Earlier text: An Argument for the Two LawsThe Advocate Again.
By Editor
THE California Christian Advocate has again deigned to notice the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, and, as usual gets out of temper. We are reminded of the story of a deaf man who attended a discussion, saying that he could tell who got defeated, as the one who lost the argument always got mad. We have several times placed the Advocate editor in a trying position, and it is hard for him to keep his temper when he speaks of us. We took up a book on the Sabbath published by the Methodist Book Houses, which he advertised and recommended, and proved that it wickedly misrepresented the Scriptures, and abused its readers by hiding its misrepresentations under the pretense of a knowledge of Hebrew. We called upon the editor to vindicate the book or withdraw it from the market. The first he could not do, and he therefore passed it by without notice; but he has improved every opportunity since of "making faces" at us—making use of bitter language because he had no just reason to offer. He is now very much stirred by our article on "That Same Identical Time," and, just as before, evades the issue and makes one of his own, which, if it contained any argument would be as fatal to the first day as to the seventh. This is the point he is trying to hide from his readers. Of the first day he says:— "We are in favor of Sunday as a day of rest, and believe it ought to be secured to the people by legal enactments." "It seems to us of little use to reason with people who do not know, or those who are so perverse they will not acknowledge, that to keep exactly the same time as the Sabbath all over the earth is a practical impossibility." Now this is a man of straw of his own making, and a very rude one at that. The reader—every intelligent reader—knows that we have never said a word in favor of "exactly the same time" as the Sabbath all over the earth. This is a figment originating in the minds of those who oppose the seventh day. Our article was for the express purpose of showing to the Advocate that they do not and cannot keep the "identical time" for Sunday, and therefore if there is any difficulty in the way of the Sabbath it is a difficulty in the way of Sunday also. And for this he accuses us of perverseness, and rails at us for "stupidity." We shall not retort and call him stupid, for the double reason that we are not permitted to render "railing for railing," and because we do not think that "stupidity" is his difficulty. His ailment is one that is much less excusable than stupidity would be. It has been our endeavor to bring him to realize the fact that any argument on time which would stand against the Sabbath would stand against the Sunday also. We do not believe that he is too stupid to see it, for any one with the commonest kind of sense can see it. It may be that he has described his own case in the words, "so perverse that he will not acknowledge" this very evident fact. We will quote from his article, substituting "Methodists" for "Adventists," and "Sunday" for "Saturday," as follows:— "If two Methodists should leave New York, each one fiercely determined to keep Sunday for Sabbath, and one should go east and the other west, and should sail until they came near each other, and should stop on islands in mid-ocean, one would be keeping Sunday and the other Monday for Sabbath, and this state of things actually has existed, and does yet. The only thing these two Sunday Methodists could do would be to proceed to demolish each other for the wicked violation of the law of the Sabbath." And if there was a "legal enactment" on that mythical island "in favor of Sunday as a day of rest," what could these two Methodists do about it? What would be Sunday to one would not be Sunday to the other. Can the Advocate see the point?91 We will be much obliged to the editor of the Advocate if he will notice this subject once more. We will not ask him to say whether he believes that Sunday can be kept. We take it for granted that he believes that it can, because he declares in favor of compelling men to keep it by "legal enactments." But we do ask him to answer the following questions:— 1. Do Sunday-keepers keep "exactly the same time" from the Atlantic to the Pacific? 2. Do you ask that a legal enactment shall compel all the people, all over the land, to keep exactly the same time for Sunday? 3. Can the Sunday—exactly the same day—be kept by all the people from New York to San Francisco, and they not keep exactly the same time? 4. If Sunday can be universally kept without keeping exactly the same time, cannot the seventh day be kept also without keeping exactly the same time? 5. And finally, Does the pretended "exactly-the-same-time" argument involve any difficulty in keeping the Sabbath which is not involved in keeping Sunday? If the Advocate will answer these questions directly we will republish them with his replies. If he does not answer them we will not impute his silence to his "stupidity," nor rail at him for "perverseness." We will let the reader judge why he evades the issue, and grows captious over our effort to bring him to a recognition of the fact that his argument has no bearing against the Sabbath which it has not against the Sunday also. Of course we do not admit that there is the shadow of an argument in his position against any day. Not a word can be found in the writings of any Seventh-day Adventist hinting toward the necessity of keeping the same identical time for the Sabbath; and Sunday-keepers know that they do not keep the same time for Sunday. Why, then, do they dwell upon it so much in their opposition to the Sabbath, seeing that it touches no issue in the controversy? It must be because they can find no real argument against the Sabbath, therefore they suppose one; and have proved quite unhappy in the supposition. Next week we will notice the supposed difficulty in keeping the Sabbath in traveling round the world. The Two Covenants.
By John Nevins Andrews
THE opening work in the establishment of the new covenant must, at least, be as early as the closing hours of the life of Christ. In the last memorable evening of his life, as he was about to be betrayed into the hands of the Jewish rulers, our Lord gave the cup, representing thereby his own blood, into the hands of his disciples, saying as he did it: "This cup is the new testament [covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you." Luke 22:20. Here is the first mention of the new covenant by our Lord. It is evident that the shedding of his blood, and the pouring out of his soul unto death, was that which should give validity to the covenant. Isa. 53; Heb. 9. The opening event, therefore, in the ratification of the new testament, or covenant, was on that memorable night in which the Saviour was betrayed, when he, the mediator of the new covenant on the one part, and the eleven apostles on the other part, as the representatives of the people of God, entered into solemn contract with each other. He, by giving them the cup representing his own blood, pledged himself to die for them; they, by accepting it, thus pledged themselves to accept of salvation through his blood, and to fulfill the conditions connected therewith. Indeed, we must date the preliminary acts in the establishment of the new covenant, from the opening of Christ's ministry. Our Lord began to preach at the close of Daniel's sixty-ninth week. Compare Dan. 9:25; Mark 1:14, 15. The remaining, or seventieth, week, he was to employ in confirming the covenant with many; and in the midst of the week, he caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, by being offered himself upon the cross, as their great antitype. Heb. 10:5-10. We must, therefore, assign the ministry of Christ to the introductory work of establishing the new covenant, or new testament. His preaching was a public announcement of its principles. He assigned to the law of God its just place. He laid down the keeping of the commandments as the condition of eternal life. Matt. 5:17-19; 19:16-19. He revealed the ground of pardon; viz., the sacrifice of his own life. Matt. 20:28. He also stated in distinct terms the conditions on which that sacrifice could benefit men; viz., faith and repentance. John 7:24; Mark 1:15. We cannot, therefore, deny that the ministry of Christ was the opening work in the establishment of the new covenant. And now we again come to the important fact that the establishment of the new covenant was solely with the Hebrew people. Our Lord confined his ministry to the Jewish people, declaring that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matt. 15:24. When he sent out the twelve during his own ministry, he "commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Matt. 10:5, 9. And when he sent the seventy also, it was only into those cities and villages whither he himself would come. Luke 10:1. His apostles were all Jews. And with them was the first solemn act of ratification of the new covenant in the cup out of which all drank, representing the new testament in his blood. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25. And here comes in the fact that the seventy weeks of Daniel's prophecy pertain exclusively to the Hebrew people. Dan. 9:24. The last, or seventieth, week was devoted to the confirmation of the covenant. Dan. 9:27. It began with our Lord's ministry to the Hebrews, and ended when the apostles turned to the Gentiles. It was in the midst of this week of confirming the covenant that our Lord was crucified. And thus we find that, after our Lord's ascension, the ministers of the word preached the gospel "to none but unto the Jews only." Acts 11:19. It was unto the Jews first that God, having raised up his Son, sent him to bless them in turning them away from their sins. Acts 3:25, 26. The termination of the seventy weeks closed the period in which the work pertained exclusively to the Hebrews. The work for the Gentiles was opened by the conversion of Saul, and by his commission to them as their apostle. Acts 9; 26:17. It was also opened on the part of Peter by his wonderful vision of the sheet let down from Heaven, and the commission given him at that time. Acts 10:9; 15:7, 14-17. But what was the condition of the Gentiles before "the door of faith" was opened to them? Let the apostle Paul answer this, Eph. 2:11-13, "Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world; but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ." The apostle goes on to speak of the union of Jews and Gentiles in one body as follows, verses 14-20: "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." Those who sneer at everything which God has committed to the Hebrews, and boast themselves of their Gentile descent, would do well to compare this statement of the condition of the Gentiles with Paul's statement of the "advantages" of the Jews, and his enumeration of the things that pertain to them. Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5. God purposed to make of the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision one people for himself. The first thing was to abolish the enmity; viz., the code which created national distinction, which was circumcision and the ceremonial law. See Acts 11:3; Col. 2:13-17; Gal. 2:11, 12. Of the Gentiles it is said that they were "in time past Gentiles in the flesh," and "at that time . . . without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Of the Israelites it is said: "To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and THE COVENANTS, and the giving of the law and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen." Certainly the Gentiles have no occasion for boasting. They did not take into the union that which added much to the common stock. They came in as the veriest beggars. They became rich by sharing with the Hebrews the blessings which God had for long ages preserved in their hands. The Gentiles were made partakers of the spiritual things which God had wisely and justly placed in the hands of Israel. Rom. 15:27. But being thus brought nigh by the blood of Christ, Paul says of those who were Gentiles "in time past" (but not now) that they were "no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God." They were no longer Gentiles, but Israelites. They became sharers in the name and the riches of Israel. And it is by this adoption into the commonwealth of Israel that they became sharers in the blessings of the new covenant. The subject is wonderful illustrated by the words of Jer. 11:16 and Rom. 11:17-24. Thus we read:-- "The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit; with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken." "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in; for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and were graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall these which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?" Here is the good olive tree, representing the family of Abraham, as adopted by the God of the whole earth, when he gave up the rest of mankind to their own chosen idolatry and wickedness. It is a "green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit." To this olive tree pertain the covenants of promise. The first covenant is made with the people thus represented. The new covenant is made with the same people that the first covenant was made with. The breaking off of many of the branches of the tree, is because that God's ancient people continued not in his covenant. This is why he regarded them not. Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9. Indeed, in the chapter in which Jeremiah predicts the breaking off of the branches of the olive tree, he assigns the reason: The violation of the covenant God made with his people when he brought them forth out of Egypt. See Jer. 11. By the new covenant, those who were broken off can, if they will, be graffed in again, and not they only, but the Gentiles also with them. We may consider the good olive tree as having twelve larger branches, and a vast number of small branches. The tree will at the close of human probation, stand complete, representing the twelve tribes of "the Israel of God." There can be, therefore, no dispute that the first covenant, and the new covenant, were each made with the Hebrew people; the first, at the departure out of Egypt; the second, at the time of our Lord's ministry and death. The Gentiles share in the blessings of the new covenant by becoming members of the commonwealth of Israel. Eph. 2:12, 19.
J. N. A. Thoughts on the Twelfth Chapter of Hebrews.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
"LET us lay aside every weight." The apostle here takes the figure from the running course, where the contestant before starting in the race would lay aside every superfluous thing. Nothing was retained that would in the least hinder his progress. So we must lay aside everything that would hinder our progress in the divine life. These weights are of various kinds; some we have by nature, and others we voluntarily assume. Their number is legion, comprising every sin and evil tendency common to mankind. Barnes well says that "some very light objects, in themselves considered, become material and weighty encumbrances. Even a feather or a ring—such may be the fondness for these toys—may become such a weight that those who wear them will never make much progress toward the prize." The original signifies something that may be hooked or fastened on. Constant watchfulness, therefore, is required on the part of the runner, lest, after he has laid aside a certain weight, Satan, who is ever on the alert, may fasten it on again.92 "And the sin which doth so easily beset us." In addition to the "weights," of which different people have different kinds, there is a constantly recurring sin, to which all are liable, and which not only hinders our progress, but effectually stops it. If we trace the connection between this chapter and the two preceding chapters, we cannot fail to see that the sin to which the apostle here refers is the sin of unbelief. Chapter 10 closes with these words: "Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul." The eleventh begins with a definition of faith, and continues with notable examples of it, showing that without faith it is impossible to please God. Then comes the exhortation which we are now considering. Many suppose that by "the sin which doth so easily beset us," the apostle means some especial sin to which different persons are liable, differing in different cases. So we hear of impatience as the besetting sin of one person, and covetousness as the besetting sin of another. But the apostle speaks of "the sin," and not of the sin which so easily besets us. It is a fact that may be demonstrated, that lack of faith is the greatest source of trouble with every person, manifesting itself, of course, in many different ways. Lack of faith keeps back thousands from being Christians, and causes many professed Christians to stumble and fall by the way. The word which is rendered "easily beset," does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament. It properly means "surrounding," and has been defined, "easy to encircle." Tindal renders it, "the sin that hangeth on us." Bloomfield supposes that it means "the sin which especially winds around us and hinders our course," with reference to the long garments worn by the ancients, which, if not removed or fastened up, would wind around the legs of the runner, and cause him to fall. In harmony with this view is the exhortation given to "gird up the loins of your mind," meaning to have faith. How few there are who believe with all their heart. But a belief that admits of a doubt is not faith. True faith is that condition into which not the slightest element of disbelief enters. Who has the faith of Abraham, or Noah, or Moses? We think we have faith because we assent to the most prominent doctrines of the Bible, or to what is known as the "Third Angel's Message." A simple belief that Jesus is the Son of God, and that all the ten commandments are still as binding as when they were given, will not save anybody. "The devils believe and tremble," but their belief is not imputed to them for righteousness; they are devils still. Genuine faith in the Third Angel's Message is evinced by a practical reception of all the truths brought out by it. Among them may be mentioned the spirit of prophecy. One who does not believe in this is not a believer in the message, for it is one of the main points. Compare Rev. 12:19 with Rev. 19:10, etc. But this also involves a practical belief in true temperance, for that is a vital part of the Third Angel's Message. True temperance, or health reform, as it is termed, has been declared to bear the same relation to the last message that the right arm does to the body. Then if we do not believe and practice it, our faith is a crippled faith. We may also show our lack of faith by neglecting to render to God his dues. Among nearly all denominations the tithing system is now recognized as the Bible plan of supporting those who labor in the cause of God. It is founded on the same principle as the Sabbath—the right of property. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord;" whoever uses that time for himself takes that to which he has no right. So also "the tithe is the Lord's," and whoever does not return it to him is guilty of robbery. Men who would scorn to defraud their neighbors of a dime, will systematically rob God, and think there is no wrong done. The Bible bears no uncertain testimony on this point. In astonishment the prophet says, by direct inspiration from God, "Will a man rob God?" Some one will say, No; a man cannot rob God. But listen: "Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and in offerings. Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." Mal. 3:8, 9. Abraham did not do so, for he paid his tithes to the Lord's servant. Noah, in gratitude for his preservation, sacrificed not merely one-tenth, but one-seventh of his property. The neglect to honor the Lord with our substance, and with the first-fruits of all our increase, Prov. 3:9, is a most flagrant manifestation of unbelief. God makes his care for us, both temporal and spiritual, dependent on our remembering him; but if we do not thus honor him, we intimate that we have no faith in his ability or willingness to care for us, or else that we lightly esteem his protection. Meager Support of Christian Missions.
IN the prelude to one of the "Monday Lectures" in Boston, Joseph Cook recently gave some interesting facts in regard to foreign missions. They are interesting, and yet they should cause the ears of American Christians to tingle with shame; first, because this "Christian nation" spends so much more money to debase itself than to elevate the race, and second, because converts from among the heathen are more ready to give93 for the support of the gospel than are those who have always enjoyed Christian privileges. Here are the extracts:— It would not be necessary for me to open the Scriptures to make me zealous for missions, because the philanthropic attitude of soul is enough to give us zeal in this particular. There are three hundred millions of women now on this planet who have only the Buddhist hope of being born again as men instead of toads or snakes. There are eighty millions of women in Moslem harems. There are uncounted millions of men and women and children growing up in the most degraded superstitions, and suffering in mind, body, and estate from inherited pagan customs. In the name of mere philanthropy and secular prudence, Christian missions ought to receive a support, immediate, abundant, permanent, unflinching. All that united Protestant Christendom together raises annually for missions would not pay the liquor bill of the United States for three days, nor that of the British Islands for two. At the opening of the century all Protestant Christendom expended only $250,000 annually for missions. It expends to-day $7,500,000 for that purpose. This is a large sum, you think. It is a bagatelle. The dissipations of Saratogas and Newports and Brightons would hardly find this sum worth mentioning in the hugeness of their expenses for self-gratification. The churches are penurious toward missions. . . . . In China there is not an ordained missionary to-day for a million people. In the population accessible to the American Board there is as yet only one missionary for some 700,000 inhabitants. Modern Christendom has thrown one pebble into the great ocean of missionary effort, and stands with an amused childish conceit on the shore of history watching the wide ripples produced by that pebble, and supposes that it is reforming the world. Another century will sneer at us for our conceit and penuriousness. . . . . In Bengal alone, out of a population of sixty-three millions, there are, according to Dr. W. W. Hunter, the government statistician of the Indian Empire, ten millions who suffer hunger whenever the harvest falls short, and thirteen millions who do not know the feeling of a full stomach, except in the mango season. ("England's Work in India," by W. W. Hunter, LL.D., London, 1881; p. 78.) . . . . In populations poverty stricken and often famished, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, almost alone among the missionary managing bodies of the world, is insisting on large or complete self-support by the native churches. In Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Canton, Fuhchau, Shanghai, Kobe, Kioto, Tokio, and Yokohama, ten representative cities of Asia, it was my fortune to put to large gatherings of missionaries of all denominations and nationalities a series of questions on the religious condition of India, China, and Japan, and, among them this inquiry: "Ought native Christians to be encouraged and instructed to give a tenth of their income to the support of their churches?" With not half a dozen exceptions, in at least a hundred cases, missionaries outside the field of the American Board replied: "No, not yet;" but missionaries inside the field of the American Board said: "Yes;" and so did the foremost of their pupils and converts. One evening in Bombay, the second city of the British Empire (for Bombay is now larger than Calcutta, or than Glasgow or Liverpool), I was putting a series of written questions to a company of missionaries and civilians, and this question about self-support was among the inquiries. Scotch and English missionaries, one after the other, rose and opposed such a pressure as is brought to bear on native churches by instructing them to give a tenth of their income for the support of their pastor; but, finally, uprose a converted Brahmin from out of the field of the American Board, and, in the most incisive, almost classic English, almost turned the feeling of the company in favor of the American plan. I had a similar experience in many a city, and I found the converts, especially the most intelligent of them, quite as emphatic in defending this system of self-support as the missionaries of the American Board themselves. Among the Churches.
By M. C. Israel
In company with Elder Ballou, I visited the church at Fresno, Dec. 6. Held meetings with them two weeks, and was then called home on account of sickness in my family. January 19 I returned to Fresno, and spent the Sabbath with the church there; on the 21st I joined Bro. Ballou at Lemoore, where he had been laboring for some time. Here is one of the largest churches in the State. The Lord blessed in the labors. The preaching was of a practical nature, calculated to cause a searching of heart and life, and was well responded to in the social meetings. The brethren and sisters are of good courage in the Lord, and show a willingness to help move the car of truth. The T. & M. Society adopted the plan of using small packages of tracts for circulating in the neighborhood of each member; also of making a thorough canvass of one of the coast counties with the Signs of the Times. A club of 127 is taken for this purpose. The brethren pledged and partly paid $83.50 to help defray the expenses of the Special Edition of the Signs. I came to this place January 31. I was here nearly two years ago and assisted Elder Healey in starting a tent-meeting; the result of which is a company of thirty-two (several having moved away) mostly sisters, who are trying to walk in the light of present truth. At the close of the tent-meetings a nice church was built. This was a good move at the right time. There has been but little preaching since, but they have not forsaken the assembling of themselves together, and have made some progress. Our meetings have been well attended and a good degree of the Spirit of the Lord has been manifested, and all are determined to try to be faithful. The interest in the missionary work has been revived and instructions given how to work, and keep the accounts. The club of Signs has been increased, and a supply of tracts ordered, to make up into packages for circulation in the city and vicinity. We feel encouraged for the work here. The population of Los Angeles is rapidly increasing, with a good class of people. It is said that 1,500 houses were built during the past year, and the work is still going on. I see no reason why we may not have another tent-meeting here soon, and a larger church be raised up. I expect to go to San Diego and San Pasqual next week. M. C. Israel. Los Angeles, February 16, 1883. The Missionary.
By G. D. Ballou
SABBATH, Feb. 17, I was with the church in San Francisco. Nearly all the members were present, and the meeting was one of deep interest. The theme presented was drawn from 1 Pet. 3:18. The nature of the testimonies which followed gave evidence that the church not only desires to grow, but that it is gradually coming up to its high privileges. It is always encouraging to see Christians doing their best to carry out their own good resolutions. Desires, resolutions, and promises are only blossoms. When these blossoms blight and fade, how discouraging; but when they become fruitful, what a source of rejoicing to all! The Sabbath-school showed marked improvement both in attendance and interest. We hope this will continue, for we are sure that when the Sabbath-school flourishes, the church will thrive. The missionary work is progressing well. Some are finding sweet employment in looking after the wants of suffering humanity. This church has great reason to praise the Lord for what he has done for them, and not only to serve him with their lips, but to engage heartily in the special work of spreading the "gospel of the kingdom."
G. D. BALLOU. A Covenant by Sacrifice.
By R. F. Cottrell
The work of human redemption and salvation is a work of sacrifice. Christ has made the great sacrifice; and he bids us take up the cross and follow him. And unless we do this, he assures us that we cannot be his disciples. Therefore, when the great gathering day comes, the command is, "Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice." Ps. 5:5. The saints--those who will be gathered when the angels are sent forth to gather the elect --are such as have made a covenant with God by sacrifice. A sacrifice costs something. David said he would not offer a sacrifice to God which cost him nothing. I remember hearing the question raised, in a conversation between two ministers, whether anything could be properly called a sacrifice, except the slaying of an offering. This is not its only scriptural sense. It is used otherwise in both Testaments. "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise." Ps. 51:17. "But to do good and to communicate forget not; for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Heb. 13:16. When the Philippians sent of their goods to supply the necessaries of life to the Apostle Paul, he declared their action to be "an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God." Now we have the opportunity to offer sacrifices to God equally acceptable. We can serve the cause of God, blessing and saving men, by the use of those things which he has put into our hands. It may cost us some self-denial to surrender to God what he has intrusted to our care as stewards. He gives us our living out of his goods; but we are apt to think we need all we have and more. We are little disposed naturally to make a sacrifice. If we had an abundance, a thousand times more than we could use, how liberal we would be! This would not be a sacrifice. The thought is deceptive. The person that has a great abundance is no more inclined to be liberal; and if he were, he would know little of real sacrifice. For what purpose was the account of the poor widow and her two mites put upon record? Was it not to teach us to "trust in the Lord and do good"? Is the reader making a covenant with God by sacrifice? Some have rejoiced for years that God has given them the truth. It has come to them by sacrifice--the sacrifice of the Son of God, and a sacrifice on the part of those whom God has used as instruments--and they have not yet learned that God requires them to make a sacrifice to give the truth to others, that they may be saved. Talk of following Christ, yet making no sacrifice! not giving of their abundance, even to save their fellow-men! Be not deceived. "If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of his." Some think they are too poor to give even a small amount of means in the cause. In such cases it will often be found that they are not too poor to use means for useless and hurtful indulgences. They find means to indulge the appetite with those things which are neither food nor drink; but are an injury instead of a benefit. Those who indulge in tea and butter, or largely in sugar, are not benefited thereby but certainly injured. They find means to make a costly offering to perverted appetite. Can they not do something in the cause of God and perishing humanity? Can they not at least sacrifice these idols? This would be something, if they did no more. But if they would cease to sacrifice to idols, they would have something with which to serve God. Let us each ask ourselves, Are we making a covenant with God by sacrifice? Giving the Heart and Money
He that gives his heart will not deny his money. Rejecting What Does Not Suit
Some people say that they reject a certain thing because it is human. Perhaps they rejected it because it did not suit them. Had it suited them they would have accepted it, human or divine. I HAD a dream, I say a dream—
Yet scarce a dream was mine.
Methought I saw Intemperance,
Before the Judgment shrine.
His form was giant in its size—
Was giant in its strength;
His boldness filled me with surprise—
He stood in self-defense. What can'st thou say, Intemperance,
Ere sentence dire be given,
Since thou hast peopled hell below,
And robbed the seats of Heaven?
Thou knowest full well, 'tis written plain
And marked in the decree:
No soul that dies the drunkard's death
Shall my salvation see. But thou hast made thy brother drunk;
Hast damned thy brother's soul—
Because of thee he downward sunk
Beyond his own control.
What mischief hath not thy hand wrought
What tears, what groans, what pains,
What homes annoyed, what souls destroyed
To fill thy cup of gain ? Methought I did not see him wince,
Nor show the least appall;
But with a look that haunts me still,
He viewed the Judgment hall.
Then answering said, “I've thought of this,
But here my papers are;
They're from thy children while on earth—
I bring them to thy bar. The papers they were handed in.
I trembled when I saw
In lines of black this right to sin,
Was headed “License Law.”
This license was a moneyed plan,
By which the right was sold
Of robbing, cursing, killing man,
By paying so much gold. For so much gold we license thee
To ruin, kill, destroy,
To drive from home its brightest gems
And drown each cup of joy.
To excite man to deeds of strife,
To angry words and blows,
To decrease all the joys of life
And increase all its woes. For so much gold we license thee
To fill the drunkard's bowl,
And thrust upon society
These desecrated holes—
These dens of drinking, gambling, wrong—
These dens of dark repute,
Where vice, with Bacchanalian song,
Sinks man below the brute. For so much gold we license thee
To plunge our land in crime,
And on the people lay a tax,
Oppression scarce could bind.
To make court sessions long and dear,
Our jails and prisons fill,
And thus with horror multiply
The curses of the still. For so much gold we license thee,
Our poor-house rooms to fill,
And yet a hapless orphan curse,
And many a mother kill.
And many a brother stain with crime,
Make many a sister moan,
Make many a father sit and pine
In dungeon cell alone. For so much gold we'll stand between
Thee and all justice due,
All wives' entreaties, mothers' tears—
Pay us and we'll shield you.
“I paid them for this license bill,
The gold they did receive,
If wrong is done they guilty are,
As Justice will perceive.” I woke. O! terrible that dream!
And yet it was all true,
And all this ruin, all this curse,
Is caused by ME not you!
Is caused by God's own children here.
Our numbers might control,
Might save our nation from this curse,
Might save our brother's soul. O Christian, where have we the right
To license what is wrong?
How shall we answer in that day
Before the Judgment throne?
Ye are my stewards, occupy
Earth's vineyard till I come.
Lord aid us that from yonder sky
Thy voice may say “WELL DONE.”
—Rev. G. D. Kent.