Signs of the Times, Vol. 1, No. 40. (8/12/1875)

Signs of the Times

Aug 12, 1875

Pacific Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Oakland, Cal. · Aug 12, 1875

The Sermon.

By J. H. Waggoner

THE LAW OF GOD.—No. 10.

BY J. H. WAGGONER.

The work of the Son of God for the salvation of man was not confined to the short period of his ministry on the earth. His teachings, the ordaining of apostles, his sufferings and death, were all for the introduction and confirmation of the gospel covenant; all were preliminary to his work of meditation under that covenant. And his announcement of the object of his mission, in Matt. 5 : 17, covers the whole dispensation. His statement was decisive as to the nature of the change from one dispensation to the other. A change—a great change—was truly to be effected, but it was in man not in God or his government. As the apostle Paul wrote: "If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." Man was a transgressor of law; if he had not been, Jesus would not have come to die. This shows where the change was needed. The only effect the mission of Christ wrought on the law was to magnify it and make it honorable. Isa. 42 : 21. He came to vindicate the law and government of his Father, and to rescue them from the reproach which had been brought upon them by the rebellion of man; to open a way of salvation to man from sin; to make it possible for God to "be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus." Rom. 3 : 23-26.

Against the plain statement of our Saviour, against the teachings of his apostles, and against every principle of justice and of government, some affirm that the law written in the Old Testament does not reach the Gentiles; that they are not held under obligation to it. This we will notice.

THE LAW AND THE GENTILES.

1. As the Saviour was set a light for the Gentiles; as his salvation is general and not partial; as, in the gospel, the Gentiles are made fellow-heirs, and partakers of the same promises; of course they are subject to the same conditions. As the Saviour distinctly affirmed that he did not come to destroy the law, and set it forth as the condition of entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, the conclusion is unavoidable that the Gentiles must also keep the law if they would enter into that kingdom.

2. The parable of the vineyard is equally explicit and equally decisive. To appreciate the force of this we must go back to the promise made to David in Ps. 89. There we find a sure promise that David’s throne and kingdom shall endure forever, even as the sun, by a covenant which the Lord will not break, and which he has sworn by his own holiness to fulfill. How the people may be partakers of this covenant and inheritors of this kingdom, and why they are shut out and deprived of its privileges and glory, is stated in verses 30-32: "If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep my commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes."

Here we have another proof that iniquity means transgression of the law. Breaking the law will shut them out of the kingdom; keeping the commandments will give them a part in "the sure mercies of David."

In the parable, Matt. 21, the Lord brought this subject before the Jews, representing them as husbandmen who would not render to the householder the fruits of the vineyard, but beat and stoned his messengers, and finally killed his son, the heir, to seize on the inheritance. His hearers passed sentence against themselves saying the lord of the vineyard will destroy those husbandmen and let it out to others who will render to him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus then made the application thus: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

We have seen in Ps. 89, and other scriptures might be given to prove the same thing, that the fruit required of them in order that they might inherit the kingdom was to keep the law of God. And this is confirmed in the New Testament by the words of Jesus who gives the law as the condition of entering into the kingdom, by all those texts which show that the law is the rule of life and of judgment, that by it men are proved sinners, and specially by James who says the kingdom is promised to them that love God. Jas. 2 : 5. But as there is no love without obedience, we are told by inspiration that "this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments." 1 John 5 : 3.

But some say we are fallen from grace and are under a curse if we keep the commandments of God. To them we would propose these questions: (1.) If the Gentiles obtain the kingdom by bringing forth other fruits than those required of the Jews, where is it recorded in God’s word? (2.) If we are cursed for keeping the same law that the Jews were cursed for transgressing, how is that fact reconciled with the character of God as given in Mal. 3 : 6, and James 1 : 17.

3. As Jesus announced that it was not the object of his mission to make void the law, so the preaching of the apostles, at the commencement of their ministry after the crucifixion and resurrection of the Lord, confirms the obligation of the law. Of all who claim that the law is abolished no one dates the abolition later than at the time of the crucifixion. If the law was ever made void it had ceased before the preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost. And the apostles did not preach between the crucifixion and the day of Pentecost they did not proclaim any law during that period. Therefore it follows, that if the law was abolished at the death of Christ, as no other or new law was proclaimed previous to the day of Pentecost, there was no law existing on that day of Pentecost. Now we learn that, "sin is the transgression of the law," and, "where no law is there is no transgression;" and therefore "sin is not imputed when there is no law." But sin was imputed on that day of

Pentecost, and they were commanded to be baptized for the remission of sin, which proves that the law did then exist.

This conclusion cannot be evaded by saying that the apostles enjoined new precepts on that day; for the only duties they enjoined were repentance and baptism. But these both relate to sin and law already existing, for there can be no repentance, and no baptism for remission of sin, where no sin exists and there can be sin where there is no law. Thus it is plainly seen that the preaching of the apostles on the day of Pentecost related to the law which existed on and before that day of Pentecost.

And it cannot be denied that the relations which existed on that day continue to exist unto the present day. That is to say, the preaching on that day, and the repentance and baptism required, were based on, and related to, the same law which now exists, for the transgression of which we are to repent and be baptized. The gospel was then preached as it was to continue, and still continues, and its duties and promises, as now, embraced "all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call," which has special reference to the Gentiles. The preaching of the gospel would at that time have been a nullity if the law had been abolished; and even so it is now. They who were not condemned by the law which then existed could not be required to repent and be baptized. But no new principles have been introduced since that day; no new ground of baptism now exists. Hence they who baptize without reference to the law which existed on and before that day of Pentecost have no scriptural ground for their baptism. And this will raise the question whether the Gentiles have any interest in baptism; whether they are under any requirement to be baptized. For if the Gentiles were not amenable to that law which existed on and before the day of Pentecost, then, unless some entirely new principles and new relations have been introduced since the day of Pentecost, there is no reason why the Gentiles should be baptized. This the opposers of the law could easily see if they would investigate the subject in the light of the Bible principles which must decide it. The subject is of sufficient importance to demand the candid, unprejudiced attention of all.

4. The weakness of the position of those who claim that the law is not binding on the Gentiles is shown in the use they make of Acts 15—the scripture which, more than all others, they rely upon. The mind of all on that side of the question is expressed in the following extract which we copy from a well-written article the object of which is to "prove that the ten commandments, or any part of them, are not binding on Christians (!):—

"To decide this question was the object of the first general council convened at Jerusalem. The result was, under the direct teaching of the Holy Ghost, that the council decided that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, they (the Gentiles) shall be saved even as we (the Jews). Four things only were enjoined on them: 'To abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication.' This, then, became, not the Mosaic law and condition of justification as such, but a Christian rule of action, enjoined by the Holy Ghost on believers, through this council."

It is sufficient to read in verse 5 that circumcision and the law of Moses were the subjects of discussion, to learn that the ten commandments were not under consideration by that council. It seems incredible that any one will suppose or assert that the apostles met in council to gravely discuss the question whether the Gentiles need keep any of the ten commandments and formally decided that they need not! Yet this is the position of all those who use Acts 15 against the law or any precept of the law.

Of course the depth of that position is to evade the claims of the Sabbath, and thus they say that because the apostles did not then and there enjoin the Sabbath to be kept by the Gentiles, it is not binding on the Gentiles. Which is to say that whatever not specifically enforced in that letter is not binding on the Gentiles. But what shall we conclude from this premise? Were the Gentiles by this action absolved from the duty to honor parents? Were they permitted to blaspheme, to steal, to kill, to bear false witness, and to break the Sabbath? Yes, because the apostles said nothing about these things! Do not think we misrepresent the position of our opponents, for if it does not amount to this it amounts to nothing at all. And notice the wording of the quotation given: "Four things only were enjoined on them, to abstain from idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication." This, and this only is declared to be "a Christian rule of action." This argument excludes from the Christian rule of action everything which the apostles did not mention. But they did not mention Sabbath-breaking, blasphemy, murder, theft, false witness, &c., and therefore the Gentiles are at full liberty to do these things! Is this the boasted liberty of the gospel? and it is not so that this anti-law theory destroys the distinction between gospel liberty and licentiousness? We should think the advocates of that doctrine would renounce it on account of its evident tendency to lawlessness and immorality. On this we notice, (1.) Acts 15 is the only scripture which is claimed to give direct evidence against the law in relation to the Gentiles. (2.) The evidence claimed on this text is negative, and not direct. The evidence is that of silence. (3.) The evidence of the silence of a single text is no evidence at all. The entire silence of scripture on a given point carries weight against that point; but less than that has no weight. (4.) In this case the inference drawn from silence is contradicted by other scriptures, such as Rom. 2 and 3, and Gal. 3. These prove directly that the Gentiles sustain the same relation to the law that the Jews did, and that they are condemned by the law as violators of it. (5.) The inference drawn from this chapter is exceedingly immoral in its tendency. To say that Christ released man from obligation to obey the ten commandments, so that now we are obliged to obey only the four duties mentioned by the apostles in that letter, is to disgrace the gospel—to make Christ the minister of sin, and the gospel a system of licentiousness. (6.) We may safely appeal to the advocates of that doctrine whether they would be pleased to see the whole world, or all the Gentiles, converted to the belief that they were at liberty to disregard all things not mentioned by the apostles in Acts 15—whether they would feel gratified to see all the world acting up to that belief. Few are so lost to every principle of morality and decency as to answer in the affirmative. It does not seem consistent for professed Christians and Christian teachers to advocate a doctrine which shame would forbid them to fully and openly adopt in their lives. We are glad to drop a subject so repulsive to our Christian sentiment.

5. Paul’s letter to the Romans contains direct evidence that the law extends to the Gentiles. In chap. 2 : 26, 27, having shown that God is no respecter of persons, and having also identified the law of which he speaks by quoting three of the ten commandments, he says: "If the uncircumcision [that is, the Gentiles] keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge thee who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?"

God gave circumcision to Abraham, and thenceforth "the circumcision" became a distinguishing title of his people, and always had the pre-eminence. But Abraham obtained the promises of which circumcision was the token because he kept the commandments of God. Gen. 26 : 4, 5. Paul also says that circumcision was given to Abraham as a seal of the righteousness which he had. Rom. 4 : 11. The virtue was not in circumcision, but in that which circumcision signified, as Paul again said, "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." "Is something," is added in Whiting's translation, which brings out more clearly the idea of the text.

Now if the Jew did not keep the law he did not possess the righteousness of which circumcision signified nothing—it was nothing. But if the Gentile "keep the righteousness of the law," he has that which was signified by circumcision, and is accepted of God. Circumcision without keeping the law is the shadow without the substance. But keeping the law without circumcision is the substance without the shadow. Of course the latter has the preference; therefore the Gentile who keeps the law is preferred before the Jew who breaks the law. And this perfectly accords with the Saviour’s words in Matt. 21 : 43, that the kingdom should be taken from the Jews who did not keep God’s commandments, and given to a nation bringing forth the required fruit—a nation which loves God and keeps his commandments. With such a statement as this by the apostle Paul it seems a wonder that any will yet deny that the Gentiles are required to keep the law. Other points in this chapter will be noticed hereafter.

6. As plain and decisive as this are the words of Rom. 3. In verse 2 Paul says the chief advantage of the Jew, the chief profit of circumcision, is, that to them were committed the oracles of God. In this connection it is easy to determine what he means by the oracles of God. He has just declared that the Jew knew the will of God because he was "instructed out of the law." And "the law" is identified as that in which the Jew rested, or confided, namely, the ten commandments, three of which are quoted. Stephen referred to these, Acts 7 : 38, when he said that Moses and the fathers in the wilderness "received the lively oracles to give unto us." The Gentile may be profited by keeping this law, as we have seen, and if he keeps it he will be preferred before the Jew who transgresses it, though the latter be circumcised and the former not. This shows that the law is separate from, and superior to, circumcision; for there is righteousness in the law without circumcision, but no benefit in circumcision without keeping the law. The same is taught in Jer. 6 : 19, 20, where "the law" is shown to be superior to all positive institutions; for their sacrifices and offerings are not acceptable when the law is rejected. He who cannot see a clear distinction between the moral and ceremonial laws in these passages is to be pitied for his blindness.

As in Rom. 2 : 16, the apostle says men will be judged by the law in the day of Judgment, so in chap. 3 : 3-6, he shows that if the oracles of God which were committed to the Jews are made of no effect or void, God cannot judge the world. He then declares that Jews and Gentiles are all sinners before God, and proves his declaration by quotations from the Old-Testament Scriptures. But this of course would be no proof at all if, as many affirm, the Gentiles were not amenable to the law written in the Old Testament. This is a question of jurisdiction. The laws of Great Britain, though they may be just, and I have not obeyed them, cannot prove me a sinner or bring me under condemnation, because I am not subject to those laws. I am an American citizen, and not a British subject. And so the law of the Old Testament will condemn only those who are subject to it. But inasmuch as it does condemn the Gentiles, or prove them sinners, they are subject to it, and under obligation to keep it. For it is evident that if a certain law condemns a man or proves him a sinner, he will remain condemned or continue to be a sinner as long as he continues to transgress it.

Jesus came to save from sin—from the transgression of the law. And as his mission is to all, to Jew and Gentile alike, he came to save the Gentiles also from the transgression of the law. He came to "put away sin." Heb. 9 : 26. Not to put away his own sin, for he had none, but to put away our sins. And this of course is not done if we continue to sin. Therefore Jews and Gentiles are required to cease to transgress the law, to yield obedience to God and keep his commandments.

This truth that all are proved sinners and condemned by the law is further stated in Rom. 3 : 19: "Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." All the world includes all nations, because he has just before stated that Jews and Gentiles are "all under sin." And to this refers verses 22, 23, "For there is no difference; for all have sinned."

Where there is no condemnation by the law, there is no need of justification by faith in Christ. He died for sin; and sin is the transgression of the law. If the Gentiles are not guilty as transgressors of the law, then Jesus did not die for them. But the supposition is inadmissable; for Paul says plainly that Jews and Gentiles are sinners, condemned by that law which the Old Testament contains for they are proved sinners by Old Testament authority; and that the law stops every mouth and brings all the world guilty before the Judge of all. Also in Gal. 3 : 13, 14, he says the redemption from the curse of the law is for this very purpose that the Gentiles may be brought into covenant relation with Abraham and his seed, that they may inherit the promises, which they could not do while they were condemned sinners—under the curse of the law.

God does not compel any one to believe. The most obdurate infidel has the same evidence within his reach, and as much of it, as the Christian has. The evidence that God is no respecter of persons; that he is Supreme Moral Governor; that is, that he has a moral law to which all are amenable; that Jews and Gentiles are alike responsible to it, alike transgressors of it, and alike condemned by it; that Jesus Christ died for all, that both Jews and Gentiles may be redeemed from the curse of the law; these are truths so clearly revealed in the word of God that every one is without excuse who does not believe. We say, without excuse; for this is not a mere theory without practical bearing. He who argues that the Gentiles need not keep the law, does it only to evade its claims, and to release himself from its just restraint. And he who seeks a release from the restraints of the law should learn his position and his danger from Rom. 8 : 7: "The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." But "the law is spiritual." Rom. 7 : 14. These solemn truths should lead all to put away their prejudices to examine the subject with candor, and with becoming reverence pray to the Lord: "Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." Ps. 119 : 18.

Watching for The Morning.

"My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning." Ps. 130 : 6.

I AM watching for the morning ; The night is long and dreary; I have waited for the dawning Till I am sad and weary. I am watching for the morning, When the sons of God shall show All their beautious adorning, So dimly seen below. I'm a stranger and sojourner, A pilgrim on the earth; A sad and lonely mourner; Few own my noble birth. But I'm watching for the morning— O, when will morning come, And I change the world's rude scorning For the fellowship of home? The earnest expectation Of all nature is abroad; Waiting the revelation Of the real sons of God. And I'm watching for the morning That shall set the captive free, And shall change the chains of bondage Into glorious liberty. I will get me to the mountain Till the shadows flee away : I will ask of all the watchmen For the tokens of the day. I am watching for the morning, The night is almost gone; I hear the note of warning, I will hie me to my home.

—Sel.

Hope of the Gospel.

By John Norton Loughborough

HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.

NEANDER says, in his Church History: "It was an old Jewish notion that immortality was not founded upon the nature of the soul, but a peculiar gift of divine grace; a representation which had been transferred from Judaism to Christianity."

It seems also from the controversy in the times of the reformers that many of them stoutly contended against the doctrine of the natural immortality. Archdeacon Blackburne, who wrote upon this subject over one hundred years since, said: "Those we call reformers, in the days of Queen Elizabeth, sufficiently expressed their scruples concerning the state of the soul after death, by expunging an article of religion which condemned the opinion espoused by Mr. Layton and others." In Mr. Henry Layton's own work, part ii., pp. 21-23, he states his doctrine as follows: "True it is, that our churches, for about the last twelve hundred years, have been so possessed with the conceit of a separately subsisting soul, that they have made little use of the resurrection in their exhortations. And, in truth, if the soul, parting from the body, goes presently to Heaven or hell, our article of the resurrection can be but of small use in the church. If souls get amongst blessed angels in Heaven, what need can there be to them of a resurrection?"

Blackburne himself says of the Reformers:—

"I have little doubt but they saw that the separate existence of the soul, being one of those doctrines which popery borrowed from paganism, and also so necessary to support so great a part of the impious and absurd superstitions of the church of Rome, should have peen discarded among other errors of the same tendency, and that it was to little purpose to set about demolishing the superstructure while the foundation was acknowledged to be sound and orthodox. They little dreamt that, by this oversight, they would give their posterity the trouble of fighting the papistical battle over again with some of their nominal Protestant successors, who have found their temporal account in building again many things which these Reformers thought, in the simplicity of their hearts, they had sufficiently destroyed." Chap. 22.

Again, he says of this doctrine:—

"The Scripture system of immortality supposes that man had forfeited his original title to immortality, and would never have recovered it but for the interposition of a Redeemer. The consequence of this doctrine is, that between the time of the forfeiture and the actual appearing of the Redeemer, the dead could have life in no sense at all, and that neither before nor after the appearance of the Redeemer, dead men were, or would be, restored to life, otherwise than in the way revealed by the Redeemer, namely, by a resurrection of the dead. Hence, to suppose the souls of dead men to be alive, conscious, and active, and capable of happiness and misery, from the death of the first man to the resurrection of the very last, and to pretend to demonstrate this by reason and philosophy, is plainly to overturn the whole Christian system." Chap. 20, last part.

The Puritans, in the time of Edward VIII., 1543, said in their creed respecting departed souls, and praying for them, "It is good and charitable to do it; because 'tis not known what condition departed souls are in, we ought only to recommend them to the mercy of God." — Hist. of Puritans, pp. 464, 465.

When we go still farther back, to the days of the English and German Reformers, Tyndale and Luther, we shall find them speaking very pointedly upon this subject. Wm. Tyndale, the great English reformer, who first translated and published the Bible in the English language, had a written controversy, in 1530, with Thomas More, called his "Answer to Thomas More's Dialogue." More objected to Luther, and plead for papal ideas of going to Heaven at death, purgatory, prayers for the dead, &c. Tyndale says of him:—

"And when he proveth that the saints be in Heaven in glory with Christ already, saying: If God be their God they be in Heaven; for he is not the God of the dead: there he stealeth away Christ's argument wherewith he proveth the resurrection, that Abraham and all the saints should rise again, and not that their souls were in Heaven, which doctrine was not yet in the world. And with that doctrine he taketh away the resurrection quite, and maketh Christ's argument of none effect. For when Christ allegeth the scripture that God is Abraham's God, and addeth, too, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, and proveth that Abraham must rise again: I deny Christ's argument, and say with Master More, that Abraham is yet alive, not because of the resurrection, but because his soul is in Heaven. And in like manner Paul's argument to the Corinthians is nought worth. For where he saith, If there be no resurrection, we be of all wretches the miserablest: here we have no pleasure, but sorrow, care, and oppression. And therefore, if we rise not again, all our suffering is in vain. Nay, Paul, thou art unlearned, go to Master More and learn a new way. We be not most miserable, though we rise not again; for our souls go to Heaven as soon as we be dead, and are there in as great joy as Christ that is risen again. And I marvel that Paul had not comforted the Thessalonians with that doctrine, if he had wist it, that the souls of their dead had been in joy, as he did with the resurrection, that their dead should rise again. If souls be in Heaven in as great glory as the angels, after your doctrine, show me what cause should be of the resurrection?"—Works of William Tyndale, vol. ii., p. 123.

Again, More objected to Luther that he taught that "all souls lie and sleep till doomsday."

Tyndale answers:—

"And ye, in putting them in Heaven, hell, and purgatory, destroy the arguments wherewith Christ and Paul proved the resurrection. What God doth with them, that shall we know when we come to them. The true faith putteth the resurrection which we be warned to look for every hour. The heathen philosophers denying that, did put that the souls did ever live. And the pope joined the spiritual of Christ, and the fleshy doctrine of philosophers, things so contrary that they cannot agree, no more than the spirit and the flesh do in a Christian man. And because the fleshy minded pope consenteth unto heathen doctrine, therefore he corrupteth the Scripture to stablish it. Moses saith in Deuteronomy, 'The secret things pertain unto us, and the things that be all opened pertain unto us, that we do all that is written in the book.' Wherefore, sir, if we loved the laws of God, and would occupy ourselves to fulfill them, and would, on the other side, be meek, and let God alone with his secrets, and suffer him to be wiser than we, we should make none article of faith of this or that. And again, if the souls be in Heaven, tell me why they be not in as good case as the angels be? And then what cause is there of the resurrection?"—Tyndale's Works, vol. ii., pp. 188, 189.

Again, More objected to Luther:—

"What shall he care how long he live in sin, that believeth Luther, that he shall after this life feel neither good nor evil, in body nor soul, until the day of doom?"

Tyndale answers:—

"Christ and his apostles taught no other, but warned to look for Christ's coming again every hour. Which coming again, because ye believe will never be, therefore ye have feigned that other merchandise." Tyndale's Works, vol. ii., p. 196.

To go back ten years earlier, 1520, we find Luther saying:—

"But I permit the pope to make articles of faith for himself and his faithful, such as . . . the pope is the emperor of the world, and the king of Heaven, and God upon earth, THE SOUL IS IMMORTAL, with all those monstrous opinions found in the Roman dunghill of decretals."

Archdeacon Blackburne says of Luther, after speaking of this sentiment above, "Afterwards, indeed, Luther espoused the doctrine of the sleep of the soul, upon a Scripture foundation, and then made use of it as a confutation of purgatory and saint-worship, and continued in that belief to the last moment of his life." "In his commentary upon Ecclesiastes, which was published in 1553, he was clearly and indisputably on the side of those who maintain the sleep of the soul."—Blackburne's Hist. of the Controversy, p. 15.

In 1516, Peter Pompanatius, a philosopher of Mantua, wrote against the followers of Aristotle, who held to the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. In this work he said: "Whoever goes about to prove the immortality of the soul by philosophical arguments, does not deserve the name of a Christian."—Bayle's Pompanatius, cit. 62. Quoted in Blackburne, chap. 20, last clause.

Blackburne says of the introduction of the doctrine of purgatory into the Romish church, that it was done "by the council of Florence, called by pope Eugenius IV., in 1439. Before this, they taught the dead were 'in abditis receptaculis, where they expected the resurrection, they believed they were happy, but not fully rewarded.' At the above council, they adopted and established the doctrine of purgatory, 'in which souls were prepared for a full reward in Heaven; and after passing through which, they would go into the felicities of the fully blessed.'"

J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH. (To be Continued.)

Christ Our "Mercy-Seat."

If both words, "mercy-seat" and "propitiation" come from one Greek word hilasterion, and the place for the mercy-seat is only in the holy of holies, "the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man," and that "tabernacle is to come down from God out of Heaven," upon the earth, and Christ himself is our "mercy-seat" accompanying that "true tabernacle" when it comes, who can tell us from whence came all we hear about "Christ leaving the mercy-seat" when he comes, and also what authority, force, or truth there is in the declaration. Will Christ leave himself when "he comes?"

Because Christ is sometimes called our propitiation, and because the same Greek word hilasterion, is once translated "propitiation," Rom. 3 : 25, and once "mercy-seat," Heb. 9 : 5, our brother seems to draw the unwarranted conclusions : (1) that Christ must always be regarded as identical with the "mercy-seat;" (2) that the "mercy-seat" is connected with the true tabernacle which is "coming down from God out of Heaven"; (3) therefore it is improper to speak of Christ as leaving the "mercy-seat" or priestly office. We will venture to suggest that, on account of the intimate connection existing between the office and the officer that fills it, the same term is often used in a double sense—sometimes referring to the person, and sometimes to the place. The word "court" is a familiar example. It may mean the place where judicial business is transacted, or the judge who sits on the bench. So the term "church" sometimes means the meeting-house, and sometimes the organized membership habitually worshiping in it. Every Bible student will readily recall the interchangable use of "king" and "kingdom" in some of the prophetic books. Observe: Christ is not called our "mercy-seat," but hilasterian, a word that is once translated "mercy-seat" in connection with Paul's description of the tabernacle service. The "mercy-seat" was certainly a place in the Jewish tabernacle. Nor was it identical with any high-priest, who was permitted to visit it only once a year. The attempt to prove that Christ's priestly office will be eternally perpetuated, because the tabernacle of God is coming to earth, seems far-fetched and futile. Indeed, Paul argues that if Christ "were on earth, he would not be a priest," and there is abundant evidence that the propitiatory work of our great High Priest will be succeded by the judicial work of our coming king. —Bible Banner.

Returning Good for Evil

Not one out of a thousand perhaps returns good for evil, but goes to his grave without the gratifying knowledge.

But One Life to Live.

By James White

A BOOK agent offered a novel to me on the cars. When I refused it he began to recommend it. I told him I had no time to read that kind of books. In a careless manner he said: "We have but one life to live." "That is my reason for refusing your book," I answered. "If I had several lives to live I could better afford to waste one on novels."

How many times are these words, "I have one life to live," uttered as a seeming excuse for a course of folly, when they ought to arouse every one to carefulness, and to a wise improvement of time in this our only life of probation.

Novel reading is more than a waste of time; yet in this age it is becoming fashionable in church circles. A few years ago I read the advice of an aged New York minister to young ministers; he told them to read novels to improve their style! Style—and such style for a pulpit—cannot atone for a vitiated taste or a bad habit.

A man committed suicide in Indianapolis, leaving in his room in the hotel a letter which gave as the reason for the act that his life was a wreck because of his habit of novel reading. There are thousands in the land—and many thousands—who lead a useless, aimless life because of this pernicious habit. It first destroys a taste for good, sensible, useful reading, and then for all useful pursuits. The habitual novel reader lives in an imaginary world. He, or she, is unfit to be entrusted with any great responsibilities in life. Duty is irksome, and perseverance in right doing becomes almost impossible.

When I was young I was very fond of reading. The Sunday-school library was composed almost entirely of pleasant little romances, which I read with avidity, and soon a taste was formed for that kind of reading. Early in life I was put in a printing office, and for several years a book store and circulating library were kept in connection with the office. There was a rare chance to gratify and to strengthen the habit of novel reading. I am now astonished when I think of the zest with which I read all the silly works of Captain Marryatt—the trashiest of their kind. But the current publications alone did not satisfy me. Fielding, Smollet, and every old author was called up, and every volume perused. With no friend to guide me, and all my associates with the same tastes, I seemed fast going to ruin.

In 1843, over thirty years ago, being awakened to serious things, I resolved to abandon the practice. Dickens was just then becoming popular, and I broke off in the middle of one of his novels, which I never finished. The reader may suppose that in thirty years I have fully recovered from the effect which my novel reading had upon my mind. But not so. No one who has been an inveterate novel reader for five years or more at that period of life when the character is forming, will ever fully recover from the effects of the habit. It stamped itself upon my very being, and permanently injured my mind. If others cannot perceive it, I can realize it; and I deeply regret that the time wasted in such reading was not spent in acquiring useful knowledge.

There is something captivating in works of fiction by which they easily gain an influence over the minds of the young. They destroy in a measure the power of deep and steady thinking, and incite to a state of indolent dreaminess which is pleasing to the selfish feelings. I some time since inquired of the Superintendent of a Sabbath-school what class of books was mostly called for. He said the works of fiction, such as are found in every list of Sunday-school publications, were always in the best demand. Biographies, histories, and the like, were not read much when the others could be obtained. This is not surprising; it is only natural; and it shows with what care parents and teachers should guide the reading habits of the young. The children who, when left to themselves, will choose good, healthy, solid reading, in preference to works of fiction, are very few. Encouragement in the right way is always needed.

A peremptory order to abstain from such reading, without appealing to, or convincing, the reason, will generally fail of any good result. The first object of the parent should be to make good reading interesting and attractive to the child, and this being accomplished a decided victory is gained. To this it may be necessary to explain and simplify or illustrate the truths taught, so as to draw out the powers of the youthful mind in the right direction. The mother who cannot leave her work a few minutes to listen to the questions of the little one, to enter into its feelings, to guide its tastes and sympathies, must expect to lose her child. She may dress and feed it well, and send it to school, and afford it a good lodging place at night; but the child is not really hers. There is no genuine union between them, and this she will learn to her regret if her own sensibilities do not get so blunted that she cannot realize the true condition of things. The father who is so deeply interested in his "business" that he cannot associate with his boy; cannot find time to assist in guiding his thoughts and forming his mind, will some time discover that his life of business was a failure.

But here a sad mistake may be made. The mother may descend to childishness to please and interest her child, and work a permanent injury. She should get down to the level of the child only to raise it up; to gently guide it to a higher sphere of thought and action. How much more than earthly wisdom is needed by a parent. How earnestly the faithful parent cries, "Who is sufficient for these things?"

Only one life to live, and that so short, so uncertain, so full of responsibilities, so beset with temptations and dangers. And every action, every word must be brought into Judgment. How carefully and wisely should it be improved. J. H. W.

Continue reading: Scene in Palestine