THAT the original Sabbath was instituted in paradise, and was designed as a memorial of the work of creation, Mr. Lee expressly admits in the following language:
“The seventh-day Sabbath celebrated the work of creation, and for four thousand years did its weekly return talk of the day when God ceased from his works when he had made the world and lit up the sun.” p. 17.
For this purpose the commandment expressly declares the Sabbath was designed; and this purpose the original Sabbath effectually accomplished. Why then, we ask, do we look for a change of day, since no other day can serve as a memorial of these great works? Hear Mr. Lee again:
“Indeed the resurrection of Christ is more worthy of a monument than creation itself.” p. 4. He says further of the Christian Sabbath alias Sunday, “But when we look at its commemorative character, we see a reason for the change as much greater than existed for the appointment of the Sabbath at the finishing of God's six days' work, as redemption is greater and more glorious than creation.” p. 16.
Mr. Lee's work is evidently not a very modern one. We do not say but more recent writers on this subject would urge such ideas as the above; for there is but little else to be produced in favor of christianizing Sunday. But really this class of assertions is getting rather stale and threadbare. Redemption greater, forsooth, than creation! Chapter and verse for that! The anxious inquirer for truth wants something better than bare speculation, conjecture, assertion. Creation and redemption are, both of them, events far beyond the finite comprehension of man. God has seen fit to keep silence in regard to the places they respectively hold in point of magnitude and glory. None but the presumptuous will then, we say, venture to pronounce upon this question.
But the advocates of Sunday-keeping proceed still further in their bold work. Having concluded, as near as they can calculate, that the work of redemption is greater than that of creation, they further decide that the former is more worthy of a memorial than the latter. Presumptuous as all this is, it might perhaps be tolerated or passed over in silence as a mere theory, did it lead to no practical expression. But these two theoretical steps lead to a third and outward one, which is more daring and presumptuous than all the rest. They lead men to discard the ancient memorial, to destroy the ancient institution, in order to make room for a new institution, founded upon reasons of their own imagining. For we have seen that no change of day can take place and the original institution still exist, or the original law be still in force.
The death and resurrection of Christ, as events in the work of redemption, are indeed worthy of an impressive memorial. And here let it be noticed that all the arguments urged in favor of the first day of the week as a memorial, and all the cheap rhetoric expended upon the glories of this day in contrast with the wonders of creation, proceed upon the covert insinuation that unless we keep the first day, the death and resurrection of Christ have no memorial. Mark this: for the fallacy of the whole argument in regard to the commemorative character of Sunday lurks in this one point. But if we can find in the word of God, divinely appointed memorials of both these events, it will be seen at once that we extract every particle of force and vitality, from every argument of this nature. Turn then for a divinely appointed memorial of the death of Christ to 1 Cor. xi, 26: “For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the Lord's death till he come.” In the Lord's supper, then, we have a divinely appointed memorial of his death: have we anything that speaks to us of his resurrection? Turn to Rom. vi, 4: “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life;” also Col. ii, 12: “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him,” &c. A most striking and appropriate memorial of the death and resurrection of Christ is thus given us in baptism. They therefore, who plead for the first day of the week as a memorial of the resurrection of Christ, engage in altogether a superfluous work; for it is not needed in any such service.
And when the advocates of Sunday-keeping have completed their work, when they have fixed up the new institution to their own liking, what have they done? They have done just this: God, it seems, thought it meet that the work of creation should be commemorated by man, but they have seemed to say, by the substitution of Sunday, that God has so far changed in this respect that he would not insist upon these events' being longer commemorated. 2. They have discarded that memorial so that we now have nothing by which to commemorate creation; for the idea that the first day of the week, the day on which the work of creation was simply begun, can be used to commemorate that work when finished, is too preposterous to be for a moment tolerated. 3. They have pronounced upon the relative magnitude and importance of two events concerning which the Bible is significantly silent. 4. They have made this, their own unaided human decision, the basis of their hazardous treatment of the original institution in transferring the Sabbath to Sunday. 5. They have nullified the fourth commandment. 6. They have instituted as a memorial of the resurrection of Christ, an observance which God has never appointed; and 7. Since the Bible already gives us a memorial of that event, they make the great Author of our religious institutions guilty of a tautology in giving us two memorials of the same event.
This is indeed a singular theory. Its every premise is assumption; but not even from its assumptions do its conclusions follow. It would be most natural to expect that were anything to be assumed, something would be taken which would render the conclusion necessary. But this is not the case in the Sunday theory. All that is assumed may be granted—we may grant that redemption is greater than creation, grant that it is more worthy of a memorial than that event, grant that it should be commemorated by some day, and grant that that day should be Sunday—and yet from none of these, singly or collectively, does it follow that Sunday is a Sabbath, or a sacred day, or that the original Sabbath has been transferred to it. And should God prove not to be so changeable as seems to be presumed [Mal. iii, 6], should he adhere to his original arrangement, what would they answer? If, when they are judged by that word by which Christ has declared we shall all be judged at the last day, that word which they have daily before their eyes, the inquiry should be put to them, Who hath required this at your hand? what would be their reply?
Would they claim before the Judge of all the earth, as they now do before men, that Christ and his apostles by their example ratified the change? Let us examine this claim. Following the well-beaten track of his predecessors, Mr. Lee proceeds with all due gravity to bring forward the few scanty texts which are said to show how Christ recognized the Christian Sabbath. He seemed to think them sufficient to support the following broad assertion: “The day on which Christ arose began to be observed immediately by the apostles and their associates, and has clearly been observed ever since.” p. 6. The first reference in support of this is Jno. xx, 19. “Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week,” &c. This is spoken of the day on which Christ arose, and is claimed as proof that the disciples were met together to honor the first Christian Sabbath, and Christ sanctioned their course by meeting with them. How is this? We read in Luke xxiii, 56, that the disciples rested the day before this, and that too, “according to the commandment;” and here it is claimed that they were keeping Sunday, the day following, also according to the commandment; for Orthodox Sunday-keeping, be it remembered, claims the authority of the commandment. Can two days in succession be kept, and both be “according to the commandment?” We leave this query with our friends to solve, while we proceed to a further examination of their proof texts.
“The following,” continues Mr. L., “is the record of the second meeting: ‘And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them. Then came Jesus and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.’”
We are not disposed to spend much time over the question whether the phrase, “after eight days,” means just a week, or whether this second meeting took place definitely on Sunday; for it effects nothing one way or the other. A score of instances of Christ's meeting with his disciples on the first day of the week, would amount to nothing, unless it could be shown that the time determined the meeting, and unless the purpose for which they met was also specified. But to show that our friends are dangerously stretching their evidence on this point we present the following testimony from others. We quote again from W. B. Taylor:
“It has been assumed all along that ‘after eight days’ from the previous appearance denoted exactly the interval of a week. However unanimous Sunday Sabbatarians may have been in taking this for granted, it is a point which never has been proved. It is at least quite as probable that the latter appearance occurred ‘after’ a week and a day from the former one, as upon that day week. There is no necessity whatever (excepting that of contributing an imaginary straw to a drowning cause) for the stereotype construction. Even were it highly probable that the construction is correct, is my friend satisfied to rest so important a question as the divine obligation of a day on a ‘highly probable’ conjecture? Where is his Protestantism? The very uncertainty of the expression should be sufficient evidence to every unbiased mind, that a specification of time was not here the writer's object, and could not have been a vital part of this account. Had it been, it would have been written in letters of light, the first day of the week is ‘His own chosen day’ of rest.”
But J. N. B. is not alone in this conjecture! He notices that ‘Townsend, the learned harmonist, says on this passage, “The first appearances of our Lord to his apostles appear to have taken place uniformly on the first day of the week.”’ Indeed!—‘Wot ye not what the Scripture saith?’ ‘After these things Jesus showed himself again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias. And he said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the ship and ye shall find. . . . This is now the third time that Jesus showed himself to his disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.’ Jno. xxi, 1, 6, 14. Here remarkably enough we have an actual precept, and since my friend has labored so long and fruitlessly to find a warrant of example, I hope he will seize upon it with eager gratitude. I hope that forthwith collecting a chosen few upon some pleasant Sunday, he will say with Simon Peter of old, “I go a fishing!—not as a ‘fisher of men,’ but with literal net, in a literal boat,—‘We also go with thee.’ We shall have the gratifying encouragement that the ‘first appearances’ of Jesus ‘took place uniformly on the first day of the week.’”
“Even supposing however,” says Milton in his Christian Doctrine, Book ii, chap. 7, “that it had been so, still the assigning this as a reason for the institution of a new Sabbath, is matter solely of human inference; since no commandment on the subject, nor any reason for such institution, is found in all Scripture.”
Heylin, an English divine of the seventeenth century, in his History of the Sabbath, says of Jno. xx, 26, “But where the Greek text reads it, meth' heemeras okto (post octo dies in the vulgar Latin—‘after eight days’ according to our English Bibles), that should be rather understood of the sixth or tenth, than the eighth day after.” We thus welcome our friends to all the consolation they are able to derive from the fact that after eight days from the first meeting, Jesus, taking advantage of the disciples' being again together, and this time Thomas with them, appeared in their midst to satisfy the incredulity of his doubting disciple.
Returning to the work under review, we read again: “Twenty-five years after the above transactions, we have the following record: ‘And upon the first day of the week when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow, and continued his speech until midnight.’ Acts xx, 7. Thus was he to commence his journey on the first day after the Christian Sabbath, allowing this to have been their regular day for celebrating Christian worship as it already was.”
This testimony reminds us of that sublimely logical29maneuver of Justin Edwards in which he says that Pompey, the Roman general, taking advantage of the fact that the Jews would not interfere with the operations of an enemy on the Sabbath, spent the day in constructing his works around their walls, and preparing to attack them on Monday? See Sabbath Manual, p. 216.
The fact is, Acts xx, 7, directly controverts Mr. Lee's position, as he would have seen by a little closer examination; for Paul, instead of waiting till after the Christian Sabbath, before pursuing his journey, pursued it directly on that day. This can be proved to a demonstration. As the day of the Bible commences with the evening at sunset, so evening meeting, as was the one mentioned in Acts xx, 7, could be held on the first day of the week, except on the evening immediately following the seventh day, which would correspond to our Saturday evening. This then was the time of Paul's meeting. This meeting from some unusual interest was continued until break of day [verse 11], and then Paul departed on his journey, “broad Sunday though it was!” This point is conceded by such authorities as Prof. H. B. Hackett and Kitto. See History of the Sabbath published at this Office. What proof then, is afforded by this text? Incidental proof that Paul “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment,” since he waited till it was past, before resuming his journey, and direct proof that he attached no sacredness to Sunday. In seizing upon Acts xx, 7, Mr. Lee has evidently acted against the interests of his own cause; for it does not furnish the kind of evidence for which he is seeking.
But they came together on the first day of the week for the express purpose of breaking bread, it is said, and that was the Lord's supper, and that was a religious service. Not quite so fast. We respectfully submit that even this stands in need of proof. The phrase breaking bread, was the ordinary designation of a common meal. Jesus was recognized by the two disciples [Luke xxiv, 30, 35] in breaking of bread; that is, at the supper table. Also Acts ii, 46: “breaking bread [that is, eating their meals] from house to house;” for they “had all things common.” Again Acts xvi, 34: Paul, having persuaded the sailors to eat, took bread and “broke it.” Says W. B. Taylor (Discussions on the Sabbath, p. 233), “The popular acceptation of the phrase is familiar to every scholar. In Valpy's Greek Testament there is the following comment on this passage: ‘In the Jewish way of speaking, says Bishop Pearce, to “break bread” is the same as to make a meal; and the meal here meant (Acts xx, 7) seems to have been one of those which were called agapæ love-feasts.’ Chrysostom thinks it ‘an ordinary meal.’ And Milton says upon this text, ‘Who shall determine with certainty, whether this was a periodical meeting, or only held occasionally and of their own accord; whether it was a religious festival, or a fraternal meal.’ Christian Doctrine, Book ii, chap. 7.” This view is certainly strengthened by the expression of verse 11 of the very chapter under notice; namely, “When he therefore was come up again and had broken bread and eaten”—an expression wholly inappropriate to the celebration of the Lord's supper.
(To be continued.)
AUTHENTICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By D. T. Bourdeau
Are the books of the New Testament genuine? Are they as worthy of our confidence as the books of a Cæsar, of a Cicero, of a Demosthenes, &c.? We believe they are; and we will present a few ideas in favor of the authenticity of the New Testament. We establish the authenticity of this book first, by the testimony of heathen writers, and second, by the testimony of ecclesiastical writers.
1. THE TESTIMONY OF HEATHEN WRITERS.
Tacitus, a distinguished historian of the first century, says: "Nero punished in the most cruel manner individuals . . . who were called Christians. Their name comes from Christ, who was put to death by Pontius Pilate, under the reign of Tiberias." Annales L. XV, Ch. xliv. From the French.
Pliny the younger, who was born in 61 or 62, says: "A great number of persons of every age . . . are, and will be, accused. And this contagious superstition has not only invaded the cities, but also the villages and the country." Livre X. He speaks of the Christian religion.
These testimonies prove the existence and extension of the Christian religion in the first century.
Celsus, who lived in the second century, and Porphyrus, who died in 270, wrote against the Christian religion. Porphyros quoted from the four gospels, and from the book of Acts; but he did not say anything to prove that the books of the New Testament were not written in the apostolic age, and that they did not belong to the authors whose names they bear, but accused Peter of having killed Ananias and Sapphira, &c. To the foregoing testimonies we might add that of Josephus, who spoke very highly of Jesus (see Josephus' Book of Antiquities); but we pass to notice
2. THE TESTIMONY OF ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS.
Origen, a voluminous writer, who was born in Egypt in the second century, testifies that in his day the four gospels that he attributes to the authors whose names they bear, were admitted in the churches. He also speaks of the other books of the New Testament. Contra Celsum. i-vi.
In the beginning of the second century Polycarpus wrote, "When Paul was with you he taught you perfectly the word of truth; and during his absence he wrote you letters to which you must take heed if you would be edified in the faith." Letter to the Philadelphians, Ch. V. Letter to the Philippians, by Polycarpus.
Irenæus who died in 177. His writings, and especially his books against heresies, abound in testimonies in favor of the gospels and epistles. He says, "There are four gospels—no more, no less." Against Heresies, Book iii, Ch. ii.
Let this testimony be remembered by those who are as apt to mix up the apocryphal gospels with the gospels of the New Testament. Irenæus was well qualified to make this statement; for he had conversed with Polycarpus, who had been instructed by the apostles.
The proofs against the apocrypha of the New Testament are summed up as follows: They were not read in the churches, nor introduced in the volume of the New Testament, nor cited as authority by the adversaries, nor explained as being a part of revelation. They were unanimously rejected, and are full of ridiculous, frivolous and indecent details. They cannot be traced down to the authors whose names they bear. They relate as miracles things that are absurd and useless, and do not agree with history. See the gospel of the Infancy of Jesus, and the gospel of St. Thomas.
With these facts before us, we can understand why the apocryphal gospels and epistles were rejected by the translators of the Bible.
The number of witnesses who testify to the genuineness of the works and teachings of Christ.
There are eight witnesses: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James and Jude. Now there is no fact in ancient history that has come to us with so many witnesses. The history of Socrates, which is considered as authentic, is related by Plato and Xenophon. Let none excuse themselves under the idea that the witnesses were ignorant and credulous. It was not necessary that they should be learned. They needed eyes, ears and common sense!—eyes to see the lame walk, the blind healed, the dead raised; ears to hear the dumb speak, the multitudes declare the power of the Nazarene; and common sense to relate what they saw and heard. But Luke and Paul were not ignorant. The former was a physician [Col. iv, 14]; the latter had been instructed at the foot of Gamaliel, who was noted for his learning and experience. Acts xxii, 3; v, 34. Let those who say that these witnesses were credulous, read the following texts: Matt. xiv, 31; xvi, 8. Let them also read the account of the resurrection, in Mark xvi.
It was not possible for these eight witnesses to deceive themselves, and they did not want to deceive others.
1. They could not deceive themselves. 1st. They lived with Jesus, and witnessed his works. It was not with Jesus as it was with Mahomet, who would seclude himself in his room, and pretend to receive communications from heaven. 2d. The things that they relate are plain facts, things that could be easily authenticated, that were often repeated, and with which they were connected (the miraculous draught of fishes, the transfiguration, Christ's walk on the water); or discourses on subjects with which they were familiar, such as the coming of Messiah, the law, &c.
2. They did not want to deceive others. 1st. Their conduct proves this. When an impostor intends to make the world receive as truth that which is false, he is very careful to surround himself with mysteries. This was the case with Mahomet. But our writers speak of facts known to all. They appeal to the public in support of the statements they make [Acts ii; xxii, 24; 1 Cor. xv, 6], and mention the places, times and persons. If they were impostors, we must admit they were taking a course that was calculated to expose themselves. 2d. The spirit that animates these authors proves it. They relate the most remarkable things connected with their Teacher without amplification or exaggeration. Thus, when they speak of the death of him whom they loved more than their own lives, they simply say, They crucified him. An impostor would not have neglected to exalt the virtues of the Master, or to expose the cruelty of the persecutors. 3d. The lot that awaited them proves it. In writing and propagating their books, they exposed themselves to the contempt of their enemies, to persecutions, to loss of fortune, to death. We can then, with safety, rely on their testimony. On this point the learned Pascal has said, "I readily believe witnesses who have sealed their testimony with their blood." Pensées xxviii.
The books of the New Testament have come to us without being essentially altered.
We prove this by the care and respect that the church manifested for these books. Such was the care and respect of Christians for their books, that the heathen would often say, "What are those books that Christians read and worship?" And during certain persecutions a few Christians gave up their Bibles; and they could not be admitted into the church again till after a long penance. History of the Bishop Tryphilus.
Jerome was reluctant to take upon himself the task of making a new translation of the Bible. He feared that he should be accused of having made some alterations in the Præfatio generalis in Evangelia—in the four perfect gospels.
Augustine speaks as follows on the manner in which Jerome's translation was received: "A bishop having read this new version in the church, some remarked that there was something in the prophet Jonas that was different from what they were accustomed to hear; whereupon a great tumult arose in the assembly. The bishop was accused of falsifying the text; and he had to retract as though he had committed a great error." Augustine's Letter, 71. This great care and veneration of Christians for their books is good evidence that the New Testament has been preserved without any essential alteration.30
At a very early age copies of the Bible were scattered in Europe, Asia and Africa. Every church had at least one copy of the Bible; for it was customary for Christians to read much out of the Bible in their assemblies. Now all can see that the Bible could not be changed to advantage without the universal consent of the church. But where do we find that the church ever consented to have the Bible altered? Again, will our opponents tell us when, where and by whom the sacred books were altered? This question has often been asked, but it has never been answered. It is much easier to express doubts in regard to the Bible, than it is to prove that the Bible is not authentic.
On the authenticity of the New Testament, the Companion to the Bible, published in London, says, that "all the books which convey to us the history of the events of the New Testament were written and immediately published, by persons living at the time of the things mentioned, and whose names they bear, is most fully proved. 1. By an unbroken series of Christian authors reaching from the days of the apostles, down to the present time. 2. By the concurrent and well-informed belief of all denominations of Christians. 3. By the unreserved acknowledgment of the most learned and intelligent enemies of christianity.
"That the books we possess under the titles of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, were written by persons whose names they bear, cannot be doubted by any well-informed and candid mind: because, from the time of their first publication, they have been uniformly attributed to them by all Christian writers. That all the facts related in these writings, and all the accounts given of our Saviour's actions and sayings are strictly true, we have the most substantial grounds for believing. Matthew and John were two of our Lord's apostles; his constant attendants throughout the whole of his ministry; eye-witnesses of the facts, and ear-witnesses of the discourses which they relate. Mark and Luke were not of the twelve apostles; but they were cotemporaries and associates with the apostles, and living in habits of friendship and intercourse with those who had been present at the transactions which they record. Many suppose that Luke was one of the seventy disciples who were ordained by our Lord to preach his gospel: and if so, his personal knowledge of Christ must have been almost equal to that of the twelve apostles. However, if not one of the seventy, he was the constant companion of Paul for many years; and well knew the things concerning which he wrote. In the beginning of his gospel, therefore, Luke declares his intimate acquaintance with the subject. 'Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.' Luke i, 1–4.
"Luke being also the author of the Acts of the Apostles, we have for the writers of these five books, men who had the most accurate knowledge of the things which they relate, either from their own personal observation, or by means of immediate communication with those who saw and heard everything recorded.
"As to the preservation of the sacred books down to our time, it is certain, that although the original copies may have been lost, the books of the New Testament have been preserved without any material alteration, much less corruption; and that they are, in all essential matters, the same as they came from the hands of their authors. In taking copies of these books by writing, from time to time, as the art of printing was then unknown, some letters, syllables, or even words, may have been omitted, or even changed in some manuscripts; but no important doctrine, precept, or passage, of history, has been designedly or fraudulently corrupted. This would have been impossible: because, as soon as the original writings were published, great numbers of copies were immediately taken, carried by the evangelical missionaries wherever they went, and sent to the different churches: they were soon translated into foreign languages, conveying into the most distant countries: they were constantly read in the Christian assemblies, diligently perused by many private Christians, some of whom had whole books by heart; they were quoted by numerous writers, and appealed to, as the inspired standard of doctrine, by various sects, who differed from each other, some on important points; and, consequently, they were jealously watchful against the least attempt, either to falsify or to alter the word of divine revelation.
"Who can imagine that God, who sent his Son to declare this doctrine, and his apostles, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, to indite and speak it, and by so many miracles confirmed it to the world, should suffer any wicked persons to corrupt and alter any of those terms on which the happiness of mankind depends? It is absurd to say that God repented of his good will and kindness to mankind, in vouchsafing the gospel to them; or that he so far maligned the good of future generations, that he suffered wicked men to rob them of all the good intended to them by this declaration of his holy will.—Dr. Whitby.
"The manuscripts of the sacred books are found in every ancient library in all parts of the Christian world; and amount in number to several thousands. About five hundred have been actually examined and compared by learned men with extraordinary care. Many of them were evidently transcribed as early as the eighth, seventh, sixth, and even the fourth centuries. Thus we are carried up to very near the times of the apostles, and the promulgation of the inspired writings. The prodigious number of these manuscripts, the remote countries whence they have been collected, and the identity of their contents with the quotations which the fathers of different ages have made, demonstrate the authenticity of the New Testament. It has been indeed, asserted by learned men, that if the New Testament were lost, its contents might be wholly supplied by the quotations from it, which are found in the writings of the fathers of the first four centuries of the Christian church.”—Companion to the Bible, pp. 15–18.
We think that the ideas and testimonies we have presented thus far establish the authenticity of the New Testament. And it is evident that if the authenticity of the New Testament is established, we must admit that the Old Testament is authentic; for the New Testament confirms the Old. Christ is the Alpha and Omega of the Old and New Testaments. He came not to destroy, but to fulfill or ratify; and in him all those types and predictions of the Old Testament which relate to the Messiah have their fulfillment.
Now if the Bible is what it purports to be, should we not study it carefully and prayerfully, bind it to our hearts, cleave to its truths, follow its instructions, and obey its laws? When we present Bible truth to a certain class of individuals, we are often met with the declaration that "these things are true if the Bible is true." These same individuals see the inconsistencies of many who profess to receive the Bible and the Bible alone, and who are not willing to live up to plain duties which are prescribed in the word of God; and they are frequently heard saying, "How inconsistent professors are! If I professed to take the Bible as my rule of faith, I would certainly keep the seventh-day Sabbath, believe in the coming of the Lord," &c. There is a good degree of honesty in these individuals. They are willing at least to follow the dictates of sound reason in regard to the course that some pursue. But if we see that the Bible is an authentic book—a revelation from God to man, is it not as inconsistent and unreasonable to excuse ourselves for not obeying the Bible by saying, I would do this or that if the Bible were true, as it is to not obey plain Bible truths while we profess to receive the Bible as our rule of faith and practice?
D. T. BOURDEAU.
THIS WORLD IS NOT OUR HOME.
By H. M. Wilkerson
I AM glad this world is not, in its present state, the home of the child of God. There is a curse on this earth. It brings forth thorns and thistles, and as we travel over it we often see graveyards, telling us death is in the land. As we look upon the inhabitants we see sickness, sorrow, pain and trouble on every hand. Even many of those who have no hope beyond this world, say there is nothing here worth living for; and yet they think too much of it to be willing to give it up and prepare for a better one.
How is it with us who profess to be looking for Jesus to come and restore this earth to its Eden beauty? Have we got the love of the world in our hearts? If we have the love of the Father is not in us. Are we ashamed of the truth, or of the way, or of the humble life we are required to lead? If so, we are ashamed of Jesus; and of us he will be ashamed before his Father and all the holy angels.
How vastly important that we have on the whole armor of God, that we may be able to stand in these last days of peril. We are nearing home, and as we near the shore the perils thicken around us. Satan has come down in great power, knowing his time is short, and is seeking whom he may devour. Then let us be very careful not to get caught in any of his snares, but let us live as pilgrims and strangers here, journeying towards a better land, having a hope that is as an anchor to the soul, both sure and steadfast. What a glorious hope it is—the hope of Jesus' soon coming to cleanse this earth and prepare it as an abode for his obedient children. Then the willing and the obedient shall eat the good of the land. Then there will be rest for the wayworn pilgrim who has toiled on through many trials, who has been sighing for home, who has been looking for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Cheer up then, pilgrims,
fight the good fight of faith a little longer. Soon with Paul we shall receive a crown of life if faithful.
Soon our sorrows all will cease,
Soon our trials will be o'er,
Soon we'll have a home in bliss,
And dwell in love on that blest shore.
H. M. WILKERSON.
Westford, Mass.
ROMANCE.
By J. C.
THE best and wisest of men have given in their verdict against the reading of romance and fictitious tales, as injurious to mind and morals; and the flood of chaffy works now inundating the world; the newspaper trash, and cheap books, containing the seeds of every evil, sugared over with poisonous sweet, and the religious romance put forth by ecclesiastical bodies, and individuals, are all contaminating and unholy in their tendency.
But of all romance, religious romance is the most dangerous, coming as it does from those who profess to guide the way to heaven, and often teaching (ostensibly) the way to happiness and lasting peace, these fictitious works do more effectually disarm the mind, and mislead those who would if it were possible avoid the snare.
Here is a careful parent who endeavors to avert the evil, and carefully banishes from his family and home every trace of romantic reading, and flatters himself that he will at least in early life train the minds of his children to correct modes of thinking, by placing in their hands histories, principles, science, facts—will set them out on the ocean of life with fair prospects and favorable winds.
But he is outgeneralled; for the very Sunday School where he has sent his precious jewels, to polish, to refine, to fortify them against evil, has already supplied his children with fictitious works (pointed with a moral, to be sure—Satan pointed his first lecture to Eve with a moral, that she should be a god, or as a god), he starts at the discovery that all his care is so frustrated, and opening his eyes he beholds his religious newspapers, both for old and young, fairly leavened with this poisonous literature, when disheartened and perplexed he exclaims to himself, Perhaps I have been31too particular; if these religious institutions have put forth such plausible works of fiction, surely I am not wiser than they all; and down he sinks, from disparagement, and want of courage, and persistency, and throws aside his prejudices, as he now sadly admits (but with inward emotions he cares not to fathom), and in six months his library is flooded with French, English and American novels, and his children now free, revel in reveries and dreams.
That matter-of-fact foundation which the parent had well nigh laid, is apparently swept away by this foaming, raging tide of lying trash, filling the mind with overdrawn views and false principles, often in a moment filling with impure ideas the mind, till then the abode of purity; supplanting studious thought with excitement, vanity and scummy refinement. J. C.
"IT IS WELL."
By Kent
“Say ye to the righteous, it shall be well with him.”Isaiah iii, 10.
WHat cheering words are these!
Their sweetness who can tell?
In time and through eternal days,
'Tis with the righteous well.
In every state secure,
Kept as Jehovah's eye;
'Tis well with them if life endure,
And well if called to die;
Well when they see his face,
Or sink amidst the flood;
Well in affliction's thorny maze,
Or on the mount of God;
Well when the gospel yields
Pure honey, milk and wine;
Well when the soul her leanness feels,
And all her joys decline.
'Tis well when joys arise,
'Tis well when sorrows flow;
'Tis well when darkness veils the skies,
And strong temptations blow.
'Tis well when at his throne
They wrestle, weep, and pray;
'Tis well when at his feet they groan,
Yet bring their wants away.
'Tis well if they can sing,
As sinners washed with blood;
And when they touch the mournful string,
And mourn an absent God.
'Tis well when on the mount
They feast on dying love;
And 'tis as well, in God's account,
When they the furnace prove.
'Tis well when Christ shall call,
“From earth and sin arise,
Join with the host of ransomed souls
Made to salvation wise.”
[Kent.
LETTERS.
By L. Schellhous
“Then they that feared the Lord, spake often one to another.”
From Bro. Schellhous.
Bro. Smith: When I read in the Review the testimonies of the dear brethren of like precious faith it reminds me of my duty to them and the blessed cause of my heavenly Father. I would say to the dear brethren and sisters in the truth that I am striving to get the victory over self, and to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus, and be holy, for we read in the word of God, Be ye holy as I am holy. I believe it is my duty to live wholly devoted to God, and by the assisting grace of God I mean to keep striving until I obtain the crown which I believe is not far in the future.
I have some trials to pass through, but, bless the Lord! they are small in comparison with the glory that will be revealed to those that overcome. The path of the just will grow brighter and brighter. I believe it is so with me every day. I have no relish for the things of earth, for its honors or riches; only give me Jesus and I ask no more.
I can truly say the Lord is very good to unworthy me for the blessing bestowed on me by presenting to me the present truth, and also in giving me a disposition to obey God in all things; for we read in Rev. xxii, 14, “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.” I hope to be of that happy number, and obtain that crown of immortal glory prepared for the saints.