Earlier text: INCIDENTS AT THE SANDWICH ISLANDSTHE TRUTH—THE SABBATH.
By J. G. Sterling
“But neither so did their witness agree together.” Mark xiv, 50. “A straight line,” says the geometrician, “is one that does not change its course throughout its whole extent.” From this definition, the following corollary is generally deduced, viz., “A straight line cannot cross itself.” Such is truth. It is ever self-consistent. And never, never contradictory. Hence, truth will bear close inspection; and though at times, in these sin-abounding days, it may be brought into disrepute, may cope with error at a disadvantage, yet it is in the long run the safe side. The language of the poet will one day prove true, if not to-day, viz.,
> “Truth crushed to earth, will rise again;
> The eternal years of God are hers.
> But error wounded, writhes in pain,
> And dies amid her worshipers.” A just judge, in deciding upon the guilt or innocence of a prisoner arraigned before him, not only takes into account the number of witnesses who testify for or against, but considers whether there is, on essential points, that agreement and self-consistency which ever accompanies the truth. In the trial of our blessed Lord, before Pontius Pilate, “The chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus to put him to death, and found none.” Verse 55. That is, none that would serve their purpose; for the very good reason that their testimony being false, was contradictory. Even the plainest items of the charges brought against him, failed to be sustained for want of agreement among the witnesses. Throughout the whole trial these contradictory witnesses fail to convince even the time-serving Pilate of the guilt of their prisoner. Though greatly desirous of pleasing the accusers, he hesitates to pronounce sentence, and finally attempts to throw the responsibility upon them. “He took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person.” Matt. xxvii, 24. Indeed, although this trial was instigated by Satan, gotten up and carried on by malice and hatred, for the very purpose of criminalizing and destroying the prisoner, and it would seem, the greater share of the witnesses were intent upon the same thing also; yet the judge discovered that “for envy they had delivered him;” (Matt. xxvii, 18,) and not only so, but from this contradictory mass of testimony he elicits truth enough to establish in his own mind the justice of the prisoner’s claim to the Messiahship. Hence we find him writing upon the cross, “This is Jesus the king of the Jews.” Matt. xxvii, 37. It is sometimes said, “All cannot see alike; all cannot believe alike;” but such opinions do not seem to be founded in truth. Our reasoning faculties are not so different but that, from the same stand-point, we may see the same truths or arrive at the same conclusions. Every witness called, and every member of that council—had they divested their minds of prejudice, might have seen what Pilate saw—the innocence of the Saviour, and the justice of his claim to the Messiahship. But there is another subject to which I would call the attention of the reader, using what we have already written as an illustration by way of comparison. And that subject is the Sabbath of the Lord. I am told by some, “All cannot believe alike, hence it is not to be expected that all can believe alike as to which day of the week is the Sabbath.” Now God has said, “The seventh day is the Sabbath,” &c., and cannot everybody believe it? When Jesus said, “have faith in God,” did he add, if you can? When God requires faith, does he require impossibilities of some? I think not. “Abraham believed God,” and so may we, if we will. “But then,” says one, “I believe God as well as you; but I think that the first day is the day to be kept now.” Indeed, and for what reason? Do you refer me to the strong-minded men who keep the first day? Alas! their reasons are as inconsistent and contradictory as were the witnesses whose testimony failed to convince Pilate of the guilt of the blessed Saviour. One reasons thus: “I admit, and fully believe that the moral law is in full force, but believe that the Sabbath has been changed from the seventh to the first day of the week.” Refer to another, and he believes the seventh day is the only scriptural Sabbath, but then, the world being round, it is impossible to keep any particular day. So God, according to his philosophy, has commanded an impossibility, and therefore he suits his convenience as to the day he keeps. And so on to the end of the chapter. Every man, almost, has a reason of his own, and these reasons as diverse and inconsistent as error is generally found to be. This is no fancy sketch. Every faithful Sabbath-keeper has met with all the diversities above specified, and many more. I have been surprised in my short experience, to see how flimsy were the best reasons the best Sunday-keepers could give for rejecting the Lord’s Sabbath. But I confess I was more than surprised in comparing the statement of one of the most zealous defenders of the first day, not long since, with those previously written by the same person. The statements are as follows: “Here let me now confess, that if there is any one day mentioned in the Scriptures which is now more holy than another, made so by the express or direct command of Almighty God, then the seventh day is the one.”—T. M. Preble, in World’s Crisis, 1864. “Why will intelligent, Christian men call the Lord’s holy Sabbath by a heathen name—Sunday! Why not follow the New Testament, and call the day by its appropriate name—Sabbath?”—T. M. Preble, in World’s Crisis, 1868. It is true that good and honest people may, and do sometimes change their opinions, but the shifting and turning of the platform of the defenders of the claims of the first day, seems to me to have outdone almost everything else in this line with which I have ever been acquainted; so much so that I am often reminded of the language of our Saviour, as recorded in Mark iii, 24, 25. “And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.” THE SERPENT OF SERPENTS; OR,
THE BIBLE AND THE FICTITIOUS.
“How shall I speak thee, or thy power address?
Thou god of idolatry, the Press!
Like Eden’s dread probationary tree—
Knowledge of good and evil is from thee!” We should search the Scriptures, hide them in our hearts, to destroy the relish (if we have it), for the light, popular, fascinating literature, the mixed publications that are now sweeping over the land, more desolating than the frogs, lice, and locusts of Egypt. Do novel-readers read the Bible?—love it, embrace it, practice it? Is the Bible delightful to them? sweet to their taste as honey and the honeycomb? Do they make the Bible their counsel, their guide, their lamp, and their light? meditate on it day and night? These light, popular, fictitious readings, unfit the mind for devotion and Bible-reading. Who ever knew a novel-reader, or one spending whole hours poring over the love tales of Harper, Godey, Peterson, Arthur, Leslie, The New York Ledger, the comicals, and the other mixed publications of a similar character, a diligent student of the Bible, a lover of prayer, a consistent follower of Jesus Christ? Was such a thing ever? “Can two walk together except they be agreed?” “Can any one serve two masters?” “He that is not for me is against me,” says Christ. A lover of God’s book, dictated by the Holy Spirit, and meanwhile pore over the emanations of corrupt, licentious hearts! The one is as opposite to the other as light is from darkness, Heaven and hell! The one is from above, the other beneath—“earthly, sensual, devilish.” Who are the writers of these love-stories, fictitious tales, novels, romances, fatal tragedies, horrid scenes of rape, blood and murder, that grace the pages of these popular weeklies and monthlies? With few exceptions, are they not known to be persons lax in principle and loose in life? “As is the tree, so is the fruit.” “Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?” “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” “Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?” “Evil communications corrupt good manners.” These popular works of fiction are the most potent engines the Devil ever planted upon the earth, to undermine the principles of virtue, and subvert the morality of the Bible. They drive the individuals from the sanctuary, close the Bible, alienate the heart from God, and plunge the soul into temporal ruin and eternal death! The habit grows with our growth, and if permitted to run on, will pollute the soul even in the world to come.—Reader, beloved, do you love the Bible? hide it in your heart, meditate on it day and night? If you are the Lord’s in very deed, dead to sin and alive to God, the word of the Lord will be precious; more precious than honey and the honeycomb. Will you then have delight in these fascinating, popular monthlies and weeklies? the mixed publications, intermingled with the bitter and the sweet, the romance and the silly love-tale? Take the Bible for your guide, your hope, your joy, you lose all relish for novels, nonsensical readings; they become insipid, disgusting, abhorrent. When the Bible is the man of your counsel, and Christ is formed in your soul the hope of glory, you look upon these light, frothy publications in their true light, as sugar-coated poisons, as serpents in the grass; you spurn them as dross, the babblings of the pit. The Bible is not only the text-book, but the test-book; it searches the heart, tries the reins. Beware, ye novel-readers, beware, lest ye “be weighed in the balance and found wanting.” Examine yourselves. Know ye not yourselves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except that ye be reprobates? Again, if the Bible is to you what it ought to be, and must be, to qualify you for the realms of light and glory, you lose all relish and delight for worldly pleasures, “foolish talking and jesting,” the gay party, the ball-room, the theatre, all games of chance, chess, checker, the card-table—all that is contrary to God’s will, justice, mercy, and truth.” “If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” “Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? Whosoever, therefore, will be a friend of the world, is the enemy of God.” James, iv, 4. “Why not live as God would have you?”
Why not do his blessed will?
Break the bonds of sin forever,
Strive your duty to fulfill!” Author of “Home Thrusts.” Mysticism in the Lord’s Supper
THE Rev. Morgan Dix teaches the children of his confirmation classes, that Christ’s “glorified humanity” becomes present in the communion supra-locally, hyper-physically, and spiritually in some way believed on by the church, but known only to God! So says The Independent. Is that the food for lambs of the flock? Do they have the faintest idea of the true relations of the Lord’s supper after hearing such mysticism? Irreverence in the House of Prayer
We have often been surprised and grieved at irreverent acts in the house of prayer; and the thoughtlessness manifested by many while the Doxology is being sung and the benediction pronounced, is very unbecoming. A paper in Indiana rebukes the evil by proposing hereafter that instead of saying, “Let us sing the Doxology,” the minister shall say, “Let us put on overcoats, adjust furs, slip on gloves, grab our hats, look to the Lord, and be dismissed.” It is a delicate subject upon which to address one personally. You may talk in general terms of the advantage of brevity in public prayers, and every one will assent. The pastor may rise in the Wednesday evening prayer-meeting, and kindly lay the subject before his people, and every heart will echo to his remarks, and thank him. But who will profit by them? An amusing instance is told by a writer in the Congregationalist: “A New England pastor, not long since, made a serious and earnest address on this subject among others, to his church, at their annual meeting. He stated that at a social meeting a brother then present had prayed twenty-five minutes by the clock. After the sermon that brother waited to speak with his minister. The heart of the pastor sank within him. He feared he had greatly offended the good man. ‘I am glad you spoke so plainly about long prayers,’ said the brother. ‘It seems that he is not offended,’ thought the minister; ‘but I am afraid he is greatly grieved.’ ‘The fact is,’ continued the brother, ‘some of the brethren have tried me dreadfully in this matter, and I think it was high time you spoke to them as you did.’” JOURNEY TO GREENVILLE.
By Editor
We are learning more of the noble State in which the good providence of the Lord has located the REVIEW Office. The resources of Michigan, in mineral and vegetable products, are beginning to be appreciated, and are now being developed perhaps as rapidly as those of any other State, at least more rapidly than in any previous years of its history. Its copper, iron, salt, coal, lime, and plaster, are already celebrated in the mercantile world; its lumber is depended on by other States; already it is excelled only by Ohio, in the amount of its wool products, and if we may take the increase of the past few years, as a basis, it will soon be the first wool-growing State in the Union; while its wheat has only to be branded, “Michigan Wheat,” to take the first rank in the market. A constant stream of emigration is pouring through the State, on the great thoroughfares of the Michigan Southern and Central railroads, to localities further west, many of whom, we are satisfied, would find it to their advantage to divert their course to the more northern, and rapidly-growing counties of this State. The impression gathered from only what can be seen by passing through the State on its railroads, we admit, would not be very favorable; and many, doubtless, have no other idea of the State, than what is gathered from their observations under such circumstances. Such know not what Michigan is. For instance, the Central railroad passes through a very poor portion of the State. Following, to a great extent, the course of rivers, whose banks alternate with marsh and sand, the traveler gets a very poor idea, or rather no idea, of the nature of the country at a little distance from the line of travel. We know of no better section through which the Central railroad passes, than Calhoun county, embracing the thriving places of Albion, Marshall, Battle Creek; but for farming purposes, we consider that county by no means equal to the counties further north, as we judge from a little actual observation which we have just had the privilege of making. June 15, Bro. White took us into his carriage at Battle Creek, for a journey of seventy miles north, to his home in Greenville, Montcalm Co. This journey has given us the opportunity of beholding some of the nice farming lands that lie between these points, as evinced by the thrifty fruit trees, the luxuriant fields of grass and grain, and perhaps as much as anything, by the uncleared tracts of primitive forest, with their dense growth of lofty and massive trees. At one point, we found a tree standing directly in the center of the road, as if defying the march of civilization, which, at a hight of five feet, measured fifteen feet in circumference, and gave no evidence of ever having yielded to any influence, except in the loss of its top, which some commotion in the upper regions had wrenched off at a distance of a hundred or more feet from the ground. We passed countless fields of wheat, with which the only fault that could be found was, that it was too rank and heavy. Some, by actual measurement, stood four feet and nine inches, and this too, when it is only beginning to head out. When ripe, it will stand six feet. But it is everywhere so rank and heavy that wind and rain must deal very tenderly with it, or it will lodge and be almost entirely ruined. This is now the great danger. A few weeks will determine the matter. Should the season continue favorable, the “staff of life” will be abundant and cheap. We have never seen nicer farming land than in the northern portion of Eaton county, and in Ionia county. Montcalm county, of which we have as yet seen but little, is less developed, but bids fair to be in no way behind. Of course all the land is not uniformly good, but everywhere in this region, nice farms are gratifyingly plenty. And with all this fertility of soil, and good and accessible markets for produce, farmers here have plenty of timber for purposes of building, fencing, and fuel, which gives them a great advantage over those living in States where timber is lacking. And the nice buildings, and other evidences of wealth with which these farmers have been able to surround themselves, show that they have not been slow to improve their advantages. The expression “north woods,” which is sometimes applied to that region, may once have been applicable; but now it must be lifted over to counties still further north, where its application will not convey an incorrect idea. The journey has been a good recreation. Fine weather, the cheerful and promising garb of nature, the sweet-scented fields, and conversation on the great themes of present truth, upon which none are better prepared to speak than Bro. and Sr. White, all conspired to render it both pleasant and profitable. And here we are now at the spacious and hospitable home of Bro. White, to spend a few weeks assisting him in the preparation of Life Incidents for the press, for the double object, 1, That this important work may, with as little delay as possible, be in the hands of the brethren; and 2, That Bro. and Sr. White may the sooner be at liberty to visit the churches which are everywhere waiting for their labors. The poet says that we each “have a work which no other can do.” This is true of all of us in reference to our individual work for salvation; but it is true of these servants of the Lord in reference to their work for the church. They have a work to do for the people of God, which no other can do. It is an important and essential work. Let us all conspire to render them as free as possible for this work, and help them in it what we can.
EDITOR. THE CALIFORNIA MISSION.
By James White
When Bro. Loughborough and Bourdeau had decided, in harmony with the general feeling of their brethren upon the subject, to go to California, they came to our room in the Review Office, which was fitted up for us to occupy during the time of the Conference, to consult with us as to the best plan of laboring in that new field. It was very soon decided that they should take a good tent with them. I immediately took my pencil and wrote the brief notice which appeared in the REVIEW, of the intentions of these brethren to visit that new State, that they would take a tent with them, and suggested that the friends of the cause should donate the sum of about $1000 to meet the extra expenses of the mission. In connection with that notice I stated that I would give $25. I then passed the paper to the above-named brethren, and they each pledged $25. Since that time, others have responded. But in this there does not seem to be equality. Three worn ministers, with limited means, who had already donated to different charitable purposes during the Conference, from $40 to $100 each, now come forward and give each $25 more, while many of their wealthy brethren seem to content themselves with giving to this mission the small sums of $5 or $10. These ministers did not set this liberal example because they were able to do so, but because of the interest they felt in the work. In fact, they should not have given anything, while those who were able should have come up with their tens, twenty-fives, fifties, and hundreds, and created a fund of several thousands to spread the truth in the State of California. Our ministers who attend our Conferences and learn the wants of the cause in its various branches, feel that the work must go forward, and will give to advance the different enterprises, to the amount of $100, while wealthy brethren, who may have too many home cares to come up to these annual convocations, and who are more able to give $100 than these ministers are to give $5, content themselves to give their $10, and their $5, and let the poor minister give $100. And yet there are others among us, who are worth from five to fifty thousand dollars, who take no stock at all in such enterprises. All their professions of faith in the soon coming of Christ, and all their expressed wishes for the advancement of the cause, while they do nothing for the encouragement of those enterprises, and hold fast their earthly gains, must be regarded by all men, believers and unbelievers, as downright hypocrisy. When two men of experience, like elders Loughborough and Bourdeau, are found, who are willing to go on such a mission, to endure its hardships and privations, and when the prospect that the standard of truth is to be planted in this new and encouraging field of labor, and when the liberal example is set by these self-sacrificing men, why are not the hearts of the men of wealth among us fired with a becoming zeal to raise the sum of $5000 at once, to carry forward this mission. One thousand dollars' worth of our publications should be distributed gratis in connection with the labors of these two brethren, before the year 1869 opens. If only two hundred among us had followed the example of these ministers, the sum of $5000 would have been raised at once. But the sum is not raised, and, probably will not be raised, not, however, because men among us are not able to do it, and liberally meet all the other wants of the cause, but simply because they love this world. Riches increase with them, cares increase, love of increase shuts out the love for Christ and the progress of his cause, and they content themselves with giving $5, or perhaps nothing, where they should give a hundred, and leave the poor minister to give, then to economize his own expenses, and get along as best he can. There are noble exceptions to the above, and we do not make these statements to injure the feelings of any. We only state facts, and would beseech our wealthy brethren for Christ's sake, for the sake of the cause of truth, for the sake of men and women who must perish out of Christ, and for their own soul's sake, to consider these matters well, and act in the fear of God. If your talents, or means of usefulness, are principally in your wealth, you will not be excused in burying them in the earth. Occupy, brethren, occupy till the Master comes. You need not conclude that the ministers give because they have an abundance. This is not the case. They give of their limited means simply because you are no more liberal. How does it look to you, to the world, and to God, to see your poor, worn ministers start off in some worthy enterprise with a donation of $25, then you follow, if at all, with $5 or $10? I have one question to ask, How many will follow the example of these preachers, and each give $25? Will two hundred? There are among Seventh-day Adventists 1000 men better able to give $25 each to the California mission, than Elders Loughborough and Bourdeau are to give $5. These ministers have given time, ability, strength, and all, to the cause, and are much worn, and now give themselves renewedly to the work, and set you a good example in point of means. And you who have abundance, with all the blessings of health and home, can see these men wear out in such a noble enterprise, and feel satisfied with your donations of $5 and $10, I confess myself astonished. Is not the cause a common one? Should it not interest the believing farmer, merchant, or mechanic, as much as the preacher? It is not the minister's cause. It is the cause of God. All the cares, toils, and sacrifices, should be borne equally. God does not require the minister to wear out with toil, care, sacrifice, want, and sorrow of heart, because others do not bear their portion of the burdens of the way, and leave the wealthy farmer to care for his farm, the mechanic to follow his trade, and the merchant his business, free from care or sacrifice for the cause, and at last give them the same reward. He requires equality in sharing the burdens, and desires that all should be worthy to share equal reward. Why not? Ministers and people all have the same faith, the same hope, and are pressing to the same Heaven. God calls the minister to preach and calls the church to sustain him, and all the branches of the work connected with the gospel. God never called a minister to preach, without calling the church at the same time to sustain him in all his judicious operations to advance the cause. The church should sacrifice as much as the minister. The church has no more right to get rich than the minister. Let him attend to the gospel, and let him be cheered with their liberal co-operations, and not saddened with their stingy donations of one-fifth or one-half as large as that made by himself. But the minister must not be discouraged, let come what will. His work and the reward are before him. God bless him, and help his brethren to feel and to act. “THE CLOCK-DIAL VISION.”
By J. H. Waggoner
In a recently-published article under this head, Mr. H. E. Carver endeavors to show that there was at least an apparent discrepancy in the visions of Sr. White on the time of the commencement of the Sabbath. We notice this for two reasons: 1st, the article, from its appearance of candor and professed desire to state the truth, is well calculated to deceive by its misstatements. 2nd, erroneous statements have so often been made, in regard to the above point, that we fear many of the friends of truth have been led to look upon the circumstances in a wrong light. The article opens as follows: “There has been a belief in the minds of some, including ourself, that by means of a clock face with the hands pointing to six o’clock, seen by Mrs. E. G. White in vision, the former practice of our brethren in keeping the Sabbath from six to six o’clock, instead of from sunset to sunset, was confirmed. We are satisfied now, from the evidence we have, that this is a mistake; and that Mrs. White never had any such vision, and we cheerfully proceed to correct the error by a statement of the facts in the case.” So far as a retraction of a former error is concerned, this is right; had the writer left it there without adding other errors, it would have been all right. He says: “In the same year [1847,] Mrs. W. professedly had a vision, in which she was shown that sunrise was the wrong time to begin the Sabbath, but was not shown that sunset was the right time. She merely heard these words repeated: ‘From even to even shall ye celebrate your Sabbaths.’ Eld. Bates was present, and succeeded in satisfying all present that ‘even’ was six o’clock.” The reader will mark that the vision only repeated the words of Scripture, “From even to even,” &c., and left it there, without defining “even;” so, of course, directing them to the Bible for their faith and practice. Now it is claimed that a subsequent vision gives another view. This is the statement: “During all this time, however [till 1855], the subject was more or less discussed, until finally the agitation became such, that fears were entertained of a division among the adherents of Eld. White and wife, and Eld. Andrews finally decided, at Eld. White’s request, to devote his time to the subject, till he ascertained what the Bible taught in regard to it. The result was, a general belief that the Bible taught sunset time, Eld. Bates, and some others, however, were not satisfied, it seems, with the evidence, and then Mrs. White had a vision for their benefit, to save them from being lost, or, at least, out of harmony with the body, and that vision was that sunset time was the right time.” This is not correct. Being present when that vision was given, and, also, at its relation, I can certify that no mention was made of “sunset time.” As in the previous vision, the words of Scripture were repeated, with the additional remarks that we were to take the Bible to learn what “even” was. Bro. Bates’ argument on which we had rested, being based on astronomy, not on the Bible, I cannot see how even a fault-finder can discover any appearance of discrepancy here, the words of the two visions being precisely the same. But, as if aware that the objection on what the vision said was not very strong, the writer proceeds to find fault with its omissions, because it did not definitely state that sunset time was the right time, and because an error in practice was not corrected when he should judge it would be most appropriate. Believing that the visions were from the Lord, we have no explanations to make; we rest it upon his will and pleasure. But will the objector be kind enough to explain why the Lord suffered Israel to go on in idolatry till the prophets of Baal and of the groves were numbered by hundreds, and only one prophet of the Lord was left? Would it not have been better to have checked this idolatrous spirit in Israel sooner? Was not the Reformation needed as much three hundred years before Luther as it was in his time? If it was ordered of Heaven why was it not commenced in a more appropriate time? Why did the providence of God suffer the Sabbath truth to lie so far concealed for ages past, and so recently open a work of reform on this subject. Or, to sum up, Why has not the Lord carried on his work in all ages more in accordance with our views of fitness, and utility? It surely could not be because none could be found to suggest improvements on his plans, and works, for there have always been enough to mark out a better mode of action (to their minds,) than that which the Lord chose. But the writer has brought in one scripture to illustrate and enforce his objection; as appropriate, probably, as any he could find, but most unfortunate for himself. He urges that the Seventh-day Adventists, and Sr. White with the rest, were left in error, for a period of eight years, on this subject. And says: “When the prophet Daniel made a mistake as to what the angel of God told him, an angel was commissioned to ‘fly swiftly’ in order to correct that misunderstanding.” When was this angel commissioned to fly swiftly to correct Daniel’s misunderstanding of what the angel had told him? About fifteen years after the misunderstanding arose! He was not caused to fly swiftly because of Daniel’s misunderstanding of his words, but because of his prayer to God. Said the angel, “At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to show thee.” So it was with God’s people in 1855. When they humbled themselves before God, and sought his face by prayer, he directed them anew to the truth of his word, and instructed them to read its pages with more carefulness, with the assurance of his blessing on their efforts, and a promise of clemency for past weaknesses and errors. Bless the Lord for his goodness! How carefully and tenderly he led us along when we were few and weak! How exactly has his dealing with us corresponded with his “goodness and his wonderful works toward the children of men,” in all ages. And though we are brought in a way different from what we should choose or mark out—“a way we knew not”—in this we rejoice, that he has not yet left us to follow our own way, and to walk after the imagination of our own heart, but corrects us to profit, and chastens us to teach us the way of righteousness. J. H. WAGGONER.
Battle Creek, June 16, 1868. THE GOSPEL PROGRESSIVE IN DEVELOPMENT.
By R. F. Cotterill.
Ever since the fall of man the gospel has been the good news to him that a remedy had been provided, and that he might be saved. And in order to avail himself of this remedy, it has ever been necessary for him to “believe the gospel.” The gospel was revealed to our first parents, and their family. Deliverance was promised through the seed of the woman—an atoning sacrifice was promised, and they were to show their faith in the promise by the offering of a typical sacrifice. Hence Cain and Abel brought their offerings to the Lord. Cain’s offering, being only of the fruit of the ground, “without the shedding of blood,” could not prefigure the atoning sacrifice of the promised Messiah, and was rejected; while that of Abel showed his faith in the atoning blood of Christ, and was accepted. Without true repentance and humility, and faith in the promised Saviour, they could not be saved. As we come down to the days of Abraham, the promise of the Messiah is renewed. The Saviour was to be of Abraham’s posterity. The promise was renewed to Isaac, and to Jacob; and among the sons of Jacob, Judah was selected. The Saviour was to be “the Lion of the tribe of Judah.” After this David was chosen. The Christ was to be the Son of David. His birth-place was pointed out in prophecy—Bethlehem, in the land of Judea. “Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem where David was?” But when Christ came in exact fulfillment of all the Scripture predictions, the chief priests, the rulers, and the scribes, did not believe in him. Consequently, though they professed implicit faith in Moses, and the prophets, they proved themselves infidels or unbelievers by rejecting him. “For they that dwell at Jerusalem, and their rulers, because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the prophets which are read every Sabbath day, have fulfilled them in rejecting him.” Thus the chief among the Jews rejected Christ, and did not believe the gospel; and, in so doing, they rejected Moses and the prophets, in whom they professed faith. “We know,” they said, “that God spake to Moses, but as for this fellow, we know not whence he is.” But the language of Jesus to them was, “There is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.” They proved themselves faithless in the promises of the gospel, by rejecting their fulfillment. When God fulfils his promises, he wants men to believe; and their rejection of the advancing light of prophecy fulfilled, or, in other words, of the progressive development of the gospel, is a rejection of the gospel and its Author; and this must result in his rejection of them. The light of the gospel is still advancing—the progressive plan, as laid down in the Scriptures, is still being developed. The closing messages of the “everlasting gospel,” as promised in prophecy, near eighteen hundred years ago (Rev. xiv, 6–12), have been announced, and are doing their work—preparing the believing for the second advent of the Messiah. The Lord demands of us faith in the gospel plan as developed in the fulfillment of these advent messages. God is fulfilling his promises in these. Shall we believe? Or will we reject the good news of the second advent at hand? If the Jews fell by their unbelief in rejecting the fulfillment of God’s promises in their day, so it will be with those who reject the fulfillment of his promises by rejecting the closing messages of the gospel. They rejected Moses, and the prophets, and the Spirit by which they spoke, when they rejected the fulfillment of the promises to them. We also shall reject Christ and the gospel, if we reject the promised messages of his word, which proclaim his second advent at hand. I. D. VAN HORN
By I. D. VAN HORN
I HAVE given this Testimony a careful perusal, and can say, from the depths of my heart, that it has done me much good. I have tried to take all the counsel given therein to myself, and I hope to profit by it in the future. What I learned during Conference, and in the meetings for ministers the week following, and now by reading this Testimony, in regard to disinterested benevolence, has opened to my mind the third angel’s message and our work as a people, in a clearer light than I ever saw it before. I thank God for this light. It has done my soul good as I have tried to draw near to him. I feel in my heart to enter into this work with a new zeal and interest. I must, however, acknowledge that, at times in the past, I have been too indifferent and unfeeling in regard to the eternal welfare of my fellow-men, which has caused leanness of soul to come upon me. But I am trying to come up to my place and be a worker in the cause of my Master. He is aiding me by his Spirit, and I am gaining the victory. I already feel like a newly-converted man. I will praise the name of the Lord for his goodness and mercy to me. But there is one thing more I want to say about reading this Testimony. While reading the epistles to particular individuals I had to struggle hard against a feeling to excuse myself that would come over me, that I had not done anything like these persons, and, therefore, none of this applied to me, but that it all belonged to the individuals to whom it was written. This I felt was wrong, and it caused me to examine myself more closely. I felt much relieved in doing so, for it brought upon me the blessing of God. Dear brethren and sisters, if I understand the design in publishing these epistles, it is this, that we should all carefully examine ourselves while reading them, and, if we find anything in us which is in the least degree of a like nature, we should consider the testimony as strong a reproof to us as to the individual to whom it was first written, and we should act accordingly. Oh! that we might begin to walk carefully before the Lord,—that we might always be on our guard, watching every action, and every motive of the heart, to see if it be in perfect harmony with the character and life of our divine Pattern. It will not do for us to become careless now. Every one who wishes to go through to the heavenly City, must lay self aside and make every effort in their power to imitate the life of Jesus. We have no time to lose to get ready for our coming Lord. He is helping us to see ourselves in the true light, and to understand our faults by these testimonies. Let us heed his counsel, get rid of everything offensive in his sight, that we may be gathered with the remnant to Mount Zion.