Review and Herald, Vol. 77, No. 10. (3/6/1900)

Review and Herald

Mar 6, 1900

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Mar 6, 1900

THE APOSTLE PAUL AND MANUAL LABOR.

By Ellen G. White

MRS. E. G. WHITE.

USEFUL manual labor is a part of the gospel. The Great Teacher, enshrouded in the pillar of cloud, gave directions to Israel that every youth should learn a trade. Thus they would be enabled to earn their own bread. And knowing how hard it was to obtain money, they would not spend their money foolishly. Therefore it was the custom of the Jews, the wealthy as well as the poorer classes, to train their sons and daughters to some useful employment, so that should adverse circumstances come, they would not be dependent upon others, but would be able to provide for their own necessities. They might be instructed in literary lines, but they must be trained to some craft. This was deemed an indispensable part of their education.

Paul, the great apostle to the Gentiles, learned the trade of tent-making. There were higher and lower branches of tent-making. Paul learned the higher branches, and he could also work at the common branches when circumstances required. Tent-making did not bring returns so quickly as some other occupations, and at times it was only by the strictest economy that Paul could supply his necessities.

Paul had been educated by the most learned teachers of the age. He had been taught by Gamaliel. Paul was a rabbi and statesman. He was a member of the Sanhedrin, and had been very zealous for the suppression of Christianity. He had acted a part in the stoning of Stephen, and we read further of him, “As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and hailing men and women committed them to prison.” But he was stopped in his career of persecution. As he was on his way to Damascus to arrest any Christians he might find, “suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.”

Saul converted was called Paul. He united with the disciples, and was among the chief of the apostles.

After the ascension of Christ, the apostles went everywhere preaching the Word. They bore witness to Christ’s work as a teacher and healer. Their testimony in Jerusalem, in Rome, and in other places was positive and powerful. The Jews, who refused to receive the truth, could but acknowledge that a powerful influence attended Christ’s followers, because the Holy Spirit accompanied them. This created greater opposition; but notwithstanding the opposition, twenty years after the crucifixion of Christ there was a live, earnest church in Rome. This church was strong and zealous, and the Lord worked for it.

The envy and rage of the Jews against the Christians knew no bounds, and the unbelieving residents were constantly stirred up. They made complaints that the Christian Jews were disorderly, and dangerous to the public good. Constantly they were setting in motion something that would stir up strife. This caused the Christians to be banished from Rome. Among those banished, were Aquila and Priscilla, who went to Corinth, and there established a business as manufacturers of tents. When Paul came to Corinth, he solicited work from Aquila.

The apostles counseled and prayed together, and decided that they would preach the gospel as it should be preached, in disinterested love for the souls who were perishing for lack of knowledge. Paul would work at tent-making, and teach his fellow laborers to work with their hands, so that in any emergency they could support themselves. Some of his ministering brethren presented such a course as inconsistent, saying that by so doing they would lose their influence as ministers of the gospel. The tenth chapter of Second Corinthians records the difficulties Paul had to contend with, and his vindication of his course. God had placed special honor upon Paul. He had given him his credentials, and had laid upon him weighty responsibility. And the apostle writes, “I Paul myself beseech you by the meekness and gentleness of Christ, who in presence am base among you,”—because he humbled himself to do mechanical work,—“but being absent am bold toward you. . . . Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ’s, let him of himself think this again, that, as he is Christ’s, even so are we Christ’s. For though I should boast somewhat more of our authority, which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be ashamed.”

Why did Paul, an apostle of the highest rank, thus connect mechanical labor with the preaching of the gospel? Was not the laborer worthy of his hire? Why did he spend in making tents the time that to all appearance might have been put to better account? Why waste time and strength in tent-making? But Paul did not regard the time he spent in making tents as lost. As he worked with Aquila, he kept in touch with the Great Teacher. He gave to his fellow laborer needed instruction in spiritual things, and he also educated the believers in unity. While he worked at his trade, he gave an example of diligence and thoroughness. He was diligent in business, “fervent in spirit, serving the Lord.” He and Aquila and Priscilla had more than one prayer and praise meeting with those associated with them in tent-making. This was a testimony to the value of the truth they were presenting.

Paul was an educator. He preached the gospel with his voice, and in his intelligent labor he preached it with his hands. He educated others in the same way in which he had been educated by one who was regarded as the wisest of human teachers. As Paul worked quickly and skillfully with his hands, he related to his fellow workers the specifications Christ had given Moses in regard to the building of the tabernacle. He showed them that the skill and wisdom and genius brought into that work were given by God to be used to his glory. He taught them that supreme honor is to be given to God.

By laboring with his hands, Paul was preaching the Word. And he set an example that spoke against the sentiment, then gaining influence, that the work of preaching the gospel excused the minister from mechanical and physical labor. Paul knew that if ministers neglected physical work, they would become enfeebled. He desired to teach young ministers that by working with their hands they would become sturdy; their muscles and sinews would become strengthened. Paul recognized physical work as composing a part of the education he was to give. He realized that

his teaching would lack vitality if he did not keep all parts of the human machinery equally exercised. His labor to support himself and others should have been commended, rather than regarded as belittling to his position as a minister of the gospel.

The apostle states plainly that if a man will not work, if he does not use his physical powers, neither should he eat. The healthful and equal exercise of all the powers of the being is required to keep the living machinery in the best condition. He who would have every part of the system unclogged by feebleness and disease must use every part of the system harmoniously. The muscles are not to be allowed to become weak through inaction, while the brain carries too large a share of the work. Each part of the human machinery is to bear its burden.

After leaving Philippi, Paul went to Thessalonica, on the seacoast. The history of his work there is recorded in the first and second chapters of Second Thessalonians. He labored in the gospel, working with his hands. “We were gentle among you,” he writes, “even as a nurse cherisheth her children: so being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us. For ye remember, brethren, our labor and travail: for laboring night and day, because we would not be chargeable unto any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God.” “Neither did we eat any man’s bread for naught; but wrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you.”

The Greeks on the seacoast were sharp traders. They had long educated themselves to shrewd practice in deal, and had come to believe that gain was godliness, and that an ability to make money, whether by fair means or foul, was reason why they should be honored. Paul was acquainted with their practices, and he would not give them an opportunity for saying that he and his fellow laborers preached in order to be supported by the gospel. Although it was perfectly right for him to be supported in this way, for the laborer is worthy of his hire, yet he saw that if he was, the influence upon his fellow laborers and those to whom he preached the gospel would not be the best. Paul feared that if he lived by preaching the gospel, he might be suspected of selfish motives in doing the work. He would not give any an excuse to depreciate the work of the gospel by imputing selfish motives to those who preached the Word. He would not give any an opportunity to hurt the influence of God’s servants.

AFTER

By L. D. Santee

L. D. SANTEE.

(Chicago, Ill.)

AFTER the sowing comes the glorious reaping, After the sadness come harp and song; Eternal joy shall banish all our weeping, As we mingle with the blood-washed throng.

After the desert comes the land of beauty, And Marah's pool's forgot neath Elim's palms; After the prayer, the cross, the life of duty, Eternity's long, glad thanksgiving psalms.

After time's desert is the land immortal, Majestic mountains, smiling valleys green; The narrow way leads to the shining portal, And life's glad waters with their sparkling sheen.

PEN PICTURES.

By William P. Pearce

WILLIAM P. PEARCE.

“What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Mark 8:36.

Several years ago, in my first pastorate after leaving the theological seminary, I was holding a series of evangelistic services. One evening a tall, elderly, and fairly well-to-do farmer arose as the invitation was given for all who desired to be Christians to rise. He would not commit himself, however, by going to the front, engaging in prayer, or making an acknowledgment as to his lost condition. Last summer the writer visited that same community, preached in that same church, but my farmer friend was not there. He was dead. How did he die?—Ah, he died, like most people, as he lived; and that life was nothing to boast of. From a deacon’s wife I learned that when all terrestrial things were receding from his vision, he called his son to his side, and said: “My son, several winters ago, when the little preacher asked all who wished to be Christians to stand up, I stood up. I should have gone further, but I did not, nor have I since. I’m lost! I’m lost!” and with these words breaking from his lips he passed away.

Lost! What an awful word! What scenes are portrayed in our minds when we read of the “Central America” going down into the sea, and all on board perishing; and poor Mungo Park lost in the wilds of Africa; and Sir John Franklin and his men lost in the arctic regions; but can finite minds conceive what it means for a soul to be lost—lost to God, lost to friends, lost to happiness, lost in hell? lost! lost! lost!

It may be that this incident will be read by one who is a stranger to God. If so, please read the selection of Scripture with which this article begins: “What shall it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” Which means the most, the gain or the loss? Better—

“Take time to be holy, be calm in thy soul; Each thought and each motive beneath His control: Thus led by his Spirit to fountains of love, Thou soon shalt be fitted for service above.”

Be Glad: Sing Through Storm and Sunshine

By Mettie Crane Newton

Be glad! Make life a jubilate, not A dirge. In storm, as in the sunshine, sing! The clouds hide, in their somber folds, the smile Of God. Trust, sing, and wait! The mists will turn To gold; the angry winds be still, and peace Brood like a gentle spirit o’er thy life. — Mettie Crane Newton, in Examiner.

Put On Thy Strength

“Put on thy strength.” The church does not know how strong it is. It may have wealth, social prestige, the culture of learning, and the glamour of great names and resplendent traditions, but these are not sources of real strength. If depended upon for support, these will surely fail. The strength of Zion has no earthly source. It is divine. Its strength is Christ; and in proportion as he is adored, exalted, followed, and incarnated in the hearts and lives of men, will the church become strong, aggressive, and able to perform the great mission committed unto it. The strength of the church, therefore, lies in the fidelity of each individual member of it to the Head of the church.—Christian Advocate.

“I AM WITH THEE.”

By ASA SMITH

ASA SMITH. (Battle Creek, Mich.)

Do you sometimes feel weary Of the trials of the way? Do you sometimes look with longing For the dawning of the day When the Saviour comes in glory For his children?

Do you sometimes wish the pathway, Which you tread with aching feet, Over stones, ’mong thorns and thistles, Led through flowers, whose perfume sweet You might have to cheer you onward In your journey?

Do the friends in whom you trusted Spurn you now, and persecute? Have the ones you love most dearly Silent grown? Now are they mute,— Lips that once were ever ready With their kindness?

Hush, dear soul, thy sad repining; ’T is the way that Jesus leads; He knows all thy weary longing, And his heart with pity bleeds That thou canst not see the blessings He is giving.

Jesus left a home in glory, Came unto his own in love; They refused his gracious offer, Spurned the Prince of life and love; And the servant is not greater Than his Master.

Canst thou not, then, see the blessing He is giving to thee now? He knows how to fitly fashion; To his hand, then, meekly bow, And he’ll make of thee a vessel Unto honor.

Praise the Lord for trials that drive thee Closer to the Saviour’s side; Friends and loved ones all may leave thee, But the blessed Crucified Says that he will never leave thee Nor forsake thee.

PROFESSION OR POSSESSION—WHICH?

By A. L. Hollenbeck

A. L. HOLLENBECK.

To live as if we were under little or no obligation to God, manifesting a greater interest in our own welfare than we do in the welfare of our neighbors, is to break the two great commandments, on which “hang all the law and the prophets,”—“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind,” and, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Matt. 22:37–39.

Not to love the Lord with our whole being is to step toward the enemy’s ranks; and the slightest movement in that direction marks us as disloyal to the Prince of heaven. And not to love our neighbors as we love ourselves is supremely selfish, and shows that we are servants of the prince of darkness. “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?” Rom. 6:16.

It is hypocrisy to appear to love God supremely and our neighbors as ourselves when we are at heart in rebellion against the government of heaven, and are cherishing feelings of enmity toward our brethren. We may write the letter of the law on the surface of our profession in ever so large a character, yet it is a dead letter, and it will remain so until the spirit of the law goes with it to give it life. It is the religion that comes from the keeping of the spirit of the law that is manifested in the professed follower of Christ when the people can see in him their Redeemer walking among men.

A mere profession of the religion of Jesus Christ is far different from the real possession of it. One is a bare theory, the other is a real, living experience. The life and character of the nominal professor of Christianity appears to many to be what the life and character of the true believer really is in the sight of all. The one is false, and bears “nothing but leaves;” the other is genuine, and bears “fruit unto holiness.”

Every promise in the Scriptures hangs on the commandments of God. Those who “mind the things of the flesh” are breaking these commandments, and they will lose all; but those who mind “the things of the Spirit” are keeping these precepts, and they will gain all. To the faithful, we would say, in the language of Paul, “God be thanked, that . . . ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you.” Rom. 6:17. And to those who are resting on their lees, we would say, “As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom. 6:19, 23. And again, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.” Rev. 22:14.

IN RUSSIA'S GRASP.

The secret of that “loan” of six million dollars by Russia to Persia is told in the New York Tribune of Feb. 11, 1900, by Hon. S. G. W. Benjamin, ex-minister of the United States to Persia. The following paragraphs give the secret; and, as will readily be seen, it is a great one:—

The announcement, which has not been contradicted, that Russia has loaned eleven million rubles to Persia, and secured herself by a mortgage on the customs and a concession to lay railways over that country, seems innocent enough to one who is not familiar with the policy and the intrigues that have led up to this startling measure. Turkey and other countries have hypothecated their customs revenues before this without jeopardizing their political integrity. But the conditions in the present case are altogether different. Russia has been nibbling into the northern and eastern frontiers of Persia for ages, as much by craft, intrigue, and steady pressure as by open war. Nothing has prevented her from making a complete conquest of that country except the jealous watchfulness of England, which was so relaxed when Mr. Gladstone was in power—indifferent as he was to England's foreign interests—that Russia at that time nearly accomplished her design of changing Persia from a buffer into a frontier state. That Russia has disclosed her hand so unmistakably at this crisis, when England is seriously embarrassed, shows the unsleeping persistence of Muscovite ambition, in spite of her frequent reiterations to the contrary.

It is not likely that the six million dollars and the concession involved in this far-reaching transaction correctly represent the facts. The late Nasr-ed-Deen Shah accumulated large treasures for an Oriental country, and it is unaccountable that they have been squandered in so short a period, and the revenues so reduced by his successor, Muzaffar-ed-Deen Shah, who had been for many years accustomed to rule as governor of the great province of Azerbaijan, as to require such sacrifices now. It is more likely that when, as crown prince, he was resident near the Russian frontier, he made a deal with the czar whereby the latter guaranteed the prince possession of the throne against the ambition of the older brother, the Zelee sultan. In return, the prince would agree to hold the scepter as vassal to Russia, said vassalage to be gradually broken to the world as convenient opportunity might occur.

RUSSIA'S OPPORTUNITY.

That opportunity appears to have come now during England's supposed powerlessness to oppose decisive objections and resistance, and the miserable loan of eleven million rubles is thrown out as a blind to Europe. It is probable, also, that when the occasion arrived, some pressure was necessary, and the shah's pride and chagrin were mollified by a quasi loan. That pressure was doubtless aided by such of his counselors and courtiers as were willing to accept Russia's douceurs [sweetmeats]. It would not be the first time such corruption has occurred in Asia, and possibly in Europe, unless history always lies.

Eleven million rubles for Persia, the oldest of existing empires after China,—the land of Cyrus, Darius, Ardashir, Anoorshirvan, Abbas Shah, and Nasr-ed-Deen Shah,—the land of Manee, Firdusi, Omar Khayyam, and Hafiz,—the land that conceived Saracenic architecture, that style which gave birth to the Christian architecture of Europe,—a land which, even in its decadence, includes an area nearly equal to that of Germany and France together,—a land whose possession gives Russia the long-sought key to India! No; this six million-dollar loan is only a pretext; there is something behind what appears, which is definitely known only to the chief actors in this tremendous national tragi-comedy. . . .

As for Russia, what will she gain in Persia when her dominion becomes fully developed over that country? An acquisition of nearly half a million square miles is of importance even to an empire already holding more territory than any nation since the foundation of the world. But this is no mere, ordinary Naboth's vineyard on which she now lays her hands. On the contrary, it is one of the choicest spots of Asia, in the right hands; and, furthermore, it borders on the ocean, where winds and climate are favorable; and that coast has ports, and those ports are almost in hail of India! Verily, the chops of the Russian bear must actually water at the prospect of the morsel which destiny has thrown within his reach while the British lion is fighting for dear life on the African sands. . . .

THE COMING DAY OF RAILROADS.

Of course Russia will cover Persia with a network of railways. They will be good, like most Russian railways. Perhaps American engineers may be employed to lay them, as has already been done in Russia; and such roads will be the making of Persia. . . . As Xenophon's men shouted, “The sea! the sea!” when they reached the long-sought shores of the Euxine, so when at last Russia reaches Mohammerah and Bushire and Bender-Abbasi and Bahrein, her legions will shout, “The sea!” and her sailors will give back the glad cry, and Moscow and St. Petersburg will hear and re-echo the song of victory; and it will ring through the halls of Germany and France and Italy, and chiefly England, and even to America across the ocean, and the nations will stop to listen and consider what it means to them, to their arts and trades, to their revenues, their armies, their fleets, their glory, and their future. Well may they pause and consider, for it will mark an era in the records of time.

Yes, so intertwined are the interests and destinies of nations in these days that the triumphal march of such a power as the United States, Great Britain, or Russia attracts universal attention; and the hour when Russia builds fleets and gathers armies on the shores of the Indian Ocean must arouse the apprehension of every power in Christendom.

RUSSIA'S RESISTLESS MARCH.

Of course, these presumed results of the present turn of affairs in Persia may not follow at once. Naturally, they may take time. If England should soon gain the upper hand in South Africa, Russia might temporize, might defer her ultimate triumph. But she would not recede. Russia never does that. She thinks long and carefully; but when she puts her foot down, it only rises to go farther, and the wonder is that the world, and especially the Anglo-Saxons of England and America, have not yet learned to understand these methods of Russia's policy. The Briton and the Yankee have never yet understood the character of the Russian government; have never yet learned that with her, profession and practice rarely go together; that no nation occupies a more isolated position as to Europe, because she is able to do so on account of her geographical position, and since the Crimean War has preferred to do so, and thus, like a man who is unmarried, she can keep all her designs to herself. It is not likely that she takes the French alliance very seriously. It tickles France, and does not hurt Russia.

With the Persian Gulf in her hands, and a littoral reaching almost to India, Russia would bisect the passage between Suez and India. Under altered modern conditions, England has become obliged to depend chiefly on the canal for quick transit to her Eastern possessions, and the real reason why England has seized Egypt—for it amounts to that—is to control Suez, and to have ports south and independently of it, such as Suakim, in order to communicate with India; this reason has also made it of the last importance to her that Russian fleets should not be able to come down from the Black Sea to threaten Suez. She was justified in this policy under the higher law that self-preservation is the right of nations as well as of individuals.

But what comes of this effort to protect Suez if Russia can bisect the road from Suez to Bombay, and send out fleet cruisers to destroy English merchant ships after they have passed Suez safely? To prevent this, England would have to maintain vast fleets along the Russo-Persian coasts, and still would not feel safe; while the railways would bring down armies that could co-operate with the fleets of Russia by approaching India, where the mountain passes are less severe than in the north; and England, between the two, would find herself drawing chronically on her utmost resources. I say chronically because, if occasionally obliged to pause, Russia would busily employ the interval of peace to intrigue with the restless East Indians on her border. . . .

These results, I repeat, will not come at once. Doubtless Russia is busy making the usual explanations to England now. But the greatest step has already been taken, if the statements are correct that Russia is to gridiron Persia with railways, and otherwise control the internal affairs of that country. The rest will follow in due course. England does well to seek the dominion of Africa. On that continent the world's greatest colonizing and civilizing power will make her final stand, and develop there her last colonial efforts for the amelioration of humanity. Then old England can rest from her labors, content that she has accomplished her mighty mission well.

But in proportion as Russia gains in the East Indies, the Christian powers besides England will be forced to look sharply after their own commercial and territorial interests in Asiatic quarters. Nor will the United States, so confiding in the oft-reiterated friendship of Russia, find that friendship of any avail then. It holds good on the part of Russia only so long as American interests do not clash with hers, or so long as we are alert and powerful enough to maintain our rights and demands. That, in a nutshell, is the position of our relations with Russia; and the sooner our exporters and our statesmen in or out of Congress understand it, the less of money, prestige, and blood will it cost us in the end.

“AS GOD.”

By C. Castberg

C. CASTBERG.

The fourth chapter of Hebrews furnishes, to my mind, one of the strongest arguments in regard to the obligation of Christians to keep the seventh-day Sabbath.

A close perusal of this and the preceding chapter will reveal the fact that Paul speaks of two rests. After reviewing the history of ancient Israel, and showing that their unfaithfulness, their lack of faith, frustrated the plans of God respecting themselves, he says: “For we which have believed do enter into rest.” Heb. 4:3.

This rest is an everyday rest. Christ says: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Matt. 11:28. This does not mean cessation from labor, or idleness; but a restful, peaceful state of mind and body, even if the storms of temptation beat upon us, and the waves of unrest surge around us. The true Christian is never idle: he is a working man. Although the work may be hard, and the results seemingly small, still he rests; he rests in faith; he is stayed on the unmovable rock, the word of God; he has a peace “which passeth all understanding.” The difference between him and a worldly man is that he has ceased to work. “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” Phil. 2:13.

Whatsoever the Christian does, whether it be manual or spiritual work, as it is “God which worketh” in him, his works are the works of God; they are the works that “were finished from the foundation of the world.” Heb. 4:3. Read also Eph. 2:8–10. “For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works.” Heb. 4:4. We see this grand truth exemplified in the grass and the plants to-day. The work they perform, the fruit they bear, was finished in these words, spoken before God rested on the seventh day: “And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit.” Gen. 1:11.

“Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein [into the rest], and they [the Jews] to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day, after so long a time; as it is said, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. For if Joshua had given them rest, then would he [God in David] not afterward have spoken of another day.” Heb. 4:6–8, margin.

If Israel had been faithful, there is no doubt that God would have led them from victory to victory until the whole earth would have been filled with “the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.” This is plainly revealed in the song of Moses and the children of Israel. Christ, their invisible and invincible leader, would have guided them in his strength unto his holy habitation. See Ex. 15:13, 17. But Israel fell short of the mark. Joshua did not give them rest, and God speaks of another day,—another day of salvation,—probation is prolonged. Read, in this connection, Romans 9–11.

“There remaineth therefore [because he has spoken of another day, because probation is prolonged] a keeping of a Sabbath to the people of God.” Heb. 4:9, margin. The Greek word apoleipo, rendered “remaineth,” does not mean something future, but something that is “left” here with us (the word is thus translated in 2 Tim. 4:13, 20). The day of salvation being prolonged, it follows of necessity (“therefore”) that a keeping of a Sabbath is left to the people of God. “For he that is entered into his rest,” he has come to Jesus and has received his rest, “he also rests from his own works, as God from his.” Heb. 4:10, Norwegian translation.

The one who has entered into his rest, and whose works are all done in the Lord, rests from his own works, “AS God did from his.” But on what day did God rest from his works? — On the seventh day. Verse 4. To rest, then, as God rested, he must rest on the seventh day. No other day can be a rest day; for the only day on which God rested was the seventh day. And only the one who has entered into his rest can really and truly enjoy the Sabbath rest; for his works “are wrought in God.” John 3:21.

“Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.” Heb. 4:11.

SHE FOUND OUT.

By J. F. Ballenger

J. F. BALLENGER.

THE following little episode is reported to have taken place in one of our public schools a short time ago. Two little boys, aged about five years, came to our meeting, and heard Elder Simpson speak on the change of the Sabbath. On their way home after meeting, they got into a discussion on the Sabbath question. Next day at school when they were called into the class, the following questions and answers were given:—

Teacher.— What is an argument?

Eddie Smith.— I know. Willie Jones and I had one last night.

T.— Well, what was it?

E.— Willie said that Saturday was Sunday.

Willie.— I did n't say any such thing.

E.— What did you say, then?

W.— I said that Saturday is the Sabbath, and it is, too.

T.— That is a pretty big question for two little boys to get into an argument about. Great and learned men disagree on that subject.

W.— Well, I don't see why they should: the Bible tells us plainly enough which is the right day to keep.

T.— That will do; you may take your seats.

This reminds me of a ministerial convention held in a certain town some time ago. The ministers were having a warm discussion over a theological question that came before the meeting. A learned clergyman arose and said: “Brethren, I believe that in our efforts to make a display of our talents, we often shoot far above the plain simple truth. I sometimes think that if we would submit many of these disputed questions to our children, letting them take the Bible and read it, and decide the question for us in their childlike simplicity, we would be more likely to arrive at the truth than we are with our boasted learning.”

That is true, and especially so in regard to the Sabbath question. “And a little child shall lead them.”

“IF I CAN LIVE.”

By Helen Hunt Jackson

If I can live To make some pale face brighter, and to give A second luster to some tear-dimmed eye, Or e’en impart One throb of comfort to an aching heart, Or cheer some way-worn soul in passing by;

If I can lend A strong hand to the fallen, or defend The right against a single envious strain, My life, though bare, Perhaps, of much that seemeth dear and fair To us of earth, will not have been in vain.

The purest joy, Most near to heaven, far from earth’s alloy, Is bidding cloud give way to sun and shine; And ’t will be well If on that day of days the angels tell Of me, She did her best for one of Thine. —Helen Hunt Jackson.

“BUT IF NOT.”

The King's Messenger.

THERE is in the third chapter of the book of Daniel a marvelously beautiful picture of simple faith in God. Its exquisite beauty lies in its wondrous blending of lights and shades, which brings out forcefully the negative, as well as the positive, side of faith.

Three Hebrews are asked to pay homage to a king, whose captives they are, by an act of heathen idol worship. They are men of heart convictions and strong characters; they love God so intensely that they can not conceive of such a thing as duplicity in worship. They are humble-minded men, readily taking any place of service and faithfully executing any work with all due honor to the king, but worship they can give to none but God.

Their refusal is maliciously reported to the king, being construed as disloyalty, and they themselves are brought into his raging and furious presence. They are threatened by the king with matters of earthly gain and loss, as is still the way of human nature seeking selfish ends. Another opportunity will be given, and a “burning fiery furnace” awaits their refusal; “and who is that God,” asks the arrogant monarch, “that shall deliver you out of my hands?”

An almost breathless admiration possesses us as we read the reply: “O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter. If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.” Positive and strong faith that, declared in a spirit of humble daring.

But faith goes further, and is not only strong but beautiful in its personal clinging to God. These men could trust for deliverance; but their faith was broader, and knew something that might be better than deliverance. Spirit-taught were they, for the Holy Spirit, if allowed to keep control, develops a faith that counts deliverance good if God gives it; but finds the better thing in trusting and obeying him if he does not grant deliverance.

It is sweeter and better to true and mature faith to be right with God than to have any deliverance from his hand. So felt the three Hebrews, and the sublime negative of their faith sounded forth in those three small words —“But if not.” If deliverance came, that haughty king and his heathen subjects should see their God and his power, and they would rejoice; for they knew he was “able to deliver.” “But if not;” if their God did not choose to thus show himself; if he should not count this a wise occasion for a mighty deliverance, then they would still take the path of lesser glory before men, and feel assured of greater glory before him. Spirit-filled and Spirit-taught men are ever so. There is a sublime audacity to the faith which he imparts, and he trains it for occasion.

It is not simply a faith that is willing to lose all, it is a faith that has nothing to lose, and counts everything gain that can possibly come, while it presses unwaveringly and uncompromisingly forward, true in word and act to its conception of God and his will. If they could do the will of God and be delivered from the hand of the king, they would rejoice. They were not absolutely sure of both, though their confidence covered both, but they could and would do the will of God. They knew him, his will was clear; there was nothing else of vast importance.

The Word of God Reveals His Character

“The word of God reveals his character.”

Continue reading: SAVED BY FAMILIES