. Entreat me not to leave thee,
Thy counsel I must share;
Though others may forsake thee
I'll thy instructions bear;
Thy wisdom I would not despise,
Though foolish in the worldling's eyes. Entreat me not to leave thee,
Though lonely, poor and sad;
O let me journey with thee,
And with Christ's robes be clad.
Thy sufferings here, O let me share,
And with thee have a portion there.
L. J. RICHMOND. Faith That Works by Love
By John P. Hunt
Bro. Smith: I desire to express my thanks to the contributors of our little sheet, who under God have brought many seasons of refreshing to my thirsty soul. I love the truths it advocates and the sweet testimonies from the faithful encourage me. I feel unable to say anything to help others, but if my brethren and sisters who have had a watch-care for me should be encouraged in my case I shall have some satisfaction. The Lord is good to me. When I was in trouble I cried unto him and he helped me. But while I have tried to give to help spread the truth the enemy has magnified the hard times before my eyes till it seemed as though I never should give any more. But I resolved to break away from the bondage of Satan, for in this he had me just where he wanted me, in fear. And even now I seem to see an everuling hand in my favor. O for a living faith that works by love, purifies the heart and overcomes the world. Without faith it is impossible to please God. My weak brother or sister, you who have been struggling along without making that progress you feel you ought to make, have we proved the Lord by bringing all the tithes into the storehouse? If not let us immediately set about the work in earnest and God will be faithful to his promise; and we may share the blessing of the willing and obedient who shall eat the good of the land. Rejoicing in the Present Truth
By Rhoda Ashald
Dear Brethren and Sisters: With a thankful heart I still receive the Review, which by the blessing of God and your kindness I have had four years. I am now over 70 years of age and have long been trying to build upon a sure foundation that would stand the test of the last day, and the Lord has helped me and brought to light his holy Sabbath. In it I rejoice, and in all the holy commandments of God. I feel to praise his holy name that he has not shut out the light from my understanding; but as unworthy as I am he has sent according to promise the Spirit of truth into my poor heart. If faithfully followed will lead into all truth. I do rejoice in the truth, for it has made me free from the law of sin and death, by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Pray that my fruit may be unto holiness, and my end everlasting life. While I am writing my heart is drawn out in love to the remnant of God's people scattered abroad, that have a desire to do all his commandments; and while they flee from error, discord, and unprofitable contentions with sectarians, still earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. There is but one with me in this place that observes the Sabbath of the Lord, and sometimes we feel very lonely. That one wants to be buried with Christ in baptism, and we should feel very thankful if some one or more messengers would visit this place to administer to poor unworthy us the ordinances of the Lord's house. I think there would be some good done here. We mean to press our way onward through all the storms of life by the grace of God, and I hope the remnant of his people will do the same, that we may meet to part no more. P. S. If any one should come please let us know in season to inform the brethren in Ashfield, that some of them may be present. Encouragement Through Trials
By Alonzo Abbey
BRO. SMITH: I can say that my heart beats in unison with the truths connected with the third angel's message and it is my earnest prayer that I may purify my soul through obeying the truth. We have been trying to keep the Sabbath since the summer of 1847, and have seen many pioneers of the cause that have breasted the storms of adversity, and often are our hearts cheered when we read an article from them. We have passed through some trials since then and we have had some times of sadness in trying to press through the difficulties of the way, but we are not disheartened. The way grows brighter, and the more thorny the path, the more glorious the prize looks at the end of the race. The prospect that lies before the christian is enough to stimulate us to action, and cause us to arise and shake ourselves from lethargy and lukewarmness and come up to the help of the Lord. I would say to those who are young in the cause of truth, be not discouraged at trials, let nothing hinder you from walking in the ways of truth. Be assured by one who has long walked in the way, that the fruits of obedience are pleasant. Although at times trials may press heavily still look up and go forward, doubt not the goodness of God, he will surely carry us through. His promise is sure and will certainly be verified if we trust in him. When I meditate upon the goodness and mercy of our heavenly Father, I am lost in wonder. The angels that sinned have no Mediator, but man that has dared to sin against his Maker, and follow every device of Satan to make himself vile, has a merciful High Priest to plead his cause before the Father, and cry continually for mercy in his behalf. O brethren let us fully awake and make it our first business to serve the Lord. ALONSO ABBEY.