The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, Vol. 75

1898

January 4, 1898

“Editorial” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 1, p. 8.

YOU have been, and you are, thankful that you have confidence in God. This is well; for it is a great thing to have doubt and uncertainty removed, and confidence in God established in the mind and heart. It is, therefore, a thing really to be thankful for, that you have confidence in God. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.1

Yet there is a greater thing than this to be thankful for, and that is that God has confidence in you. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.2

Indeed, it is God’s confidence in us that is all the ground of our confidence in him. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.3

Considered solely upon the merit of the question, it is indeed a very little thing that we should have confidence in him; while it is a thing great beyond all comparison that he should have confidence in us. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.4

Just think what we were,—a people laden with iniquity, alienated from God, and enemies in our minds, by wicked works. Yet when we were all this, God deliberately invested in us all that he had,—the great “price” of his dear Son, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of God. this is a marvelous display of confidence. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.5

He had such confidence in us that he would invest in us—aliens and enemies—all that he had, and all that he is,—even himself,—expecting that his confidence in us would destroy the alienation, break down the enmity, and win us to confidence in him. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.6

And this fairly reckless confidence in us did actually win us from alienation and enmity to confidence in him. This is the only thing that ever did or that ever could so win us. Thus his confidence in us is all the ground of our confidence in him. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.7

And thus is established and illustrated the divine principle that confidence begets confidence; yea, that confidence to the extent of what seems recklessness will beget confidence even to what seems recklessness; for no person can fairly and seriously contemplate the marvelous confidence that God has shown in us, without being won to a confidence in God that is a perfect abandon of trust,—a trust that holds firm and stead through every vicissitude—fire, flood, suffering, persecution, death itself—that this world can possibly know. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.8

Nor did the Lord’s marvelous display of confidence cease with only this investment to win us to confidence in him: but when it had won us to confidence in him, he then confided to our keeping his own honor in the world. He did not stay here in person to guard his honor and his character. No; he left the world, and left his disciples here in his stead, entrusting altogether to us the guardianship of his honor and his character. “As my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” Are you true to the trust, or are you betraying his boundless confidence? ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.9

Yes, for us to have confidence in God is indeed a great thing: but O! great beyond all measure it is that God has confidence in us—and such confidence! May this perfect abandon of the confidence of God in us hold us from proving recreant to the trust and from ever betraying that confidence. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.10

“That Prayer of Ours” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 1, pp. 8, 9.

“THESE words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come: glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.1

This prayer may be ours as really as it was his. Yes, this prayer should be ours as really as it was his. It is our part to glorify God, as really as it was his. But we cannot glorify God without both praying and living this prayer. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.2

Let us study the Word, and see that every word of the prayer in this verse does really belong to us, and that we not only may, but should, use it as our own. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.3

First, he says, “Father.” Are we not to say “Father”? Is he not our Father also? Is it not true that “we have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father”? So much of this prayer, then, is certainly ours. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.4

“The hour is come.” What hour?—The hour to “glorify thy Son.” And are not you his son? To as many as believed on him “gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” You believe on his name. To you has he given power to become the son of God; for “ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” And “behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.” Therefore, “beloved, now are we the sons of God;” and our Father love us precisely as he loves his other Son. He has no favorites among his children. He loves us all alike, and what belongs to the One belongs jointly to all. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.5

This word of prayer, “Glorify thy Son,” is our prayer as really as it was the prayer of Jesus. And is it not true that “the hour is come” that he should glorify us?—In answer let us read that word which, for several years, we have been reading with special emphasis: “Arise, shine: for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord IS RISEN UPON THEE. For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.6

That word is ours just now. God has given it to us just now. It is certainly true, then, that “the hour is come” that he should glorify us. So far, then, each one of us can sincerely and truly pray this prayer, every word: “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy son.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.7

But why did he and do we ask that he should glorify us?—“That thy Son also may glorify thee.” We must glorify God. we were created to glorify God. The very object of our existence is that we glorify God. But this word plainly shows that we cannot glorify him unless he first glorifies us—“Glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.8

You have wanted to glorify God, and have mourned because you have failed. But that was because you tried to glorify him before he had glorified you. You want to glorify God in all things, and have been disappointed that you have failed in so many things. But have God glorify you in all things: then you can glorify him in all things. Do you not see how much you need, daily and always, to pray this prayer? O, then, do not neglect ever to pray, “Father, glorify thy son, that thy son also may glorify thee”! ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.9

This is the truth as to the fact that he must glorify us in order for us to glorify him, and that if he does not first glorify us, we cannot glorify him; but now the question comes, How does he glorify us? When we know how he glorifies us, we know just how to glorify him; for he is to glorify us, so that we may glorify him. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.10

How, then, does he glorify us?—Read: “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self.” That is how he glorifies us; he does it with his own self. He gives himself to us. He gave himself to the whole world, and for the whole world, so that the whole world might glorify him, and so meet the object of their creation. If he had not glorified the world with his own self, if he had not given himself to the world, it would have been forever impossible for the world, or any one in the world, to glorify God. But since God has glorified the world with his own self, since he gave himself to the world, it is not only possible for every one, but it is the blessed privilege of every one, to glorify God. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.11

Therefore, as it is with his own self that he glorifies us, and as he has given his own self, it is for each one of us to receive his own self, that he may indeed glorify us with his own self. Then when we have so received him, and have been so glorified by him, we can glorify him. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.12

And how is it that he glorifies us?—With his own self. Then how is it that we shall glorify him?—With our own selves. How much of himself did he give, how much was required, to glorify the world, in order that the world mighty truly glorify him?—All—“all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.13

How much, then, of ourselves must be given, how much is required, in order that we may glorify him?—All; all there is of us—body, soul, and spirit. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.14

He gave himself up, he abandoned himself wholly, to mankind, that they might do with him just what they might choose. We are to give ourselves up, we are to abandon ourselves wholly, to God, that he may do with us just what he chooses. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.15

And O, the difference! When he abandoned himself to men, they crucified him; but when men abandon themselves to him, he saves them. Yet he even abandoned himself to men, even to be crucified by them, in order to glorify them, that they might glorify him. Then can you not abandon yourself to God, even to be saved by him, that you may glorify him? Accept, then, just now, his giving up of himself, his abandonment of himself, to you, that he may glorify you with his own self. Then you can abandon yourself to him, and you will surely glorify him. Accept his abandonment of himself to you always and in everything to glorify you: then you can, you will be glad to, abandon yourself to him always and in everything, and you will surely glorify him always and in everything. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.16

Therefore, this prayer is surely ours. Bless the Lord! Then let every soul pray, now and always, “Father, the hour is come; glorify thy son, that thy son may glorify thee.... And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self,” that I may glorify thee with mine own self. Amen. And let all the people say, Amen. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 8.17

“An Interesting Bit of History” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 1, pp. 9, 10.

IT is believed that Jacob Gruber, a Methodist preacher, was the first person ever arrested in the United States for the utterance of abolitional sentiments. In a sermon at a camp-meeting in Maryland, Aug. 16, 1818, he uttered the following splendid words against slavery:— ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.1

The last national sin is slavery and oppression. This in particular is a reproach to the nation. Other nations, which are under the yoke of despots, are pititied, especially when they are ground down by the iron heel of oppression. The nation is happily delivered from such bondage. We live in a free country: and that all men are created equal and have unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we hold as self-evident truths. But there are slaves in our country, and their sweat and blood and tears declare them such. The voice of our brothers’ blood crieth. Is it not a reproach to a man to hold articles of liberty and independence in one hand, and a bloody whip in the other, while a negro stands and trembles before him with his back cut and bleeding? ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.2

There is a laudable zeal manifested in our country to form Bible and missionary societies to send the Scriptures and the gospel to heathen nations. Would it not be well for some to be consistent, and instruct the heathen at home in their kitchens, and let them hear the gospel likewise? What would heathen nations at a distance think, if they were told that persons who gave liberally to send them the Bible and the gospel did not read, believe, or obey it themselves, or teach their own families to read that book, or allow them time to hear the gospel of their salvation preached? There is some difference, even in this country. We Pennsylvanians think it strange, and it seems strange, to read in the public prints from some States an advertisement like this: “For sale, a plantation, a house and lot, horses, cows, sheep, and hogs. Also, a number of negroes, men, women, and children, some very valuable ones. Also, a pew in such and such a church.” Again: “For sale, a likely young negro, who is an excellent waiter, sold for no fault, or else for want of employment.” These are sold for cash for four, five, six, seven, or eight hundred dollars a head, soul and body together, ranked with horses, hogs, etc. Look farther, and see: “Fifty dollars reward, one hundred dollars reward, two hundred dollars reward.” What for? Has an apprentice run away from his master?—No; perhaps a reward for him would be six cents. A man that ran off has probably gone to see his wife, or child, or relations, who have been sold and torn from him, or to enjoy the blessings of a free country, and get clear of tyranny. In this inhuman traffic and cruel trade, the most tender ties are torn asunder, and the nearest connections broken. That which God has joined together, let no man put asunder. This solemn injunction is not regarded. Will not God be avenged on such a nation as this? ... ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.3

“Is there not some chosen curse, ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.4

Some secret thunder in the stores of heaven. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.5

Red with uncommon wrath, to blast the wretch ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.6

That traffics in the blood of souls?” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.7

He was prosecuted upon the charge of having “with force and arms, ... unlawfully, wickedly, maliciously, and advisedly” endeavored “to stir up, provoke, instigate, and incite divers negro slaves... to commit acts of mutiny and rebellion in said State.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.8

Curiously enough, he was defended by Roger B. Taney, who afterward was made chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and who, as chief justice, rendered the famous Dred Scott Decision, which was intended to fasten slavery upon the whole nation forever. In his speech in defense of Mr. Gruber, Lawyer Taney said:— ARSH January 4, 1898, page 9.9

It is well known that the gradual and peaceful abolition of slavery in these States is one of the objects which the Methodist society have steadily in view. No slaveholder is allowed to be a minister in that church. Their preachers are accustomed, in their sermons, to speak of the injustice and oppressions of slavery. The opinion of Mr. Gruber on this subject, nobody could doubt; and if any slaveholder believed it dangerous to himself, his family, or the community, to suffer his slaves to learn that all slavery is unjust and oppressive, and persuade himself that they would not, of themselves, be able to make the discovery, it was in his power to prevent them from attending the assemblies where such doctrines were likely to be preached. Mr. Gruber did not go to the slaves; they came to him. They could not have come if their masters had chosen to prevent them. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.1

But the reverend gentleman merits a defense on very different principles. The counsel to whom he has confided his cause cannot content themselves with a cold and reluctant acquittal, and abandon Mr. Gruber, without defense, to all the obloquy and reproach which his enemies have industriously and most unjustly heaped upon him. We cannot consent to buy his safety by yielding to passion, prejudice, and avarice, the control of future discussions on this great and important question. He must not surrender up the civil and religious rights secured to him, in common with others, by the Constitution of this most favored nation. Mr. Gruber feels that is it due to his own character, to the station he fills, to the respectable society of Christians in which he is a minister of the gospel, not only to defend himself from this prosecution, but also to avow and to vindicate here, the principles he maintained in his sermon. There is no law that forbids us to speak of slavery as we think of it. Any man has a right to publish his opinions on that subject whenever he pleases. It is a subject of national concern, and may at all times be freely discussed. Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national independence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated instrument. He did rebuke those masters who, in the exercise of power, are deaf to the calls of humanity; and he warned them of the evils they might bring upon themselves. He did speak with abhorrence of those reptiles who live by trading in human flesh, and enrich themselves by tearing the husband from the wife, the infant from the bosom of the mother; and this, I am instructed, was the head and front of his offending. Shall I content myself with saying he had a right to say this; that there is no law to punish him? So far as he from being the object of punishment in any form of proceeding, that we are prepared to maintain the same principles, and to use, if necessary, the same language here in the temple of justice, and in the presence of those who are the ministers of the law. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.2

A hard necessity, indeed, compels us to endure the evil of slavery for a time. It was imposed upon us by another nation, while we were yet in a state of colonial vassalage. It cannot be easily or suddenly removed. Yet, while it continues, it is a blot on our national character; and every real lover of freedom confidently hopes that it will be effectually, though it must be gradually, wiped away, and earnestly looks for the means by which this necessary object may be best attained. And until it shall be accomplished, until the time shall come when we can point without a blush to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every friend of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmost of his power, the wretched condition of the slave. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.3

Curious as is the fact that Mr. Gruber was defended by one who afterward was chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, it is yet far more curious that any man who, as a lawyer, could identify himself with such noble principles and sentiments as these, could yet, even after the lapse of thirty-nine years, as chief justice of the national Supreme Court, render a decision in which, with direct reference to the “liberty” clause of the Declaration, the following words are found:— ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.4

The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family; and, if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this Declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they asserted; and instead of the sympathy of mankind, to which they so confidently appealed, they would have deserved and received universal rebuke and reprobation. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.5

They [the negroes] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had not rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.6

Yet another curious point in this is that the decision rendered by Chief Justice Taney in 1857 against the Declaration and confirming slavery forever, was effective in so awaking the nation as completely to accomplish the very thing which Lawyer Taney in 1848 declared that “every real lover of freedom confidently hoped” might, as a “necessary object,” “be attained” in favor of the Declaration and against slavery. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.7

Life itself is a curious thing, isn’t it? ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.8

“Why Is This Thus?” The Advent Review and Sabbath Herald 75, 1, p. 10.

MENANDER was a Greek writer of comic plays, who lived in the time of Alexander the Great. All his writings were lost, and for ages were known only by quotations in other authors. Only lately some papyri were unearthed in Egypt containing nearly a hundred verses of what is said to be “one of Menander’s most celebrated plays.” How this is known is by the fact that in these verses there are found “three passages that are quoted by ancient writers as being from the play in question.” ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.1

We do not deny that this is all correct enough. But what we would call attention to is the fact that the Biblical writings are not accepted on like evidence by the same scholars who “know,” and fully accept upon this evidence, all these verses as the veritable words and work of Menander. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.2

There have come to us in the Bible whole books purporting to be the writings of Moses. In the New Testament, in the writing of other hands, there are passages quoted from these writings of Moses, which are there plainly declared to be quoted from the writings of Moses. Anybody can turn from these quotations to the original books, and find there the quoted passages. Yet this is not allowed to weight anything in favor of these books being the veritable writings of Moses; all that is allowed is that these particular quoted passages in the books are the genuine writings of Moses. It is the same way with other books all through the Bible. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.3

Now what we want to know is, Why is not this procedure in the matter of the writings of Menander accepted and followed with respect to the writings of Moses and other Biblical authors? Why is it that three quoted passages, when verified in purported writings of Menander, are accepted as sufficient proof by which to “know” that the whole document is genuine, when, by these same people, a greater number of quoted passages form the writings of Moses and of other Biblical hands are accepted only as evidence that the particular quoted passages are genuine, and prove nothing as to the books? ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.4

These “ways are not equal.” There is something wrong somewhere. Upon the verification of three quoted passages, the whole of a pagan, corrupt, idolatrous document is accepted as genuine; while with respect to divine, purifying, saving books, the verification of any number of quoted passages is not allowed of the particular passages themselves! It all only illustrates the ready and stubborn infidelity of the natural mind, which receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, because they are foolishness to him. ARSH January 4, 1898, page 10.5