With respect to the Sabbath, the religious world may be divided into three classes:—
1. Those who retain the ancient seventh-day Sabbath.
2. Those who observe the first-day Sabbath.
3. Those who deny the existence of any Sabbath.
It is inevitable that controversy should exist between these parties. Their first appeal is to the Bible, and this should decide the case; for it reveals man's whole duty. But there is an appeal by the second party, and sometimes by the third, to another authority, the early fathers of the church, for the decision of the question.
The controversy stands thus: The second and third parties agree with the first that God did anciently require the observance of the seventh day; but both deny the doctrine of the first, that he still requires men to hallow that day; the second asserting that he has changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week; and the third declaring that he has totally abolished the institution itself.
The first class plant themselves upon the plain letter of the law of God, and adduce those scriptures which teach the perpetuity and immutability of the moral law, and which show that the new covenant does not abrogate that law, but puts it into the heart of every Christian.
The second class attempt to prove the change of the Sabbath by quoting those texts which mention the first day of the week, and also those which are said to refer to it. The first day is, on such authority, called by this party the Christian Sabbath, and the fourth commandment is used by them to enforce this new Sabbath.
The third class adduce those texts which assert the dissolution of the old covenant; and those which teach the abolition of the ceremonial law with all its distinction of days, as new moons, feast days, and annual sabbaths; and also those texts which declare that men cannot be justified by that law which condemns sin; and from all these contend that the law and the Sabbath are both abolished.
But the first class answer to the second that the texts which they bring forward do not meet the case, inasmuch as they say nothing respecting the change of the Sabbath; and that it is not honest to use the fourth commandment to enforce the observance of a day not therein commanded. And the third class assent to this answer as truthful and just.
To the position of the third class, the first make this answer: That the old covenant was made between God and his people concerning his law; that it ceased because the people failed in its conditions, the keeping of the commandments; that the new covenant does not abrogate the law of God, but secures obedience to it by putting it into the heart of every Christian; that there are two systems of law, one being made up of typical and ceremonial precepts, and the other consisting of moral principles only; that those texts which speak of the abrogation of the handwriting of ordinances, and of the distinction in meats, drinks, and days, pertain alone to this shadowy system, and never to the moral law which contains the Sabbath of the Lord; and that it is not the fault of the law, but of sinners, that they are condemned by it; and that justification being attained only by the sacrifice of Christ as a sin-offering, is in itself a most powerful attestation to the perpetuity, immutability, and perfection, of that law which reveals sin. And to this answer the second class heartily assent.
But the second class have something further to say. The Bible, indeed, fails to assert the change of the Sabbath, but these persons have something else to offer, in their estimation, equally as good as the Scriptures. The early fathers of the church, who conversed with the apostles, or who conversed with some who had conversed with them, and those who followed for several generations, are by this class presented as authority, and their testimony is used to establish the so-called Christian Sabbath on a firm basis. And this is what they assert respecting the fathers: That they distinctly teach the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week, and that the first day is, by divine authority, the Christian Sabbath.
But the third class squarely deny this statement, and affirm that the fathers held the Sabbath as an institution made for the Jews when they came out of Egypt, and that Christ abolished it at his death. They also assert that the fathers held the first day, not as a Sabbath in which men must not labor lest they break a divine precept, but as an ecclesiastical institution, which they called the Lord's day, and which was the proper day for religious assemblies because custom and tradition thus concurred. And so the third class answer the second by an explicit denial of its alleged facts. They also aim a blow at the first by the assertion that the early fathers taught the no-Sabbath doctrine, which must therefore be acknowledged as the real doctrine of the New Testament.
And now the first class respond to these conflicting statements of the second and the third. And here is its response:—
1. That our duty respecting the Sabbath, and respecting every other thing, can be learned only from the Scriptures.
2. That the first three hundred years after the apostles, nearly accomplished the complete development of the great apostasy, which had commenced even in Paul's time; and this age of apostatizing cannot be good authority for making changes in the law of God.
3. That only a small proportion of the ministers and teachers of this period have transmitted any writings to our time; and these are generally fragments of the original works, and they have come down to us mainly through the hands of the Romanists, who have never scrupled to destroy, or to corrupt, that which witnesses against themselves, whenever it has been in their power to do it.
4. But inasmuch as these two classes, viz., those who maintain the first-day Sabbath, and those who deny the existence of any Sabbath, both appeal to these fathers for testimony with which to sustain themselves, and to put down the first class, viz., those who hallow the ancient Sabbath, it becomes necessary that the exact truth respecting the writings of that age, which now exist, should be shown. There is but one method of doing this which will effectually end the controversy. This is to give every one of their testimonies concerning the Sabbath and first-day in their own words. In doing this the following facts will appear:—
1. That in some important particulars there is a marked disagreement on this subject among them. For while some teach that the Sabbath originated at creation and should be hallowed even now, others assert that it began with the fall of the manna, and ended with the death of Christ. And while one class represent Christ as a violator of the Sabbath, another class represent him as sacredly hallowing it, and a third class declare that he certainly did violate it, and that he certainly never did, but always observed it! Some of them also affirm that the Sabbath was abolished, and in other places positively affirm that it is perpetuated and made more sacred than it formerly was. Moreover some assert that the ten commandments are absolutely abolished, whilst others declare that they are perpetuated, and are the tests of Christian character in this dispensation. Some call the day of Christ's resurrection the first day of the week; others call it the day of the sun, and the eighth day; and a larger number call it the Lord's day, but there are no examples of this application till the close of the second century. Some enjoin the observance of both the Sabbath and the first day, while others treat the seventh day as despicable.
2. But in several things of great importance there is perfect unity of sentiment. They always distinguish between the Sabbath and the first day of the week. The change of the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first is never mentioned in a single instance. They never term the first day the Christian Sabbath, nor do they treat it as a Sabbath of any kind. Nor is there a single declaration in any of them that labor on the first day of the week is sinful; the utmost that can be found being one or two vague expressions which do not necessarily have any such sense.
3. Many of the fathers call the first day of the week the Lord's day. But none of them claim for it any scriptural authority, and some expressly state that it has none whatever, but rests solely upon custom and tradition.
4. But the writings of the fathers furnish positive proof that the Sabbath was observed in the Christian church down to the time when they wrote, and by no inconsiderable part of that body. For some of them expressly enjoin its observance, and even some of those who held that it was abolished speak of Christians who observed it, whom they would consent to fellowship if they would not make it a test.
5. And now mark the work of apostasy: This work never begins by thrusting out God's institutions, but always by bringing in those of men and at first only asking that they may be tolerated, while yet the ones ordained of God are sacredly observed. This, in time, being effected, the next effort is to make them equal with the divine. When this has been accomplished, the third stage of the process is to honor them above those divinely commanded; and this is speedily succeeded by the fourth, in which the divine institution is thrust out with contempt, and the whole ground given to its human rival.
6. Before the first three centuries had expired, apostasy concerning the Sabbath had, with many of the fathers, advanced to the third stage, and with a considerable number had already entered upon the fourth. For those fathers who hallow the Sabbath do generally associate with it the festival called by them the Lord's day. And though they speak of the Sabbath as a divine institution, and never speak thus of the so-called Lord's day, they do, nevertheless, give the greater honor to this human festival. So far had the apostasy progressed before the end of the third century, that only one thing more was needed to accomplish the work as far as the Sabbath was concerned, and this was to discard it, and to honor the Sunday festival alone. Some of the fathers had already gone thus far; and the work became general within five centuries after Christ.
7. The modern church historians make very conflicting statements respecting the Sabbath during the first centuries. Some pass over it almost in silence, or indicate that it was, at most, observed only by Jewish Christians. Others, however, testify to its general observance by the Gentile Christians; yet some of these assert that the Sabbath was observed as a matter of expediency and not of moral obligation, because those who kept it did not believe the commandments were binding. (This is a great error, as will appear in due time.) What is said, however, by these modern historians is comparatively unimportant inasmuch as their sources of information were of necessity the very writings which are about to be quoted.
8. In the following articles will be found in their own words, every statement which the fathers of the first three centuries make by way of defining their views of the Sabbath and first-day. And even when they merely allude to either day in giving their views of other subjects, the nature of the allusion is stated, and, where practicable, the sentence or phrase containing it is quoted. The different writings are cited in the order in which they purport to have been written. A considerable number were not written by the persons to whom they were ascribed, but at a later date. And even these writings possess a certain historical value. For though not written by the ones whose names they bear, they are known to have been in existence from the second or third century, and they give some idea of the views which then prevailed.
First of all let us hear the so-called Apostolical Constitutions. These were not the work of the apostles, but they were in existence as early as the third century, and were then very generally believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do therefore furnish important historical testimony to the practice of the church at that time. Mosheim in his Historical Commentaries, sect. 51, speaks thus of these Constitutions:—
“The matter of this work is unquestionably ancient; since the manners and discipline of which it exhibits a view are those which prevailed amongst the Christians of the second and third centuries, especially those resident in Greece and the oriental regions.”
Of the Apostolical Constitutions, Guericke's Church History speaks thus:—
“This is a collection of ecclesiastical statutes purporting to be the work of the apostolic age, but in reality formed gradually in the second, third, and fourth centuries, and is of much value in reference to the history of polity, and Christian archæology generally.”—Ancient Church, p. 212.
J. N. A.
AN ILLUSTRATION.—SOMETHING TO BE CONSIDERED.
By D. T. BOURDEAU
You receive a certain sum of money of a man. For the use of this money, and as a token of gratitude to the one from whom you receive it, you are to pay a certain interest, yearly. But if, instead of doing this, you wait a number of years, and then pay only the interest on the money for the last year, would you be regarded as doing justice to your creditor? You justly answer, No; there are previous claims upon me which are as sacred as those of the last year. Well, in this respect, what is just with man is just with God, who has for years claimed something for the use of means he has lent us. Many, in the past—some, for want of knowledge, others, for want of opportunity, and others, through a lack of gratitude—have not given God his due, and yet have been prospered. Such can now redeem the past, not simply by giving as God is now prospering them. They actually have means which belongs to the Lord, in a special sense, and which should have had, years ago. Will simply giving to the Lord a part of the present income from this portion of property in their possession, meet the claims he has upon them for the past? Nay, verily. These claims, in the cases before us, can be, at least, partly met by aiding to supply the financial wants of the cause, in different branches, besides paying Systematic Benevolence. Though this is not a matter of compulsion, yet the principles of justice remain the same, and how shall189they be met in the Judgment? What would professors, violating these principles, say, to see miraculously inscribed in bold and blazing characters on pieces of property over which they glory, “Stolen from God! Robbery in the first degree!” Although this may not be literally the case, yet it is as really so, in principle, as it was for Belshazzar to see the handwriting on the wall. D. T. BOURDEAU.
Calvary’s Cross.
By R. F. Cottrell
WHAT law was nailed to it? Evidently no other than that which prefigured the great offering for sin there to be made—the law of typical service which expired by limitation when the great sin-offering to which it pointed supervened. The moral law, the primary law, the law, the transgression of which made man a sinner, is not made void, but established by the scene of Calvary. Christ magnified this law in his life, in his teaching, and most of all by his death. The sacredness of this law is shown in the fact that the divine Son of God “poured out his soul unto death” for our transgressions of it. If you would see the perfect holiness and exceeding value of that law, look to Calvary. Or, if you would justly appreciate the exceeding sinfulness of sin, mark how it put the Lamb of God to death!
This is the way the pious of a hundred years ago viewed it. Says Wm. Carvosso: “This morning I have been meditating on the dreadful evil of sin. It was sin that caused angels to become devils; and it was sin that caused Adam to be driven from Paradise; by sin he lost the favor and image of God, and brought death into the world with all our woe! I see it was a manifestation of God’s just displeasure against sin, when he swept off a whole world at one stroke. But, O my blessed Saviour! when I turn my thoughts for a moment to reflect on what thou hast done and suffered to redeem the ruined race, I have a still clearer discovery of its dreadful evil. When I behold thee at Pilate’s bar with thy sacred body ‘all one wound,’ and follow thee to Calvary, and see thee stretched on yonder tree,’ fainting and ‘crushed beneath my load,’ crying out, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me,’ I see the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and am constrained to say,—
‘O Lamb of God, was ever pain,
Was ever love, like thine?’”
R. F. COTTRELL.
Practical Thoughts.
UNDULY SENSITIVE.
THOSE who are thus are unhappy, and their course, to say the least, is a source of uneasiness and perplexity to others. What good can result from being in constant fear that somebody has hurt you, or is going to hurt you? that everything which is said to you or concerning you, is aimed at you, and is intended to injure you? that you are slighted? &c. The imagination has much to do in this matter. It is too vivid, and manufactures things which do not exist.
But, as a general thing, this is not the worst feature. Selfishness is at the bottom of this sensitiveness. If self was dead, there would not be so much worrying over seeming, or even real, neglect, and we would not feel so sensitive when our wrongs are pointed out. We would even be calm when accused of sins of which we are not guilty. It will not pay to labor so hard to build up self, our worst enemy. Self is a poor god to worship. It gives bondage and unrest. May the desire of every heart be that self may be wholly crucified, and that God may rule in us fully. Let us learn of Jesus, who was meek and lowly in heart, and we shall find rest from the troubles of sensitiveness, and give others rest from anxiety on our account.
Objections to the Sabbath Answered.
By Dudley Marvin Canright
TWENTY-FIRST OBJECTION.
It is a violation of the Sabbath to go out of the dwelling, or kindle a fire, or to drive our teams to meeting, on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:29; 20:8–10; 35:3), hence it cannot be kept now.
Answer. To the first part of this objection, I answer that there is no such prohibition in the Bible, Old Testament or New. One occupation of the Sabbath, as specified by God himself, was that of coming together for religious meetings. Lev. 23:3: “Six days may work be done; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of rest, an holy convocation.” What is a convocation? Is it not a calling together, or a coming together? Yes. Could the people all come together, and still not go out of their dwellings? No. Shall we, then, charge God with contradicting his own laws, in one place commanding them not to leave their houses, and in another place to go to meeting, at the same time? The very fact that the pious Jews, during the old dispensation, were accustomed to assemble in the synagogues, and other places for meetings, on the Sabbath day (2 Kings 4:23; Luke 4:16), shows that they were ignorant of any law forbidding them to leave their houses on that day. Our opponents will admit that Jesus had to keep all the old law, till it was abolished at the cross. Very well; we find him constantly going to the synagogues on the Sabbath.
These facts show that our opponents have misinterpreted the text upon which they rely. It simply relates to the act of the people in going out of their places on the Sabbath day to gather food, which God had forbidden them to do; but does not contradict the other requirement, to assemble in meetings on that day. Thus the text reads: “And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the Lord said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore he giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.” Ex. 16:27–29. Who can fail to see that this prohibition related only to the act of going out to gather food, but had no reference to going to meetings, or attending to other sacred duties belonging to that day?
The same strained and unnatural interpretation is forced upon Ex. 20:8–10, to show that it is wrong to drive our teams to meeting on the Sabbath. “Six days shalt thou labor and do all THY work; but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, . . . nor thy cattle,” &c. We have just shown that the Lord required his people to go to meeting upon the Sabbath day, and that they all did so. Yet God forbids them to do any work, the same as in the case of the cattle. If their walking to meeting on the Sabbath was not a violation of the law, neither would it be for the cattle to walk there. God said, “Thou shalt not do any work,” yet the hardest day's work of the whole week, for the priest, was done upon the Sabbath day, on which they had to do double work. Num. 28:9. Still, Christ says they did not violate the Sabbath, in doing this. Matt. 12:5. Why not? Because this was for God's special service, and was not their own work. The law simply forbids the doing of our work, either by ourselves, our children, our servants, or our cattle. But that which is for God's worship, is lawful on that day, as are all deeds of mercy and benevolence, for so Christ has decided. Matt. 12:10–13. Hence it is lawful to drive our teams to meeting on the Sabbath.
Lastly, as to building fires on the Sabbath day, Ex. 35:3, we may observe, 1. That this prohibition is not in the ten commandments, which we claim are still binding. 2. That it is in the law of Moses, which we and our opponents both agree has been abolished; so that, whatever its meaning once was, it does not concern us now. 3. There are many facts which show that this prohibition extended only to the Jews, while in the wilderness, but never applied to them after they reached Canaan. (1.) Palestine, in winter, is so cold as to require fire to keep the inhabitants from suffering. (2.) The Sabbath was not designed to distress men, then, more than now. (3.) In the warm climate of Arabia, where this law applied, no fires were needed for comfort. (4.) If this law had been carried out, in Palestine, it would have directly conflicted with the law of the passover, which required the lamb to be roasted on the evening following the fourteenth day of the first month, which would occasionally come on the Sabbath. But the passover was only once celebrated in the wilderness. Hence we conclude that this objection is unfounded, as the law against fires was only local, not extending even to the land of Canaan, but applied only for the few years the Israelites were in the wilderness.
TWENTY-SECOND OBJECTION.
Stoning to death, the penalty for Sabbath-breaking, has been abolished; and as a law without a penalty is of no force, therefore the law of the Sabbath is void.
Answer. Stoning to death never was the final penalty for the violation of the Sabbath, or any other of the ten commandments. It was simply the penalty prescribed by the civil law of the Jews, the same as hanging or imprisonment is with us. A little reflection will show this. Suppose a Jew had murdered a man. For this he was arrested and stoned to death. Was that the penalty of the moral law? If so, as soon as he was dead, he had paid the penalty of the law, and would not, in justice, be made to pay it again. Hence, in the final Judgment, this man would go clear of the second death! God would not judge, condemn, and punish him twice, for the same crime. So he would go straight into the kingdom! This is too absurd to be believed. No; the stoning penalty was simply that prescribed by the civil law of the land, the same as hanging is with us. But the real and final penalty for the violation of the moral law, has always been death—the second death. There has been no change in this penalty. It has always been the same in the Old and New Testaments. Eze. 18:20; Rom. 6:23. Those who violate God's Sabbath now, will find, in the Judgment of the great day, that death is the penalty for Sabbath-breaking, the same as ever.
MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS.
If the seventh day is the Sabbath, why has it not been found out before?
Answer. It was found out six thousand years ago, Gen. 2:3, and has been frequently urged upon men's attention, ever since. There has never been a time when the Sabbath has not been observed by some of God's people. (See Andrew's History of the Sabbath.) But many of the most prominent truths of the Bible have, at different times, been perverted and finally lost by men, sometimes for ages. Then, when God raises up some one to restore these old truths, they are opposed as introducing new doctrines, and the strong argument against them always is, “If this is so, why was it not found out before?” Luther had this constantly thrown in his face. For hundreds of years, the truths he began to revive had been lost sight of. That generation had never heard of them. To them, they were entirely new. The first question, everywhere, was, “If these things are so, why have they not been found out before? Why have not our ministers preached them?” All Luther could say, was, that these truths were in the Bible, and he should preach them.
So we say of this truth. Why God suffered it to be lost for so long a time, by the mass of the people, and to be revived now, rather than at some other time, we may not be able to tell, any more than why he has suffered other truths to be lost for ages, and then restored the same as this. The violation of the second commandment, image worship, was nearly universal for about one thousand years previous to the Reformation. Then God raised up men who restored that down-trodden commandment. Why was it not done before? Who can tell? Was Wesley a reformer? Yes. Why were not the truths he preached found out before? To be consistent, those who raise this objection ought to reject all the light, all the improvements, all the reformations, which have ever been received since Adam's day, and refuse to know or believe anything not revealed in the first chapter of the Bible!
D. M. CANRIGHT.
Concord, Minn.
Conversation.
By JOS. CLARKE
“Let your conversation be as becometh the gospel of Christ.” Phil. 1:27.
How full of excellent precepts are the Holy Scriptures. On every point we find explicit directions, and could we always remember to carry them out in our practice, how good it would be for us.
The above quotation, if always lived up to, would save us many a slip, and many a mortification. How many a tempted saint has mourned and wept. Alas! alas! that I should have forgotten this sweet injunction of Paul, when it is so clear, so distinct, so decisive.
Alas! that, when I had opportunity, I did not warn and instruct, or at least give a serious turn to the conversation. How often is the past regretted when some trifling theme has been discussed, or the precious time wasted in indifferent or insipid conversation, which might have been spent profitably in getting out the truths of the Bible. Alas! how many have passed out of sight, who might have heard the truth, who can never again listen to the living voice.
Continually, the hungry tomb is closing over the dead, and cutting short the probation of many; no more will they hear the precious voice of inspiration calling to repentance. Say, reader, has no one passed to the grave during the past year, within the sphere of your influence, who might have been helped by you?
That young person, so full of life, or that older one, who had seen more of life, whose coffined corpse was yesterday lowered into the narrow house, appointed for all the living, have you prayed for, and labored for, him? have you no reflection of personal neglect?
Our conversation, how important; the devoted minister enters the pulpit, only with fervent prayer, that every word may be with wisdom and power, and shall not we, who occupy more private positions, seek that our daily conversation may tell for the good of those who come within the sphere of our influence?
Instead of this, how often it happens that unprofitable conversation fills up the time, or, perhaps, improper subjects come in, and precious opportunities are lost forever, and those who, perhaps, longed for a word in season were disappointed.
Changes take place, and our associates are removed from our sight, one, by death, another, by removal, or other cause, and have we no sharp pangs of sorrow that these loved associates, now withdrawn from us forever, saw so little in us of concern for their salvation?
How great the promises to those who order their conversation aright; the subject here noticed is often alluded to in the Bible. Let us consider all the texts in which it is mentioned, and seek, hourly and constantly, to so order our conversation that we may glorify God and save souls.
A word in season for every one, how precious it would be; and if every one who professes the name of Christ would do this, how great, how important, would the result be. Let us each and all pray for wisdom, and love, and grace, to direct. JOS. CLARKE.
I Will Come Again.
By Mary Martin
“In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” John 14: 2, 3.
SWEET, precious, and comforting, is the message I bring to you. Jesus is coming! It is no new story. Long years ago the angels said, “This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.” Ever since these words were uttered, there have been those who believed in the doctrine, “Unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Is there no music in these words, does he say who has accumulated thousands, and is still engrossed in schemes of earthly aggrandizement? Though the Bible has said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,” there is yet a chance for you. If you can be helped to see things as they are, your wealth may go to save the needy for whom Christ died, and thus a treasure be secured to you “eternal in the heavens.” In a little while, your bank stock will be of no account. The gold and silver you now prize so highly will be thrown “to the moles and to the bats.” There is a bank which cannot fail, “where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal,” and God has pledged his honor that this stock, through all the coming ages, shall never grow worthless. Soon a grander time will come than you even dream of now. Your costly dwellings, earthly elegance and grandeur, will be superseded by a city whose gates are built of pearl, whose streets are solid gold. Be persuaded to devote the few remaining moments to seeking a preparation for that blessed “second coming.”
My dear young friends, would you, too, turn a deaf ear to these sweetly solemn words, “I will come again,” hoping for long years of gayety and pleasure? “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Your brightest plans, formed without consulting your Maker, may be defeated at any moment. The hopes so fondly cherished may be blasted long ere fruition, and these sad words, “My life has been a failure,” or the more solemn ones, “The harvest is past, the summer is ended, and we are not saved,” be your lamentation. There is no need of failure here. Then come with whatever talent God has lent you, and work with a will; for the harvest moon is waning, and a place is being prepared in the “many mansions” for all the faithful ones.
Worn servant, you who have toiled “from early morn till dewy eve” ’neath summer’s sun and ’mid winter’s snow, well do you understand the language, “I will come again.” Does the narrow path grow more uneven? Do the masses turn away with derision or indifference from the message you bear? Precious the promises: “My grace is sufficient.” “He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” Through the long vista of years comes this pledge of remembrance: “I go to prepare a place for you. . . . I will come again, and receive you unto myself.”
Grief stricken mourner, this “second coming” must be a subject in which you are deeply interested, for it is the “Life-giver” who is to appear, and “them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him” from “the land of the enemy,” nevermore to be taken captive, for he who brought sin into the world and death through sin will be slain with his own weapons. Then trust in God and “wait for his Son from Heaven.” Very soon will the resurrection morning restore your buried treasures, for “he is faithful that promised,” “Surely I come quickly.”
To you who are homeless, tired, and worn—you whose lives are only prolonged physical suffering, remember the “many mansions.” Tenderly our Saviour speaks as he tells of a place he has gone to prepare for you, a place where pale lips will never quiver with anguish they would fain conceal, or the aching head turn away to hide the eyes heavy with their weight of tears, but, instead, will be “fullness of joy, and pleasures forevermore.”
You who are surrounded by discouraging circumstances, scarcely knowing where the path of duty lies, are you still waiting for answers to prayer offered long ago, tempted to think God’s ear is heavy, that it cannot hear? We may not live to fathom the mystery why God sees fit to lead us as he does, or know the full meaning contained in the lessons his providence would teach. It is enough that we know he is leading us, and if we are saved at last we may see the brink of the precipice from which we were kept only by severe scourging, while we in our human blindness never knew it was there. Then wait no longer for Satan to die, or your Heavenly Father to work a miracle; but arise, and come nearer to Him who has promised heavenly wisdom, and, with the strength which cometh from above, perform your life-work, for Jesus is coming.
What we know not now, hereafter,
Why and wherefore, we can trace;
Nevermore through a glass darkly,
But forever, face to face;
When life’s dreary desert changeth
Burning sand for blushing rose,
And the way-worn traveler findeth
Home at last and sweet repose;
When the weary form, the burden,
Shall exchange for endless rest,
Then we’ll know, as now we may not,
Why the thorny road was best.
MARY MARTIN.
New Hampshire.
Excusing Sin.
By S. A. H. Lindsey
If we were only able to discern clearly the terrible nature and bitter consequences of sin, we would turn from it with loathing, and never seek to excuse it in ourselves or in others. But, with our dim vision, it does not look so extremely bad after all. Our sinful nature excuses herself because her besetments are “so natural.” We quite forget that the carnal, or natural, mind is enmity against God, not subject to his law. Rom. 8:7.
We excuse the sins of our little children, perhaps smile at their first acts of rebellion because they are “too young” for discipline, and our fond love indulges them until they are “too old” for us to control. We excuse them in their youth, because, as we say, “they must sow their wild oats,” unmindful of the words of inspiration, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked; for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption.” Gal. 6:7, 8. The sons of Eli “sowed their wild oats” and miserably perished at the hands of the Philistines.
Excuses are made for the sins of those who are advanced in years “because they are old.” If people in their old age become idiotic, then are they like babes, not responsible; but if their intellect is continued, the claims of God's holy law are as strong upon them as ever, unless it can be shown that God is a respecter of persons. But this is so far from being true that one illustration is sufficient. In the early days of king Solomon, the Lord had shown him special favors by twice appearing unto him, imparting great wisdom and crowning him with riches and honor. But the sins of his old age brought the frown of God upon him. “For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. . . . And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord, and went not fully after the Lord, as did David his father. . . . And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the Lord God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice.” 1 Kings 11:4, 6, 9. Old age afforded this wise and highly favored prince no excuse to do wrong, however unfavorable his surroundings might have been.
In times past, sin has involved people of all ages in one common ruin. 2 Chron. 36:17; Deut. 32:25; Lam. 2:21. The old and the young have perished together. “Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” This is as true of individuals, old or young, as of nations. The way of righteousness is the only safe way.
We are living in the hour of God's judgment. Then, instead of seeking to cover up our sins with excuses, let us try hard to put them away, and warn others of the danger of a sinful course. Our probation lingers yet a little. May the long-suffering of our Lord prove our salvation at last. May we daily seek after purity and holiness of heart. Unless we do, we shall never see the face of God. In his love, he has provided a way whereby we may be saved if we will. If we are finally lost, the fault will be our own, and we shall be entirely without excuse.