p. 1 | Review and Herald, Vol. 62, No. 16. (4/21/1885)

Review and Herald

Apr 21, 1885

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 21, 1885

PRAISE DUE TO THE CREATOR.

By Ellen G. White

BY MRS. E. G. WHITE.

God is love. He has a care for the creatures he formed. “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord pitieth them that fear him.” He has not designed that his creatures should be miserable. Have any of us duly considered how much we have to be thankful for? Do we remember that the mercies of the Lord are new every morning, and that his faithfulness faileth not? Do we acknowledge our dependence upon him, and express gratitude for all his favors? On the contrary, we too often forget that “every good and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights.” Many experience needless unhappiness. They take their minds from God, and center them too much upon self. They magnify small difficulties, and talk discouragements. They are guilty of the great sin of need-repining over God’s providences. For all that we have and are, we are indebted to God. He has given us powers, that, to a certain extent, are similar to those which he himself possesses; and we should labor earnestly to develop these powers, not to please and exalt self, but to glorify him.

We should not allow our minds to be swayed from allegiance to God. Through Christ we may and should be happy, and should acquire habits of self-control. Even the thoughts must be brought into subjection to the will of God, and the feelings under the control of reason and religion. Our imagination was not given us to be allowed to run riot and have its own way, without any effort at restraint and discipline. If the thoughts are wrong, the feelings will be wrong; and the thoughts and feelings combined make up the moral character. When we decide that as Christians we are not required to restrain our thoughts and feelings, we are brought under the influence of evil angels, and invite their presence and their control. If we yield to our impressions and allow our thoughts to run in a channel of suspicion, doubt, and repining, we shall be unhappy, and our lives will prove a failure.

Man has been placed in a world of sorrow, care, and perplexity. He is placed here to be tested and proved as were Adam and Eve, that he may develop a right character, and bring harmony out of discord and confusion. There is much for us to do that is essential to our own happiness and that of others. And there is much for us to enjoy. Through Christ we are brought into connection with God. His mercies place us under continual obligation; feeling unworthy of his favors, we should appreciate even the least of them.

This earth is the Lord’s. Here it may be seen that nature, animate and inanimate, obeys his will. God created man a superior being; he alone is formed in the image of God, and is capable of partaking of the divine nature, of co-operating with his Creator and executing his plans; and he alone is found at war with God’s purposes.

How wonderfully, with what marvelous beauty, has everything in nature been fashioned. Everywhere we see the perfect works of the great Master-artist. The heavens declare his glory; and the earth, which was formed for the happiness of man, speaks to us of his matchless love. Its surface is not a monotonous plain; but grand old mountains rise to diversify the landscape. There are sparkling streams and fertile valleys, beautiful lakes, broad rivers, and the boundless ocean. God sends the dew and the rain to refresh the thirsty earth. The breezes, that promote health by purifying and cooling the atmosphere, are controlled by his wisdom. He has placed the sun in the heavens to mark the periods of day and night, and by its genial beams to give light and warmth to the earth, causing vegetation to flourish.

I call your attention to these blessings from the bounteous hand of God. Let the fresh glories of each new morning awaken praise in your hearts for these tokens of his loving care. But while our kind heavenly Father has given us so many things to promote our happiness, he has given us also blessings in disguise. He understands the necessities of fallen man; and while he has given us advantages on the one hand, on the other there are inconveniences which are designed to stimulate us to use the ability he has given us. These develop patient industry, perseverance, and courage.

There are evils which man may lessen, but can never remove. He is to overcome obstacles, and make his surroundings instead of being molded by them. He has room to exercise his talents in bringing order and harmony out of confusion. In this work he may have divine aid if he will claim it. He is not left to battle with temptations and trials in his own strength. Help has been laid upon One who is mighty. Jesus left the royal courts of heaven, and suffered and died in a world degraded by sin, that he might teach man how to pass through the trials of life and overcome its temptations. Here is a pattern for us.

As the benefits conferred upon his creatures by our heavenly Father are recounted, do you not feel reproved, dear brethren and sisters, for your ungrateful repining? God hears your murmurings. If there is a cloud in sight, if affliction comes upon you, how often you seem to forget that the sun ever shone. The Lord is merciful, gracious, and true. Do not shut up your hearts against melody and joy, dwelling only on the disagreeable features of your life. Hold thanksgiving services in your home, and recount with rejoicing the blessings that have been bestowed upon you.

The power of the truth should be sufficient to sustain and console in every adversity. It is in enabling its possessor to triumph over affliction that the religion of Christ reveals its true value. It brings the appetites, the passions, and the emotions under the control of reason and conscience, and disciplines the thoughts to flow in a healthful channel. And then the tongue will not be left to dishonor God by expressions of sinful repining.

Our Creator justly claims the right to do as he chooses with the creatures of his hand. He has a right to govern as he wills and not as man chooses. But he is not a severe judge, a harsh, exacting creditor. He is the very fountain of love, the giver of blessings innumerable. It should cause you the deepest grief that you have disregarded such love, and have not let gratitude and praise well up in your hearts for the marvelous goodness of God. We do not deserve all his benefits; but they are continued to us, notwithstanding our unworthiness and cruel ingratitude. Then cease to complain as though you were bond-servants under a hard taskmaster. Jesus is good. Praise him. Praise him who is the health of your countenance, and your God.

THE TEMPLE IN HEAVEN.

By W. H. Littlejohn

ADDITIONAL CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES ON THE CHANGE OF THE SABBATH; THE WHOLE SUBJECT CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF GOD'S WORD.

BY ELD. W. H. LITTLEJOHN.

Mr. Biblist.—At the conclusion of our last talk, if my memory serves me aright, we were debating the question whether the church of Rome claimed that the Sabbath was changed before or after the ascension of Christ. This is a very important point. There is a wide difference between insisting that Christ had the ability to do a certain thing, and arguing that the church can do, on their own motion, all that Christ could do personally. Again it is a fact which Protestants will not dispute, that when Christ ascended upon high, the new covenant was complete, all its doctrines having been fully defined and established. This is particularly true of the law of God, or the ten commandments; since the new covenant was made with reference to its observance. Paul says in Heb. 9:16, 17: “For where a testament [covenant] is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.” You might as well undertake to add to the will of a dead man as to alter

the conditions of the covenant after it has been made and ratified. Christ sealed the new covenant with his blood, as typified by the wine which we drink in connection with the celebration of the eucharist. From the moment that he died upon the cross, the new covenant became unalterable in its requirements and conditions. The only way to add to or take therefrom lies through the annulling of that covenant and the creation of another one based upon other conditions and promises.

Mr. Thoughtful.—Let me see if I get your idea. If I understand you correctly your thought is this: the ten commandments, or law of God, are connected with the new covenant, and as that covenant was perfected by the death of Christ, it would be impossible—so long as that covenant stands—to change those commandments.

Mr. B.—Yes, sir; that is it exactly. The keeping of the ten commandments, or law of God, is one of the conditions of the new covenant. To change those commandments, therefore, would be to change the conditions of that covenant; or, in other words, to destroy that covenant and to make a new one. If the papacy is right, therefore, we are now living under the third instead of the second covenant. Such a thing, however, is too preposterous to require refutation.

Before going farther, I wish to bring additional proof that Romanists insist that the Sabbath has been changed since Christ ascended. I am about to read an extract from a work entitled “Catholic Christian Instructed.” Its commencement will be found on page 209 of that book. Before beginning to read, let me remind you that when a Romanist writer speaks of “the church” he always means his own church. Romanists never acknowledge the existence of any true church outside of their own. The latter, as they claim, originated with Christ and the apostles and has continued ever since. Now mark closely what I am about to read; remembering that what I wish to establish is the proposition that the Romanists claim that their own church has changed the Sabbath somewhere this side of the day of pentecost, and therefore this side of the ascension of Christ. Here is the extract in question:—

“Ques. What are the days which the Church commands to be kept holy?

“Ans. 1. The Sundays, or our Lord’s day, which we observe by apostolical tradition, instead of the Sabbath. 2. The feasts of our Lord’s Nativity, or Christmas day; his Circumcision, or New Year’s day; the Epiphany, or Twelfth day; Easter day, or the day of our Lord’s resurrection, with the Monday following.”

Here comes a long list of the Catholic festivals and feast-days, which you can find in almost any almanac, so I will omit the reading of them just now. Dropping down a little way I will begin again:—

“Q. What was the reason why the weekly Sabbath was changed from the Saturday to the Sunday? “A. Because our Lord fully accomplished the work of our redemption by rising from the dead on a Sunday, and by sending down the Holy Ghost on a Sunday. As therefore the work of our redemption was a greater work than that of our creation, the primitive Church thought the day in which this work was completely finished, was more worthy her religious observation than that in which God rested from the creation, and should be properly called the Lord’s day.”

You see, Mr. Thoughtful, from what I have just read, that it was the “primitive church”—i. e., the primitive Catholic church—which it is claimed changed the Sabbath. You see also that it is insisted that this change took place after the day of pentecost, since one of the reasons assigned for the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week is the fact that it was on the latter that the Holy Ghost was sent down upon the church; i. e., on the day of pentecost. That indeed is the burden of the whole argument, as you will see hereafter. Romanists, instead of admitting for a moment that Christ in his life time instituted Sunday observance, deny this emphatically, arguing that such observance has no authorization in the Bible, and can only be defended by the traditions of their church, which teach that the transfer of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week was made after Christ had ascended to the Father. They even taunt Protestants that in keeping Sunday as a holy day they recognize the principle that the church can institute “festivals of precept;” thus conceding the great point at issue between Romanism and Protestantism. I will now read an extract in point from “Abridgment of Christian Doctrine,” another authoritative Catholic production:—

“Ques. How prove you that the church has power to command feasts and holy days?

“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church.”

“Q. How prove you that?”

“A. Because by keeping Sunday they acknowledge the Church’s power to ordain feasts, and to command them under sin; and by not keeping the rest by her commanded, they again deny, in fact, the same power.”

You see, as I have already remarked, that there would be no force in the logic of the Romish writers if it were admitted that the Sabbath was changed by Christ. As it is they claim that the change was brought about by their church independently of any authority of Christ given before his ascension, insisting, therefore, that Protestants by keeping Sunday virtually acknowledge the principle that the church of Rome has power to change the law of God. One more quotation and I must leave this branch of the subject. I hold in my hand a little work which I purchased at a Catholic bookstore on account of the item which I am about to read. The book is entitled, “Plain Talk about Protestantism of To-day.” I will commence to read on page 225:—

“It is worth its while to remember that this observance of the Sabbath—in which, after all, the only Protestant worship consists—not only has no foundation in the Bible, but it is in flagrant contradiction with its letter, which commands rest on the Sabbath, which is Saturday. It was the Catholic church which, by the authority of Jesus Christ, has transferred this rest to the Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection of our Lord. Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is an homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the church.”

Here I leave the question of the change of the Sabbath. That such a change has been brought about there can be no dispute. Once the people of God were united in the observance of the last day of the week. Now they almost unanimously celebrate the first day of the week. What is most remarkable is the fact that there is not in all the book of God a single word which authorizes such a change. The seventh day is the only one that God ever commanded any man to hallow. It is also the only day that is ever called the Sabbath in the Bible. Neither God nor Christ nor an angel nor an inspired man has ever said that the first day of the week was the Sabbath, or ever commanded any one to observe it as such. These facts can never be reconciled with the idea that God was the author of the change of the Sabbath which has taken place. To reason that God would command all men everywhere to hallow the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and then substitute the first day of the week in the place of the seventh without leaving on record a formal declaration to that effect, is simply preposterous. God does not do business in that way. It would be gross injustice to give a commandment requiring the observance of the last day of the week, and then punish men for not keeping the first day of the week, which he has nowhere required them to hallow.

We read of a tyrant who delighted in having his laws posted so high above the point where the people could read them, that they would transgress them through ignorance of what they contained; thus affording him an opportunity to wreak his vengeance upon them for not doing that which they knew not that he had required them to do. Should God change the Sabbath without notifying men of that fact, and then punish them for not keeping the Sabbath law as changed, such a procedure would place him on a level with the historic tyrant to whom I have alluded. Assuredly God cannot be less anxious that his creatures should know precisely what his will is in such matters, than are earthly legislators; and yet who does not know that the law-makers of his own State take infinite pains to give publicity to every change that is made in the statute law. Every amendment and every change in an existing statute is published far and wide, that no citizen may be entrapped through ignorance into a violation of existing law. Every attribute of God’s nature pledges him to a like course. As we look through the Bible, however, we find no intimation of a change in question. On the contrary, we are distinctly notified that a blasphemous earthly power should arise who would think himself able to change the times and the law of God. The ages roll on, and, lo! he lifts himself from the plane of history, and we hear him saying that he has done the work which God said that he would do. I have read in your hearing some of his proud utterances. The only question that remains, therefore, for us to decide, is this: Which is the more probable supposition that God would command the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and then substitute another day in the place of that one without ever notifying any one to that effect; or that it is true that the pope has really changed the Sabbath as he claims to have done, as the prophet said that he would attempt to do.

Mr. T.—Your words astonish me beyond measure, sir. Do you really mean to be understood by saying that the Bible nowhere teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ himself changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week?

Mr. B.—Most emphatically, sir, do I declare that such is the case. There is not one word in all the Scriptures which even intimates that Christ did change the Sabbath, or that he did any thing to place any honor or distinction on the first day of the week above other days. To satisfy you that I am right in what I say, perhaps I had better examine all the instances in the Bible in which the first day of the week is mentioned.

Mr. T.—Why, sir, that would take you a while.

Mr. B.—Not so, by any means. Perhaps you will be astonished when I tell you that the first day of the week is only mentioned in the Scriptures in particular nine times; once in the Old Testament and eight times in the New Testament. It is now getting late, and I will defer my examination of these texts until our next sitting.

Mr. T.—Thank you, sir. I shall look forward to that interview with great anxiety. I am thoroughly aroused on this Sabbath question. I did not suppose that I should ever take any interest in it whatever; but if you are right in your theory that the pope has changed the Sabbath instead of the Lord Jesus Christ as I have always supposed, I am anxious to be undeceived. I confess that you have made a strong presumptive argument in favor of your view. And if you are able to substantiate what you say about the first day of the week, my astonishment will know no bounds. I am impatient to know the whole truth about this matter. Never in all my life was I stirred up about any thing. If the pope has indeed changed the Sabbath, it is all I wish to know. The Bible is my rule of action, and if first-day sanctity cannot be proved from its pages, then I will throw the Sunday to the winds.

Mr. B.—Well, be calm, and we will decide the whole question by the authority of God’s word. The subject is a broad one, and will require a little time for its consideration. We will therefore proceed slowly and cautiously.

Over and Over Again.

By Allie A. Santee

BY ALLIE A. SANTEE.

Over and over again The pages of life I turn; But the lesson of faith and trust in God I am sometimes slow to learn. I read of a land above Where is never a sigh of pain; And I pray to the Father of truth and love Over and over again.

Over and over again, When the toils of the day are past, I ask myself, Have I lived this day As though it would be my last? Perhaps some wrong I have done; And the memory gives me pain, And I ask the mercy of God's dear Son Over and over again.

Over and over again I seek my Redeemer's face; And I ask that as my needs shall be, So shall be his measure of grace. I ask for light on his word, And that duty be made plain; And I seek the face of my covenant Lord Over and over again.

Over and over again I study and weep and pray; For an awful death of fire and pain Awaits lost souls for aye. Soon will their doom appall; But prayer will then be vain. They will pray for the mountains and rocks to fall, Over and over again.

Wego, Kansas.

The Sunshine of Good Temper

By Irving

—Good temper, like a sunny day, sheds a brightness over every thing. It is the sweetener of life, and the soother of disquietude.—Irving.

"Now I See" — Verses on God's Love

By Frances Ridley Havergal

—“Now I see!” but not the glory, Not the face of Him I love, Not the full and burning story Of the mysteries above. But I see what God hath spoken, How his well-beloved Son Kept the laws which man had broken, Died for sins which man had done; Dying, rising, throned above! “Now I see” that God is love. —Frances Ridley Havergal

Striving for Self-Perfection as the Path to Happiness

—The best man is he who most tries to perfect himself, and the happiest man is he who most feels that he is perfecting himself.—Socrates.

Walking in the Light of Christ

—If in faithfulness we love and serve Him who is “the way, the truth, and the life,” whatever clouds may gather above us, they will finally blow away and be cleared. “I am the light of the world,” says Christ; “he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

TURKEY—ITS RISE AND FALL.

By D. H. Lamson

BY ELD. D. H. LAMSON.

The twenty-ninth day of May, 1453, the Eastern Rome ceased to exist. It had existed by sufferance and favor of Amurath II. since the 1st of July, 1449. At that time Deacozes, brother of John Paleologus,—Constantine ascended the throne after gaining the consent of Amurath II. This may, in some degree, be accounted for on the ground of a former treaty of peace and alliance between John and Amurath, to some extent, the separate action of each being of interest to the other. Constantine I. and Constantine XIII. were respectively the first and last emperors of Eastern Rome.

When Constantinople fell, in 1453, the empire that once held the world in subjection was reduced to its walls. Its fall resulted from the unnatural alliance that was ever formed, that of Christian Rome with the Mohammedan power, the one in her weakness, the other in her strength; by this time the territory of Rome, as far north as the Carpathian Mountains, and extending east along the 47th parallel of latitude, was under the rule of the Turkish Sultan, Mohammed II., claimed by him when Rome became subject to his authority. For nearly a hundred years, under the succession of Bajazet II., Selim, and Soliman, the conflict raged, till all of Hungary yielded to the sway of Mohammed’s successors.

A comparison of the present map of Turkey in Europe, especially, with that of the early part of the 15th century, will show most wonderful territorial changes. From the 27th of July, 1449, the Ottoman Empire was to last 391 years and 15 days. Rev. 9:15. Her supremacy was to cease at the close of that period marked by the prophecy. Supremacy was obtained, first, by treaty which greatly restricted the territory of Rome; secondly, by an alliance which only proved a source of weakness to Rome; thirdly, by the reign of Constantine XIII., only by consent of Amurath II.; and finally, the usurpation of the Empire itself by Mohammed II.

From these various physical causes resulted the gradual weakening of Rome and the strengthening of the Ottoman power, so the empire of the Greeks will be taken piece by piece, till Constantinople and its environs alone are left; and even that will finally be yielded to the assaults of its enemies.

Who is the outspoken enemy of Turkey, and what power has designs upon her capital? What power has already not only menaced her authority in Europe, but by force of arms taken largely of her territory both in Europe and Asia? What power is still pressing her with the expressed determination of utterly extinguishing her right to reign on European ground? By what means will it be accomplished? The fixed application of Rev. 11:15 to the Turkish power in Europe, establishes the act and fact of her final dispossession of European territory. The consensus of the political mind of all enlightened peoples of both hemispheres is upon the great and colossal empire of Russia, to accomplish what God has before determined to be done. The “Will of Peter the Great” seems almost an inspiration. His foresight laid the foundation of an empire covering one twenty-fourth part of the globe, more than eight million square miles of territory, one-sixth of all the dry land of the earth; and the attention of the world is even now more than ever arrested by the consecution of events which point unmistakably to the ultimate fulfillment of that Will in the dismemberment of Turkey.

“Take,” says the great ruler, “every possible means of gaining Constantinople and the Indies (for he who rules there will be the sovereign of the world); excite war continually in Turkey and Persia; establish fortresses in the Black Sea; get control of this sea by degrees, and also of the Baltic, which is a double point necessary to the realization of our project; accelerate as much as possible the decay of Persia; penetrate to the Persian Gulf; re-establish, if possible, by way of Syria, the ancient commerce of the Levant; advance to the Indies, which are the great depot of the world. Once there, we can do without the gold of England. . . . Interest the House of Austria in the expulsion of the Turks from Europe, and quiet their dissensions at the moment of the conquest of Constantinople (having excited war among the old States of Europe), by giving to Austria a portion of the conquest, which afterward will or can be reclaimed.”

An examination of the map of Europe in the days of Peter the Great (who ascended the throne in 1689), with the map of to-day, will show how faithfully he and his successors have carried out his policy. He took from Sweden, Finland and the Neva, where he built St. Petersburg, his northern capital. He extended his conquests south to Azov, and gained control of the sea by that name in 1696. Then Turkey included all south of the Carpathian Mountains; westward to the eastern Alps, near Vienna; eastward, Moldavia; and all southward including Servia, Bosnia, Wallachia, Roumania, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Roumelia, and Greece. The total area of Turkey in Europe to-day is 56,868 square miles, a little more than the area of the State of Michigan. She lost in the treaty of 1878 alone 81,396 square miles of territory, a large percentage more than half of what she then had.

As Rome had her enemies in the followers of Mohammed, both Saracens and Turks, until she was compelled to an ignominious treaty, and the loss of her territory outside of Constantinople, and a final alliance with a remorseless foe who would not be content but with the last remnant of Roman power, and the seat of the kingdom; so Turkey must sometime, and that soon, yield to the arms of her constant foe, who never has repented and never will repent of what will bring nearer and finally secure the jewel of empire, the key of the Bosporus, and the control of the destinies of the world. England, a few days ago, was all ablaze with excitement when was wired the news that Turkey had made a secret treaty with Russia, giving to Russia complete control of the Black Sea and the Dardanelles. And why not? Does not history sometimes repeat itself? If Rome, in the days of her peril, when tied hand and foot by her implacable enemy, and ground into the dust, when all Christian Europe could render no aid, did embrace the only opportunity of a few more days of peace by throwing herself into the arms of Amurath II., why shall not Turkey do the same with Russia when in her last extremity?

The reasons for the stability of the Turkish Empire exist no longer; the help she has in late years been able to command, will appear no more; the changes on the map of Europe have entirely obviated the necessity; only England is interested in the continuance of her power, and England with her only ally cannot prevail against the arms or the indifference of the rest of Europe. The Indies are at present the apparent object of Russia’s ambition, but Stamboul is the stake for which she is playing. Should Russia gain the strategic points in Afghanistan, Khyber, and the Bolan Pass, England might well tremble for her possessions in India. It would not be a strange thing, in view of such alarming contingencies, if England should trade her interests in European Turkey for peace in India.

The world is stirred over this truly great question. The certainty of the final result is admitted by nearly all who can have an interest in it. The editorials in all the leading journals in this country and on the European continent speak of what must be the result as a foregone conclusion, and, apparently, the situation is accepted by the most of continental Europe with the profoundest apathy. Would to God the nations might know the awful vortex into which they soon must plunge; that this almost final act in this world’s tragedy does not mean alone that the Turk be driven out of Europe and that “he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain,” but that the whole Turkish power shall be “dried up” that the way of the kings of the East shall be prepared, and the nations gathered to the battle of that great day of God Almighty, the battle of Armageddon.

“The cry is up, the strife’s begun, And Armageddon’s day rolls on,”

may soon be sung with an awful emphasis by the people of God.

PURITY

By Eliza H. Morton

BY ELIZA H. MORTON.

Like a lily white and spotless, Like the foam upon the sea, Like a cloud of fleecy beauty, The pure in heart must be.

Not a thought of sin or folly, Or resentment for our wrongs, Not a word or deed of evil, To the pure in heart belongs.

Oh, the need of a loving Saviour! For abroad is a wily foe, And the heart of man is sinful; But it may be white as snow.

For the fount of God's great mercy, Like a heaving, cleansing wave, Is for those who see their errors, And who flee to Christ to save.

All the peace that God has promised To his children here below, All the light of unseen glory, The pure in heart will know.

Soon a city, many mansioned, With wide avenues of gold, And the Prince of Life eternal, Will the pure in heart behold.

WHO WILL FIND THE EVIDENCE?

By R. F. Cottrell

BY ELD. R. F. COTTRELL.

In the Christian Statesman of Oct. 9, 1884, is an article by Arthur T. Pierson, D. D., from which I quote the following, italicizing according to copy. Speaking of the growing disregard for Sunday he says:—

“Christians apologize for all this on the ground that the Sabbath is a Jewish institution, and is abrogated; making no distinction between the ceremonial and the moral law. Certain features of Sabbatic observance belonged to the Mosaic ritual, and have passed away with that whole system; but the law of the Sabbath, which is not so much the consecration of the seventh day but of one day in seven, belongs to the moral law, and if abrogated, so is the whole decalogue! The law of the Sabbath antedates the Mosaic law, Moses, the Hebrew church, Abraham, Melchisedec, Noah; antedates sin, for the Sabbath was consecrated first in sinless Eden! Other disciples do away with the consecrated seventh of time as with the consecrated tenth of money, on the ground that now all time and property are holy unto the Lord, and so the practical effect is they consecrate nothing! All time and all property are alike, indeed, but alike expended upon worldly, selfish principles.”

Apply this argument to the day that God rested upon, blessed, and sanctified, and it is worthy of commendation. It is just the argument that observers of the Lord’s rest day have used from time immemorial. But when he says the law of the Sabbath “is not so much the consecration of the seventh day but of one day in seven,” I would ask, Did you learn that from the fourth commandment? I have read that several times over, but have failed to find the idea there. Let others try it; for I am anxious to find the evidence if it can be found in the Bible. “God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.”

RAILING

By S. O. James

BY S. O. JAMES.

To bring a railing accusation, even against Satan, when sorely pressed, as we sometimes are, is no part of our work. True, he is the embodiment of all that is wicked; his presence is hateful. He does not wait for an invitation to lead us into sin, but inflicts evil upon us whenever permitted to do so. There is no doubt that he will seek to stir up whatever remains in us pertaining to his dominion. Perhaps he feels that in many of our cases his chances are yet good, and he is not willing to relinquish any claims. But it is our privilege to belong wholly to Christ, purged from the “old leaven,” and created unto good works. When this is so, we will seek righteousness and meekness, and this spirit will teach us not to accuse even the worst of characters; but to cheerfully resign them into the hand of Him who hath said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord.” Brethren, let us each take heed to our spirit.

—He knoweth that if my sufferings glorify His name, and encourage others to stand fast for the honor of Christ, my wages then are paid to the full.—S. Rutherford.

CLOSE COMMUNION.

By J. E. Swift

BY J. E. SWIFT.

The majority of professed Christians think that the Lord’s table should be free to all who may choose to come to it; and if we dissent from their view, they call it judging, and say that we think ourselves better than others. All this we disclaim, and offer the following in support of our position:—

The whole difficulty we think arises from a misapprehension in regard to the meaning and object of the Lord’s supper.

1. On the night of his betrayal, our Lord Jesus himself instituted this ordinance by blessing and giving to his disciples the bread and wine, which were to represent his broken body and spilt blood. 1 Cor. 11: 23–25.

2. The object of the supper is not to gratify appetite. 1 Cor. 11: 20–22. It is not to show that the participants, and they alone, are forgiven; for Martha, Mary, and Lazarus were not invited. It is not to show that the participants love each other; but it is to keep in remembrance the suffering and death of the world’s Redeemer until he shall come the second time to complete our redemption. Verse 26. Bear in mind that the Lord’s supper is not to express the intercommunion of believers, but the believer’s communion with the Lord. Nevertheless, let it be remembered that no one is accepted of the Lord unless he is at peace with his brethren. Matt. 5: 23, 24.

3. Those who partook of this supper were not publicans and sinners as those at the house of Levi, nor were they the multitude as on the mountain side in Galilee; but those who, according to the practice of Jesus, had been baptized. John 4: 1. They were adventists, or at least they were plainly taught the advent faith upon that occasion. (See the discourse in John 14.) They were commandment-keepers. John 14: 15, 21. We cannot conscientiously commune with any who are walking disorderly, or violating any of God’s commandments. Rom. 16: 17; 2 Thess. 3: 6.

There are those who have been baptized, but are not keeping the Sabbath; and others who are keeping the Sabbath, but have not been baptized. Now these persons may be honest-hearted and highly respectable, and yet they are not prepared for the communion, because they have not taken the steps necessary to admittance into the church. Communion is clearly a church ordinance; and only those who are members can share the privileges of church membership; otherwise the church organization would be insignificant and valueless; therefore, that which many are pleased to call “close communion” is the regular communion established by Christ himself for his church.

Perhaps a few words should be said for the encouragement of those dear souls who have fulfilled the above conditions, but who, feeling their unworthiness, and fearing that they will fall under the condemnation of 1 Cor. 11: 27–29, think themselves unfit for communion. This warning applies not to those who are conscientiously striving to walk blameless before the Lord. It was given to check a terrible condition of carelessness into which the Corinthian church had fallen. They had evidently lost sight of the object and sacredness of the communion, insomuch that they made it a scene of feasting and drunkenness. Proper order was not maintained; and instead of all sitting down together, and having the emblems administered by the proper persons, each of the more wealthy ones would sit down when he chose, and eat his supper which he had brought with him, thus leaving the poor who had brought nothing without any thing. Thus while one was hungry, another was drunken. See 1 Cor. 11: 20–22.

This communion service is a very important and solemn one; and therefore “let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.” “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.” 1 Cor. 11: 28, 26.

Continue reading: A LESSON ON GRATITUDE