Earlier text: The Ostrogoths and the VisigothsJurisdiction of the Law.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
WHY THE LAW WAS SPOKEN ONLY TO THE JEWS. (Concluded.)
Now why was it that only the Jews had the written law? Did the giving of the law to them indicate partiality on the part of God? Not by any means; "for there is no respect of persons with God." Before the exode, all the world was on a level, so far as written revelation was concerned. When sin separated man from God so that he could no longer talk with him face to face, then God supplemented the light which men had in their own hearts, by communicating with them in visions and dreams given to his prophets (Num. 12:6), and by sending angels to them. Gen. 22:15. Had all men hearkened to the voice of conscience, the communication thus opened between God and man would have been sufficient to bring them at last to the state where the law would be perfectly restored in their hearts. This is that which God is still striving to accomplish. Heb. 8:10. But men did not care to follow even that portion of the law which they retained in their hearts, and consequently God could not send them more light through his prophets. Thus "as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Rom. 1:28. In process of time, only one family retained the knowledge of God, and all the rest of the world were destroyed for their abominable wickedness. Within four hundred years after the flood, men had again corrupted their way on the earth, and only Abraham remained loyal to God. He kept God's commandments (Gen. 26:5), and had the determination to command his children and his household after him, that they should keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment. Gen. 18:19. In order that the descendants of Abraham might retain the knowledge of God, God called Abraham away from his corrupt associates, and gave him the rite of circumcision, in order that the separation might be complete. This rite was not designed to be a mark of birth or nationality, but simply as a means of keeping the observers of God's law from the contaminating influence of those who did not regard it; for whenever one of any other nation became willing to separate from his people and keep the law, he also became circumcised. Gen. 17:12. This precaution served to keep the descendants of Abraham a distinct people through all their wanderings, and to preserve among them the knowledge of the true God. Some from other tribes, getting the light from them, would occasionally turn to the Lord, to keep his commandments, and, becoming circumcised, would be counted as the descendants of righteous Abraham; but the great mass of the world chose to remain in the darkness of heathenism. Thus it happened that when the Lord brought his people from Egyptian bondage, they alone of all the people in the world had a knowledge of God. All the rest could say with Pharaoh, "I know not the Lord." At that time the Lord chose to give mankind his law in a manner so plain that it could not possibly be mistaken, and so that they could always meditate in it, in its perfection, even though no prophet were at hand. By this means, the Spirit could make greater progress, so to speak, in writing the law in their hearts. But to whom could he speak the law? Only to those who knew him, and would accept the law as coming from him. Therefore he was compelled to give the written law to the Jews, and make them light-bearers to the world. The law, when it entered, came to the Jews, not because it was designed for them alone, but because they alone would receive it. As a further evidence that God was not moved by race considerations, and did not give the law exclusively to the Jews as a nation, we may notice the fact that when the Jews left Egypt, "a mixed multitude went up also with them." Ex. 12:38; Num. 11:4. This "mixed multitude" was composed of Egyptians, and, no doubt, of people of other nationalities. These went along with the Jews, and with them received the law from God at Mount Sinai. We cannot close this portion of our subject without giving, from the pen of another, the following graphic portrayal of the condition of a people who should have no regard for the law of God:— "No error accepted by the Christian world strikes more boldly against the authority of Heaven, none is more directly opposed to the dictates of reason, none is more pernicious in its results, than the modern doctrine, so rapidly gaining ground, that God's law is no longer obligatory upon men. Every nation has its laws, which command respect and obedience; and has the Creator of the heavens and the earth no law to govern the beings he has made? Suppose that prominent ministers were publicly to teach that the statutes which govern our nation and protect the rights of its citizens were not obligatory,—that they restricted the liberties of the people, and therefore ought not to be obeyed; how long would such men be tolerated in the pulpit? But is it a graver offense to disregard the laws of States and nations than to trample upon those divine precepts which are the foundation of all government? When the standard of righteousness is set aside, the way is open for the prince of evil to establish his rule in the earth. "Wherever the divine precepts are set aside, sin ceases to appear sinful, or righteousness desirable. Those who refuse to submit to the government of God are wholly unfitted to govern themselves. Through their pernicious teachings, the spirit of insubordination is implanted in the hearts of children and youth, who are naturally impatient of control; and a lawless, licentious state of society results. While scoffing at the credulity of those who obey the requirements of God, the multitudes eagerly accept the delusions of Satan. They give the rein to lust, and practice the sins which called down judgments upon the heathen. "Let the restraint imposed by the divine law be wholly removed, and human laws would soon be disregarded. Because God forbids dishonest practices, coveting, lying, and defrauding, men are ready to trample upon his statutes as a hindrance to their worldly prosperity; but the results of banishing these precepts would be such as they do not anticipate. If the law were not binding, why should any fear to transgress? Property would no longer be safe. Men would obtain their neighbor's possessions by violence; and the strongest would become richest. Life itself would not be respected. Those who disregard the commandments of God sow disobedience to reap disobedience. The marriage vow would no longer stand as a sacred bulwark to protect the family. He who had the power, would, if he desired, take his neighbor's wife by violence. The fifth commandment would be set aside with the fourth. Children would not shrink from taking the lives of their parents, if by so doing they could obtain the desire of their corrupt hearts. The civilized world would become a horde of robbers and assassins; and peace, rest, and happiness would be banished from the earth." —Mrs. E. G. White, in "Great Controversy," vol. 4, chap. 31. This is just the state of things that would exist, not only in this world, but in all the universe, if the two commandments were not the universal rule of action. If there be any portion of the universe where the decalogue is not the recognized law, the above paragraphs accurately describe the condition of its society. The Chinese Question.
By Editor
IT is well known by all the readers of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES that this paper is purely a religious family journal. On political questions we have ever been strictly non-partisan, not because we have no private opinions on political matters, but because there are thousands of papers in which people can find the news of the day, and because we believe that we have a work to do that is of far greater importance. The matter of high or low tariff is of trifling importance compared with the things which pertain to our eternal destiny. But the anti-Chinese agitation has assumed such proportions on this coast, that we feel it duty to define our position upon it; and this because it is becoming a question of morals fully as much as one of politics. In the first place, we will say that there are features of the Chinese question which people in the East, where Chinamen are very scarce, cannot possibly appreciate. One who passes through "Chinatown" in San Francisco will learn more of Chinese character and habits in a single hour than he could by reading books for a month. They are not the most desirable neighbors, by any means. They are of a race that is so entirely different from ours that it is probably impossible that there should be any assimilation between the two, even in a civil capacity. And we do not think that it would be wise to attempt to make American citizens of them. While we believe that God made of one blood all the nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth, we also believe that he has "determined the bounds of their habitation." For this reason we think that unlimited Chinese immigration would be an injury to this country, and possibly to the Chinese themselves. But some of the Chinese are here, and it should be remembered that they came by invitation. They came for the purpose of bettering their condition; and it must also be remembered that if they have bettered their own condition, they have added immensely to the resources of this country. Hundreds of miles of railroad have been built by them, over places where few but Chinamen would be willing to work; and thousands of acres of land on this coast have been cleared by the Chinese, and are now teeming with the fruits of the earth as the result of their labor. Furthermore, the Chinese evil is not one-hundredth part as bad as it is represented to be. It is said that they degrade labor; but laborers and mechanics receive higher wages in California than they do in the East. It is said that they won’t become Christianized. Perhaps they will not; we confess that we don’t see much inducement for them to; but there are many, many thousands of the Caucasian race who show, not indifference to Christianity, as do the Chinese, but open contempt. It is said that they are vicious; but a drunken Chinaman would be a novelty; and the number of brothels and gambling dens that are run by Chinamen can be quadrupled in San Francisco by the same class of places into which no Chinaman ever set his foot. Therefore we say that the cry that “the heathen Chinese” is corrupting the youth of our land is a point poorly taken. The question now is, What shall be done with those that are here? The answer comes back, “The Chinese must go!” There is no doubt but that the country could get along without them; so far as we are concerned, it would make no difference; for we do not employ them. But we will say frankly that we have no sympathy with the method that is to be adopted to drive them out. It is proposed to boycott, not only the Chinese, but every man who refuses to boycott them, and also to boycott those who do not boycott those who do not boycott the Chinese. We cannot think that all who have committed120 themselves to such a course have fully considered what they are doing. For ourselves, we believe it is condemned by every principle of right. We are American citizens, and we have always had unbounded respect for those brave men who, at the risk of their lives, made the following declaration: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” That principle is just as true to-day as it was a hundred and ten years ago; and it is just as applicable to the Chinese as it is to Americans or Europeans. And that statement of the Declaration of Independence derives its truth from the Golden Rule spoken by our Saviour. We must not infringe upon anybody's rights, but must allow them the same freedom that we would exact for ourselves. Those who are unwilling to grant liberty to others, are not worthy of it themselves. It is true the Chinese are heathen, and they have some terribly debasing vices. But the fact that the American and European heathen in this country outnumber the Chinese ten to one; that for every Chinese gambler, there are doubtless a score of white gamblers; and that among the white population whisky has doubtless a hundred victims where opium has one among the Chinese; is ample evidence that it is not on moral grounds that Chinese expulsion is called for. The Chinese smoke opium in their dens, and stay there till they recover from its effects; but the whites drink whisky everywhere, and the effects never cease. We are firmly convinced that if the Chinese were patrons of the saloons, the outcry against them would be very much more feeble than it now is. But suppose that the Chinaman is not covered by the Declaration of Independence, it will not be denied that all native-born Americans have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Then to boycott our fellow-citizens is contrary both to the genius of our Government and the law of God. For example, here is my neighbor; he is a good, law-abiding citizen; possibly he is a brother in the church. He does not see fit to resort to mob violence to rid the country of the Chinese, and so I am required to pledge myself to boycott him, to have no dealings with him, to keep others from dealing with him, and to injure his business all I can. Is this right? Every honest person must say No. Then I will not do it; for though I may not be what many are pleased to call a sentimentalist, I profess to be a Christian. Whenever evil is done that good may come, the devil gains a victory, and the good never comes. It is as true now as it was three thousand years ago, that the violent dealing of any man is sure to come back upon his own pate. Even though the Chinese were more of a curse than it is claimed that they are, this boycotting business would be a thing to be unqualifiedly condemned. It is a cowardly act, and will fail of the desired result. It is the design of the anti-Chinese League to secure uniformity of action against the Chinese, so that they can say to Congress that the people of California are a unit upon this matter. But do they not see that when their petition goes to Congress the very fact that boycotting has been resorted to will kill it? The men at Washington are wise enough to perceive that there is not unity of sentiment when it is necessary to ruin people's business in order to “convert” them to any course of action. The best men of the Pacific Coast, the Christian men, the men of steady habits and stability of character, are not in favor of boycotting, which is simply mob rule. While there is a general sentiment against further Chinese immigration, the men just referred to are in favor of letting the matter be settled in a peaceable manner by the legislature. Many have been led against their better judgment to engage in this boycotting for fear of the results to their business. But we believe that “the spirit of ’76,” to say nothing of the spirit of Christianity, will lead a man to do what is right, and to be just to all men, regardless of the consequences to himself. And the color of a man, the shape of his eyes, the length of his hair, his private opinions, or his personal tastes and habits, have nothing to do with determining whether or not he is to be treated justly. We have written thus at length because we know that many conscientious persons are troubled as to their duty in this crisis, and we desire to help them to a decision that will not put them to shame in the day of Judgment. E. J. W. "The Abiding Sabbath."
By A. T. J.
IN following the author of "The Abiding Sabbath" through the different principal headings under which his five-hundred-dollar-prize logic is displayed, next after the "Testimony of Christ" we come to his so-called "Apostolic Testimony." Before we record his first definite proposition under this head, we wish to insert one sentence from his exposition of the "Testimony of Christ":— "As Lord of the Sabbath, he doubtless had the power to set it entirely aside—a power which certainly he has nowhere exercised, either by himself or through his apostles."—P. 168. Here is the definite, positive statement that Christ has certainly nowhere exercised the power to set the Sabbath aside, either by himself or through his apostles. Now please read the following:— "The Jewish Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority."—P. 175. True, in this latter statement, he prefixes to the Sabbath the epithet "Jewish;" but on page 190 he defines the "Jewish" Sabbath to be the "seventh day." And as the Lord from Heaven said, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God;" as that is the day upon which the Lord rested, which he blessed and which he sanctified; as from the creation of the world that was the only day that had ever been known as the Sabbath; and as that day is the only day that was ever recognized as the Sabbath, by either Christ or his apostles, his insertion of the epithet "Jewish" does not in the least relieve his latter statement from being a direct and absolute contradiction of the former. Therefore, as Christ nowhere set the Sabbath aside, "either by himself or through his apostles," and as the only weekly Sabbath of which either himself or his apostles knew anything "was definitely abolished by apostolic authority," it follows inevitably, by his own words, that if the apostles did abolish it, it was without the authority of Christ. But no, no; he will not allow that for an instant. Well, how does he avoid the conclusion? Oh, that is easy enough; he simply contradicts again both himself and the conclusion, thus:— "It is demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the developed teachings of Jesus Christ."—P. 186. We beg of our readers not to think that we draw out these sentences for the purpose of making contradictions, nor to think we are trying to make the matter worse than it really is. The contradictions are all there; we simply take them as we find them. And really we should not know how to go about it to make the thing worse than it is, nor as bad even as it is. We could wish, indeed, that it were not so; but in such a cause it cannot be otherwise; and we want our readers to see exactly how the Sunday institution is made to stand by an argument that ought to be the most conclusive, seeing it was considered worthy of a five-hundred-dollar prize. We proceed. In proof of his word that the "Jewish" Sabbath is definitely abolished by apostolic authority, he says:— "No wonder that the apostles could so little tolerate the proposed continuance of the bondage from which Christ had set them free. Gal. 5:1. Had he not taken away 'the hand-writing of ordinances' against them, and 'nailed it to his cross?'"—P. 176. But of all things the Sabbath is one that can by no possibility be classed with the ordinances that were against us. Christ said, "The Sabbath was made for man." The proof is absolute therefore that the Sabbath was no part of those ordinances which Paul says were "taken away;" for those that were taken away were such as were against us (Col. 2:14), unless, indeed, by Mr. Elliott's five-hundred-dollar-prize logic it could be made to appear that the same thing can be for us and against us at the same time. But allowing all the wondrous efficacy of this high-priced logic, we doubt its power in the performance of this feat. Yet on the strength of the above statement he makes the following assertion:— "With the ceremonial system vanished the Jewish Sabbath."—P. 177. It would be an easy task indeed to disprove this, on our own part; but he does it himself so effectually that we need merely to copy his words. Of the law given at Sinai, he says:— "Of the law thus impressively given, the fourth commandment forms a part. Amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunderings and lightnings, uttered by the same dread voice of the Infinite One, and graven by his finger, came forth these words as well: 'Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. It is impossible, in view of these facts, to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. By the sacred seal of the divine lip and finger, it has been raised far above those perishing rites.'"—P. 118. That is a fact. It is impossible, even by prefixing to it the epithet "Jewish," to class the Sabbath with the ceremonial institutions of Israel. For amid the same cloud of glory, the same thunderings and lightnings, the same dread voice of the Infinite One, who said, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy," said also, "The seventh day is the Sabbath"—not of the Jews, but—"of the Lord thy God." It is indeed raised far above the perishing rites and ordinances that were against us. Therefore, although the ceremonial system vanished, the Sabbath remains; for it is no part of the ceremonial, but is an essential part of the moral system. But Mr. Elliott is not done yet. He continues:— "Such is the relation of apostolic teaching to the Jewish Sabbath. The yoke of the fathers, with its crushing weight of sacerdotal requirements, was cast off. The galling fetters of tradition were broken, and forever was the infant church delivered from 'statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live.' Eze. 20:25."—P. 180. Over against that please read this concerning the Sabbath of the fourth commandment:— "It belongs to that moral law which Paul calls 'holy, and just, and good' (Rom. 7:12), and not that ritual law of which Peter declares, 'neither our fathers nor we were able to bear' it. Acts 15:10."—Pp. 118, 119. So, then, the "yoke" which was "cast off" had nothing to do with the Sabbath; and the "statutes that were not good," etc., from which the infant church was delivered, were not at all those of which the Sabbath is a part, for they are "holy, and just, and good." And more, we should like to know upon what principle it is that the author of "The Abiding Sabbath" applies the phrase, "the galling fetters of tradition," to an institution given by the direct word of God, with a voice that shook the earth, and whose obligation was graven upon the tables of stone by the divine finger? For by the term "Jewish" Sabbath he invariably means the seventh day, and that is the very day named by the voice of God. But lo, this is to be pushed aside as "the galling fetters of tradition;" and in its place is to be put a day—Sunday—to which in all the word of God there is no shadow of sacredness at-121tached; a day which rests for its authority solely upon, "we have the right to assume," "the right to infer," "doubtless," "probably," "in all likelihood," and "a religious consensus of the Christian church" (p. 205); and in all this we are to suppose there is nothing traditional! "It has already been shown that the Sabbath is a part of the moral law; it has the mark of universality as co-existent with man; it embodies a spiritual significance; it has a reasonable basis in the physical, mental, and moral needs of man; it was incorporated in the decalogue, the outline of moral law given to Israel; it was enforced by such threatened penalties for violation and promised blessings for observance as could not have been attached to a merely ceremonial ordinance; and Jesus confirmed these historical and rational proofs by his own example and teachings." That is the truth, and it is well stated. But now see what an extraordinary conclusion he draws from it:— "Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it is established as an apostolic institution by every word and phrase in which the apostles assert that law to be still binding on men."—Pp. 183-4. "Being, therefore, a part of the moral law, it is established as an apostolic institution"! Is, then, the moral law an apostolic institution? Does the moral law find its origin in the apostles? Do the precepts of the moral law find their spring in the will, and derive their authority from the actions, of the apostles? We confess it impossible for us to find language that would fittingly characterize such a preposterous proposition. It is astonishing how any man who is capable of forming a conception of moral law at all, could set it forth as sober argument. Nor are we allowed to entertain the charitable view that perhaps it was done ignorantly; for Mr. Elliott himself has given us a perfect exposition of the ground of existence of moral law, not only of moral law in the abstract, but also of the Sabbath as being itself a moral institution. He says:— "Suppose the question to be asked, How can we know that any precept is moral in its meaning and authority, and not simply a positive and arbitrary command? What better answer could be given to this inquiry than to say that a moral precept must have the ground of its existence in the nature of God? Our highest conception of the moral law is to regard it as the transcript of his nature. . . . All must agree that no more perfect vindication of the moral character of a law can be given than to show that it is a rule of the divine conduct; that it has been imposed upon his own activity by that infinite will which is the supreme authority both in the physical and moral government of the universe. That law to which the Creator submits his own being must be of absolute binding force upon every creature made in his image. Such is the law of the Sabbath. 'God rested the seventh day,' and by so doing has given to the law of the Sabbath the highest and strongest sanction possible even to Deity."—P. 24. Such, in truth, is the origin and ground of authority of all moral obligation; such is the origin and ground of authority of the moral obligation of the seventh day. The seventh day is the only day that has, or ever has had, any such sanctions; therefore the seventh day is the only day that has, or that can have under the existing order of things, any claim whatever to the moral consideration of mankind. And the above statement of the ground of moral obligation effectually shows the utter absurdity of the idea that the Sabbath, "being a part of the moral law, is established as an apostolic institution." How could he possibly think himself called upon to make such a statement anyhow? Why, just thus: He has set out to have the first day of the week the Sabbath; he knows that it cannot be made to appear with any shadow of authority before the days of the apostles; he knows that even though it be made to originate with them, it can have no authority outside of the church unless it be moral; therefore, in contradiction of his own proofs, and in defiance of every principle of the basis of moral obligation, he is compelled to make the apostles the source of moral obligation. But he might better have spared himself the pains; for the idea is repugnant to the very consciousness of every man who will pause to think at all upon the subject. The apostles were the subjects, not the authors, of moral obligation. Notice again that the statement which we are here discussing is the conclusion that he has drawn from a series of things which he says had "already been shown;" and we must give him the credit, which is very seldom his due, that from his main premises his conclusion is logical. The proposition under which he draws his conclusion is that, "The apostles, by confirming the moral law, have enforced the obligation of the Sabbath." Under this, his principal term is:— "The apostles of Jesus Christ, as he had done in the sermon on the mount, re-enacted for the church the whole decalogue in its universal meanings."—Pp. 181-2. To enact, is "to decree; to establish by legal and authoritative acts; to make into a law."—Webster.
To re-enact, therefore, is to re-decree, to re-establish by legal and authoritative acts, to make again into a law. Now, if after the enactment by God and the re-enactment by Christ, the decalogue still needed to be confirmed by the apostles, and still needed legislative acts of the apostles to establish it legally and authoritatively as a moral standard, then we submit that Mr. Elliott's conclusion that the Sabbath, "being a part of the moral law, is established as an apostolic institution," is strictly logical. But we sincerely question the wisdom as well as the justice of paying five-hundred-dollar prizes for a style of reasoning which can be logical only in the reversal of every principle of the philosophy of moral obligation. It most excellently serves his purpose though. His grand argument from "apostolic testimony" he closes thus:— "As certainly as historical proof can be adduced for any fact, so certainly is it demonstrated that the Sabbath of the law was abolished by apostolic authority, in accordance with the developed teachings of Jesus Christ. But although the Sabbath of the law ceased, the law of the Sabbath is abiding." If, then, the Sabbath of the law be abolished while the law of the Sabbath remains, it must follow that the law of the Sabbath remains with no Sabbath. Oh, no, not at all. This is the emergency which he has all the while been laboring to create, and of course he meets it promptly. He continues thus:— "And it is in the highest degree probable that the Lord's day which embodied its spirit was instituted by the immediate authority of the apostles, and therefore by the supreme authority of their Master, Jesus Christ."—P. 186. And so the grand feat of getting Sunday into the fourth commandment is accomplished at last; and "it is in the highest degree probable" that our readers see just how it is done. But there is yet one more thing to be done that the work may be complete in every part; that is, to transfer to the first day the Sabbath associations with which God has surrounded the seventh day. And, although this article is somewhat long, we beg that Mr. Elliott be allowed to tell how that is done, because it rounds out his work in such symmetrical proportions. He says:— "It is easy to comprehend how the Jewish Sabbath must almost at once have lost its hold on the affections of the disciples. . . . In the most powerful manner possible, those feelings of festal gladness and holy joy inseparable from the true idea of the Sabbath, were forever disconnected from the seventh day. . . . And by the most natural revulsion of feeling, all that was lost from the seventh day was transferred to the first day of the week."—P. 188. There, the work is done; the climax is reached; the "Hill of Difficulty" is passed; and the first day of the week has become the "abiding Sabbath." It rests for its authority upon an, "it is in the highest degree probable;" and for its sacredness, upon "the most natural revulsion of feeling." But against all his probabilities of however high degree, and against all his revulsions of feeling however natural, we set the plain word of God "which liveth and abideth forever." "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work." The Missionary.
By George I. Butler
Manifestation of the Spirit of Christ.
CHRIST was ever earnest; therefore the Spirit of Christ leads to earnestness. Christ was ever faithful to duty; therefore the Spirit of Christ will lead us to be faithful to duty. Christ was untiring in his efforts to accomplish the work his Father gave him to do; therefore, if we possess the Spirit of Christ, we shall labor in the same manner to accomplish the work that is given us to do. Christ’s life was given for the salvation of the lost and perishing. If we have Christ’s Spirit, we shall labor to accomplish the same results. Christ regarded not ease, riches, or pleasure, and labored in weariness and sorrow, unheeding the ingratitude of those he came to save. He never allowed the tenderest ties of nature, the endearing influences of friendship, or the dangerous malice of his enemies, to interfere with the work he came to do. So, also, shall we act, if we possess the Spirit of Christ. That Spirit will always prompt us to do the same kind of works that it prompted him to do. This view of the effects of the Spirit of God is sensible and consistent, while the popular idea of its influence is foolish and misleading. To shout, dance, roll on the ground, and act like fools and fanatics, as certain classes do who claim to be exercised by the Spirit, is to utterly misrepresent that blessed emissary of the court of Heaven, the Spirit of God. To imitate our Lord and Master in doing our work with the same spirit of faithfulness with which he did his, should now be the object of every one. Would to God we all might feel straightened and burdened with it, as he did with his work. It would take away from us our love of ease and pleasure, our jesting and joking, our chaff and nonsense, our love of the world and its vanities and trifles. It would sober us down, give weight to our talk and discourses, and put within us a new spirit. We have a most solemn work committed to our hands, which admits of no trifling or delay. It requires the utmost devotion and consecration. What we need is consecration to the work until our greatest happiness will consist in doing the work God has given us to do. It was Christ’s meat to do the work his Father had given him to do. The word meat here signifies his food, that which sustained him, his chief object, desire, happiness, and joy. He could not be at rest, or at all contented, unless he was engaged in this—his business. It was his life and chief satisfaction. Prompted by the fullness of love which filled his great heart, he went forth to his work, delighting to bring the hope of the gospel before the poor, sorrowing, desponding, sin-sick souls around him. He was pleased when he could reach down his arm of pity, and lift them up. This kind of work was happiness to him. How different this kind of labor from that in which we are driven to our task by the stern whip of duty, working because we feel we must, or be lost, looking back all the time with longings, as the Israelites did, to the leeks and onions of Egypt, the perishable things of this poor world. O brethren and sisters, we all need a new baptism of the Spirit of Christ, filling our hearts with the real joy of laboring for God.122 We need to listen attentively to the call, "Go labor in my vineyard." Not one of us will be excused. Labor we must, if we receive the reward at the end of the gospel day. A solemn, heart-searching work is committed to our hands. The last warning message is given us to proclaim. Its light must enlighten the earth. God has said it; and not a jot or tittle of his word can fail. If we do not help to do this work, others will be raised up, and they will take our crowns. Oh! those crowns of glory, with all the bliss and joy of an immortal life, beyond all care and pain, evermore to reign with our Saviour in his glory, and to see the precious souls our efforts have helped to save. How can we bear the thought of losing all this? This work is the most solemn and important ever committed to mortal hands. It is our privilege to live in this most interesting and thrilling period of human history. The great truths of the closing message are committed to our hands. Shall we fail in our duty? May God forbid. In such a work as this, so extensive and important, there is something for every one to do. All can be laborers, to do something to save others, besides working for their own individual salvation. G. I. BUTLER. NOTES ON THE INTERNATIONAL LESSON.
WHEN Nehemiah had finished the walls of Jerusalem, and had set up the gates, the enemies of the Jews were still active, as they had been from the beginning—even as Daniel had prophesied nearly a hundred years before that the walls should be built "even in troublous times"—and watchmen were set upon the wall, all around, "every one in his watch, and every one to be over against his house." Although the wall was finished and the gates set up, "the city was large and great; but the people were few therein, and the houses were not builded." But before going any further in the matter of building particularly, he began a further reformation in the lives and worship of the people. So he says: "And my God put it into mine heart to gather together the nobles, and the rulers, and the people, that they might be reckoned by genealogy." Neh. 7: 1-6. "AND all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law." The words of the book, though written by Moses, were really the words of God; and it was right that the ears of all the people should be attentive to the words that were read to them. Inattention to the reading of the word of God is disrespectful to its Author. If some one of the rulers of this world were to send a communication to us personally, there would be close attention given to the reading of it. The Bible is the communication which the Majesty of the universe sends to us; it is the word of our best Friend; in it he teaches us to profit, telling us the way which we should go to reach happiness and peace at all times. Would that all people to-day to whom the word is read, were as attentive as were these people at Jerusalem when Ezra read. "O that thou hadst hearkened to my commandments! then had thy peace been as a river, and thy righteousness as the waves of the sea." Isa. 48: 17, 18. MAINE: Norridgewock.—Brother A. O. Burrill reports, Jan. 26, that he has spent four weeks with the church in this place, but has accomplished but little on account of the intense cold. Meetings could not be held in the church. Over $38 worth of books were sold. MINNESOTA: Wrightstown.—Brethren William Schram and H. Hewitt closed meetings at this place Jan. 28, leaving fifteen keeping the Sabbath of the Lord. A Sabbath-school of twenty members was organized. Here, also, the cold, stormy weather made it almost impossible for meetings to be attended. MISSOURI: Carthage.—From this place Brother J. W. Watt writes: "January 19 I reached the vicinity of the Freedom school-house, where Brother D. W. Wood and Brother Blackmon have been laboring. I found sixteen keeping the Sabbath as the result of their labors. Gave eight discourses, baptized four persons, and organized a church of eleven members. All of these brethren, although newly converted to the truth, have accepted the whole truth; every one that used tobacco has given it up. They will hold regular Sabbath meetings, and expect to pay tithes." MICHIGAN: Tuscola.—Eugene Leland closed meetings near this place, January 27. As the result of the meetings, a class of twenty has been organized, who will hold regular Sabbath meetings and Sabbath-school. The Sabbath-school has thirty-six members. At Duttonville the church has been increased by the reception of six persons who have lately begun to keep the Sabbath.