Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Dec 25, 1860
THE LAW OF GOD
By B. F. Snook
BY B. F. SNOOK.
CHAPTER II.
THE law of God was binding on man in the patriarchal age of the world. This is shown 1. By the righteousness of many. 2. By the reward of the righteous. 3. By the wickedness of many. 4. By the punishment of the wicked. 5. By plain declarations of the Bible. 6. By specifying each commandment.
I. Men are said to have been righteous then.
Proof. "Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous." Paul, speaking of all the patriarchs, says, "Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness." Heb. xi, 6, 33. "And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." 2 Pet. ii, 5. Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God." Gen. vi, 9. "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Chap. vii, 1. "And Enoch walked with God, and he was not for God took him." Chap. v, 24. "For before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God." Heb. xi, 5.
These are all said to have been righteous—to have wrought righteousness—and to have walked with God. Here we will spring an important question. How were they righteous? We answer, By doing righteousness. "He that doeth righteousness is righteous even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the Devil." 1 John iii, 7, 8. "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God." Verse 10. "Every one that doeth righteousness is born of God." Chap. ii, 29.
In the foregoing John states, 1. Who is righteous. 2. Who is of the Devil. 3. Who is not of God. He that doeth righteousness is born of God; is not of the Devil; does not commit sin. But sin is the transgression of the law; therefore he does not transgress, but obeys the law. He that is of the Devil doeth not righteousness; does not obey the law, but committeth sin, i. e., transgresses the law; is not born of God; is not of him; does not love him; argues that the law is abolished, &c.
Having now shown how righteousness is obtained and wrought, we proceed in the next place to show what right is; what righteousness is. David says, "The statutes (laws) of the Lord are right." Ps. xix, 8. "Thy testimonies that thou hast commanded are righteous and very faithful; for all thy commandments are righteousness." Ps. cxix, 138, 172. Therefore, according to this divinely inspired witness, the law is the standard of right: of righteousness. Hence those who would do right (work righteousness), must conform to this divine standard. Proof. "And it shall be our righteousness if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God as he hath commanded us." Deut. vi, 25. The patriarchs from Adam to Moses walked with God; were righteous and did right. Therefore God's law existed in their time, and they obeyed it; otherwise they could not have been righteous.
II. God rewarded the righteous with many blessings. Proof. Abel enjoyed the special blessings of heaven. But why so? Because his works were righteous. Heb. xi, 4. 2. Noah and his house were saved from being destroyed by the flood. And why was God so good to them? Ans. "For thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Gen. vii, 1, 3. Enoch was translated to heaven that he should not see death. What an inestimable blessing! This he received because he was righteous and walked with God. Heb. xi, 5. God has promised to reward only those who keep his commandments. "In keeping them there is great reward." Ps. xix, 11. Hence those who received such great rewards kept the law of their heavenly Father.
III. Many were then wicked and sinners.
1. Cain was wicked and slew his brother. Gen. iv, 8. John says, Cain was of that wicked One, the Devil. 1 John iii, 12. Query. Who is of the Devil? Ans. "He that committeth sin is of the Devil." Verse 8. What is sin? "Transgression of the law." Verse 4. Therefore God's law was binding on man as far back as Cain, who broke the sixth commandment—Thou shalt not kill.
2. The antediluvians. Of man in that day God said, "Every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually." Gen. vi, 5. "The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. And God looked upon the earth and behold it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth." Verse 12. But could they have been wicked and sinners if there was no law of morals to which they were to conform? They could not; for where no law is there is no transgression. Rom. iv, 15. But they were sinners, and therefore the law was binding upon them, and they broke it.
3. Joseph refused to comply with the immodest request of Potiphar's wife, saying, How can I do this great wickedness and sin against God? Gen. xxxix, 9. But how could he have sinned against God in so-doing, unless God had given a law forbidding that crime? But he would have sinned had he yielded to her wishes. Therefore God's great moral law, the seventh command of which forbids adultery, was binding in the time of Joseph.
4. The inhabitants of Sodom. Of these Peter says, "They vexed righteous Lot with their filthy conversation and unlawful deeds." 2 Pet. ii, 7. This is direct proof that the law was binding in their time, and that Lot was righteous in obeying it, and that they were ungodly and their deeds unlawful because they disobeyed it. But if the law was not binding in their time, how was this possible? It was not possible. For in the absence of moral law there can be no moral character. Hence Lot could not have been righteous. Neither could they have been ungodly; neither could their deeds have been unlawful; for where there is no law a deed can be neither lawful nor unlawful. But their deeds were unlawful. Therefore the law must have existed in their time, and they sinned against it.
IV. The punishment of the wicked. 1. The punishment of Cain. Cain was severely chastised. This, however, was perfectly just; for he had broken a just law, and had deprived his brother of that which he could not restore to him. God said to him, "Thou art cursed from the earth." "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength. A fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear." Gen. iv, 11-13.
2. The antediluvians. Of their punishment it was said, "And the Lord said I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth." Gen. vi, 7. This was truly a great punishment. Such however is the unhappy end of the sinner [Phil. iii, 19], and the wages of his disobedience to God's law. Rom. vi, 23.
3. The people of Sodom. Their punishment was awfully severe. They were destroyed by fire and brimstone, and thus set forth as an example42to those who should afterward live ungodly (unlawfully). Gen. xix, 12, 13; 2 Pet. ii, 6; Jude 7.
Corollary: God punishes none but sinners, the wicked who transgress his law. No one can be a sinner where there is no law to sin against. Hence if there had been no law binding in the age of the patriarchs, there would have been no sinners, and therefore nobody punished. But there were many sinners, and God punished them for their sins, which he could not in justice have done had there been no law binding upon them. Therefore we conclude that the law was then binding.
V. Plain declarations of Scripture. 1. "Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Gen. xxvi, 5. Who with such a declaration before him as this can deny the pre-Sinaic obligations of the law of God? We respond, No one but the infidel or atheist. This testimony is right to the point, and proves the binding obligation of the law of the Most High in Abraham's time, not less than four hundred years before God spoke from Sinai.
2. "And (God) said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee which I have brought upon the Egyptians." Ex. xv, 26. This was spoken at least thirty-three days before the proclamation of the law on the Mount, and therefore is unanswerable proof that the law existed and was binding in the patriarchal age.
3. "How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?" Ex. xvi, 28. If this text does not prove the existence and obligation of the law before Israel came to Sinai, we confess that Bible evidence is worth nothing. The man who can evade such plain Scriptures as the above, can evade the Bible.
The foregoing scriptures specify the principle of the ten commandments and show that the patriarchs had knowledge of them which they could not have had if the law had not then existed. From the above scriptures we draw the following logical conclusions.
1. If the law did not exist before its public proclamation from the mount, there was no sin in the world up to that time.
2. As death is the wages of sin, no one who lived prior to the giving of the law will die the second death; for sin is not imputed when there is no law. Hence all of this class will be saved, including Cain, all who were drowned by the flood, the vile inhabitants of Sodom, and Pharaoh's satanic host.
3. That seeing we have shown that the law did not begin to exist on Sinai, it is not Jewish; for it existed before there ever was a Jew.
4. All of its obligations are general, applying alike to all men.
5. As it is not Jewish, but existed before the distinction of Jew was recognized, it can exist after such distinction ceases.
6. Those who reject this law and call it Jewish because it was once given to the Jews, might as well reject the God who is the author of it, and call him Jewish, because he was once the God of the Jews.
7. Those who reject this law and call it Jewish might as well carry out their inward principle and reject Christ, who was a Jew, ministered to the Jews, and magnified and made [honorable no-lawism? No, but] honorable his Father's law.
8. They should for the same reason reject salvation, for it is of the Jews.
9. They should destroy their Bibles, for most truly was that blessed book given to the Jews. They do not remember this if they ever knew it.
10. They should also remember that if the law is binding on the Jew only, then he only will receive the blessing for keeping it; for the blessing is only to the commandment-keepers.
OUR REST.
[Bro. Smith: The following lines have comforted my heart. I copy them for the Review if you deem them worthy of a place there. A. S. H.]
"The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us." Rom. viii, 18.
My feet are worn and weary with the march
Over rough roads and up the steep hill-side:
O, city of our God, I fain would see
Thy pastures green, where peaceful waters glide.
My hands are weary, laboring, toiling on,
Day after day, for perishable meat:
O, city of our God, I fain would rest;
I sigh to gain thy glorious mercy-seat.
My garments, travel-worn and stained with dust,
Oft rent by briars and thorns that crowd my way,
Would fain be made, O Lord, my righteousness,
Spotless and white in heaven's unclouded ray.
My eyes are weary looking at the sun,
Impiety, and scorn upon the earth:
O, city of our God, within thy walls,
All, all are clothed upon with the new birth.
My heart is weary of its own deep sin,
Sinning, repenting, sinning still alway:
When shall my soul thy glorious presence feel,
And find its guilt, dear Saviour, washed away?
Patience, poor soul; the Saviour's feet were worn:
The Saviour's heart and hands were weary too;
His garments stained, and travel-worn and old,
His sacred eyes blinded with tears for you.
Love thou the path of sorrow that he trod;
Toil on, and wait in patience for thy rest:
O, city of our God, we soon shall see
Thy glorious walls, home of the loved and blest.
PERIODICAL RELIGION.
By Hannah More
We deceive ourselves not a little when we fancy that what is emphatically called the world is only to be found in this or that situation. The world is everywhere. It is a nature as well as a place; a principle as well as a ‐local habitation and a name.‐ Though the principle and the nature flourish most in those haunts which are their congenial soil, yet we are too ready, when we withdraw from the world abroad to bring it home, to lodge it in our own bosom. The natural heart is both its temple and its worshiper.
But the most devoted idolater of the world, with all the capacity and industry which he may have applied to the subject, has never yet been able to accomplish the grand design of uniting the interests of heaven and earth. This experiment which has been more assiduously and more frequently tried than that of the philosopher for the grand Hermetic secret, has been tried with about the same degree of success. The most laborious process of the spiritual chemist to reconcile religion with the world has never yet been competent to make the contending principles coalesce.
But to drop metaphor. Religion was never yet thoroughly relished by a heart full of the world. The world in return cannot be completely enjoyed where there is just religion enough to disturb its false peace. In such minds heaven and earth rule each other's enjoyments.
There is a religion which is too sincere for hypocrisy, but too transient to be profitable; too superficial to reach the heart, too unproductive to proceed from it. It is slight, but not false. It has discernment enough to distinguish sin, but not firmness enough to oppose it; compunction sufficient to soften the heart, but not vigor sufficient to reform it. It laments when it does wrong, and performs all the functions of repentance of sin except forsaking it. It has every thing of devotion except the stability, and gives every thing to religion except the heart. This is a religion of times, events, and circumstances; it is brought into play by accidents, and dwindles away with the occasion which called it out. Festivals and fasts which occur but seldom, are much observed, and it is to be feared because they occur but seldom; while the great festival which comes every week, comes too often to be so respectfully treated. The piety of these people comes out much in sickness, but is apt to retreat again as recovery approaches. If they die, they are placed by their admirers in the saints' calendar; if they recover, they go back into the world they had renounced, and again suspend their amendment as often as death suspends his blow.
There is another class whose views are still lower, who yet cannot so far shake off religion as to be easy without retaining its brief and stated forms, and who contrive to mix up these forms with a faith of a piece with their practice. They blend their inconsistent works with a vague and unwarranted reliance on what the Saviour has done for them, and thus patch up a merit and a propitiation of their own—running the hazard of incurring the danger of punishment by their lives and inventing a scheme to avert it by their creed. Religion never interferes with their pleasures except by the compliment of a short and occasional suspension. Having got through these periodical acts of devotion, they return to the same scenes of vanity and idleness which they had quitted for the temporary duty; forgetting that it was the very end of those acts of devotion to cure the vanity and to correct the idleness. Had the periodical observance answered its true design, it would have disinclined them to the pleasure instead of giving them a dispensation for its indulgence. Had they used the devout exercise in a right spirit, and improved it to its true end, it would have set the heart and life at work on all those pursuits which it was calculated to promote. But their project has more ingenuity. By the stated minutes they give to religion, they cheaply purchase a protection for the misemployment of the rest of their time. They make these periodical devotions a kind of spiritual insurance office, which is to make up to the adventurers in pleasure, any loss or damage which they may sustain in its voyage.
It is of these shallow devotions, these presumed equivalents for a new heart and a new life, that God declares by the prophet that he is “weary.” Though of his own express appointment, they become an “abomination” to him, as soon as the sign comes to be rested in for the thing signified.
We Christians have “our new moons and our sacrifices” under other names and other shapes; of which sacrifices, that is, of the spirit in which they are offered, the Almighty has said, “I cannot away with them, they are iniquity.”
Sometimes in an awakening sermon these periodical religionists hear with awe and terror, of the hour of death and the day of judgment. Their hearts are penetrated with the solemn sounds. They confess the awful realities by the impression they make on their own feelings. The sermon ends, and with it the serious reflections it excited. While they listen to these things, especially if the preacher be alarming, they are all in all to them. They return to the world—and these things are as if they were not, as if they had never been, as if their reality lasted only while they were preached; as if their existence depended only on their being heard; as if truth were no longer truth than while it solicited their notice; as if there were as little stability in religion itself as in their attention to it. As soon as their minds are disengaged from the question, one would think that death and judgment were an invention, that heaven and hell were blotted from existence, that eternity ceased to be eternity, in the long intervals in which they cease to be the object of their consideration.
This is the natural effect of what we venture to denominate periodical religion. It is a transient homage kept totally distinct and separate from the rest of our lives, instead of its being made the prelude and the principle of a course of pious practice, instead of our weaving our devotions and our actions into one uniform tissue by doing all in one spirit and to one end. When worshipers of this description pray for ‐a clean heart and a right spirit,‐ when they beg of God to ‐turn away their eyes from beholding vanity,‐ is it not to be feared that they pray to be made what they resolve never to become, that they would be very unwilling to become as good as they pray to be made, and would be sorry to be as penitent as they profess to desire? But alas! they are in little danger of being taken at their word; there is too much reason to fear their petitions will not be heard or answered; for prayer for the pardon of sin will obtain no pardon while we retain the sin in hope that the prayer will be accepted without the renunciation.
The most solemn office of our religion, the sacred memorial of the death of its author, the blessed injunction and tender testimony of his dying love, the consolation of the humble believer, the gracious appointment for strengthening his faith, quickening his repentance, awakening his gratitude and kindling his charity, is too often resorted to on the same erroneous principle. He who ventures to live without the use of this holy institution, lives in a state of disobedience to the43last appointment of his Redeemer. He who rests in it as a means for supplying the place of habitual piety, totally mistakes its design, and is fatally deceiving his own soul.
This awful solemnity is, it is to be hoped, rarely frequented even by this class of Christians without a desire of approaching it with the pious feelings above described. But if they carry them to the altar, are they equally anxious to carry them away from it, are they anxious to maintain them after it? Does the rite so seriously approached commonly leave any vestige of seriousness behind it? Are they careful to perpetuate the feelings they were so desirous to excite? Do they strive to make them produce solid and substantial effects?—Would that this inconsistency of mind were to be found only in the class of characters under consideration! Let the reader, however sincere in his desires, let the writer, however ready to lament the levity of others, seriously ask their own hearts if they can entirely acquit themselves of the inconsistency they are so forward to blame? If they do not find the charge brought against others but too applicable to themselves?
Irreverence antecedent to, or during this sacred solemnity, is far more rare than durable improvement after it. If there are, as we are willing to believe, none so profane as to violate the act, except those who impiously use it only as ‐a pick-lock to a place,‐ there are too few who make it lastingly beneficial. Few so thoughtless as not to approach it with resolutions of amendment; few comparatively who carry those resolutions into effect. Fear operates in the previous instance. Why should not love operate in that which is subsequent?
A periodical religion is accompanied with a periodical repentance. This species of repentance is adopted with no small mental reservation. It is partial and disconnected. These fragments of contrition, these broken parcels of penitence—while a succession of worldly pursuits is not only resorted to, but is intended to be resorted to during the whole of the intervening spaces, is not that sorrow which the Almighty has promised to accept. To render it pleasing to God and efficacious to ourselves, there must be an agreement in the parts, an entireness in the whole web of life. There must be an integral repentance. A quarterly contrition in the four weeks preceding the sacred seasons will not wipe out the daily offenses, the hourly negligences of the whole sinful year. Sins half forsaken through fear, and half retained through partially resisted temptation and partially adopted resolution, make up but an unprofitable piety.
In the bosom of these professors there is a perpetual conflict between fear and inclination. In conversation you will generally find them very warm in the cause of religion; but it is religion as opposed to infidelity, not as opposed to worldly-mindedness. They defend the worship of God, but desire to be excused from his service. Their heart is the slave of the world, but their blindness hides them from the turpitude of that world. They commend piety, but dread its requisitions. They allow that repentance is necessary, but then how easy is it to find reasons for deferring a necessary evil. Who will hastily adopt a painful measure which he can find a creditable pretence for evading? They censure whatever is ostensibly wrong, but avoiding only part of it, the part they retain robs them of the benefits of their partial renunciation.
This abuse of our advantages arises from our not incorporating our devotions into the general habit of our lives. Till our religion becomes an inward principle and not an external act, we shall not receive that benefit from her forms, however excellent, which they are calculated to convey. It is to those who possess the spirit of Christianity that her forms are so valuable. To them the form excites the spirit as the spirit animates the form. Till religion become the desire of our hearts it will not become the business of our lives.
We are far from meaning that it is to be its actual occupation; but that every portion, every habit, every act of life, is to be animated by its spirit, influenced by its principle, governed by its power.
The very make of our nature, and our necessary commerce with the world naturally fill our hearts and minds with thoughts and ideas, over which we have unhappily too little control. We find that to be the case when in our better hours we attempt to give ourselves up to serious reflection. How many intrusions of worldly thoughts, how many impertinent imaginations, not only irrelevant, but uncalled and unwelcome, crowd in upon the mind so forcibly as scarcely to be repelled by our sincerest efforts. How impotent then to repel such images must that mind be which is devoted to worldly pursuits, which yields itself up to them, whose opinions, habits, and conduct are under their allowed influence!
If, as we have before observed, religion consists in a new heart and a new spirit, it will become not an occasional act, but our abiding disposition, proving its settled existence in the mind by its habitually disposing our thoughts and actions, our devotions and our practice to a conformity to each other and to itself.
Let us not consider a spirit of worldliness as a little infirmity, as a natural, and therefore a pardonable weakness; as a trifling error which will be overlooked for the sake of our many good qualities. It is in fact the essence of our other faults; the temper that stands between us and our salvation; the spirit which is in direct opposition to the spirit of God. Individual sins may more easily be cured, but this is the principle of all spiritual disease. A worldly spirit where it is rooted and cherished, runs through the whole character, insinuates itself in all we say and think and do. It is this which makes us so dead in religion, so averse from spiritual things, so forgetful of God, so unmindful of eternity, so satisfied with ourselves, so impatient of serious discourse, and so alive to that vain and frivolous intercourse which excludes intellect almost as much as piety from our general conversation.
It is not, therefore, our more considerable actions alone which require watching, for they seldom occur. They do not form the habit of life in ourselves, nor the chief importance of our example to others. It is to our ordinary behaviour, it is to our deportment in common life; it is to our prevailing turn of mind in general intercourse by which we shall profit or corrupt those with whom we associate. It is our conduct in social life which will help us to diffuse a spirit of piety, or a distaste to it. If we have much influence, this is the place in which particularly to exert it. If we have little, we have still enough to infect the temper and lower the tone of our narrow society.
If we really believe that it is the design of Christianity to raise us to a participation of the divine nature, the slightest reflection on this elevation of our character would lead us to maintain its dignity in the ordinary intercourse of life. We should not so much inquire whether we are transgressing any actual prohibition, whether any actual law is pointed against us, as whether we are supporting the dignity of the Christian character; whether we are acting suitably to our profession; whether more exactness in the common occurrences of the day, more correctness in our conversation, would not be such evidences of our religion, as by being obvious and intelligible, might not almost insensibly produce important effects.
The most insignificant people must not through indolence and selfishness undervalue their own influence. Most persons have a little circle of which they themselves are a sort of center. Its smallness may lessen their quantity of good, but does not diminish the duty of using that little influence wisely. Where is the human being so inconsiderable but that he may in some shape benefit others, either by calling their virtues into exercise, or by setting an example of virtue
himself? But we are humble just in the wrong place. When the exhibition of our talents or splendid qualities is in question, we are not backward in the display. When a little self-denial is to be exercised, when a little good might be effected by our example, by our discreet management in company, by giving a better turn to conversation, then at once we grow wickedly modest.—‐‐Such an insignificant creature as I am can do no good.‐‐‐Had I a higher rank or brighter talents, then indeed my influence might be exerted to some purpose.” Thus under the mask of diffidence, we justify our indolence; and let slip those lesser occasions of promoting religion which if we all improved, how much might the condition of society be raised.
The hackneyed interrogation, ‐What! must we be always talking about religion?‐ must have the hackneyed answer—Far from it. Talking about religion is not being religious. But we may bring the spirit of religion into company and keep it in perpetual operation when we do not professedly make it our subject. We may be constantly advancing its interests, we may without effort or affectation be giving an example of candor, of moderation, of humility, of forbearance. We may employ our influence by correcting falsehood, by checking levity, by discouraging calumny, by vindicating misrepresented merit, by countenancing everything which has a good tendency—in short, by throwing our whole weight, be it great or small, into the right scale.—Hannah More.
THE SOCIAL CHRISTIAN LIFE.
“THEN they that feared the Lord spake often one to another.” This affords us a topic of thought, rich in its aspect of duty, and full of delightful Christian fruitage. We mean the social Christian life. An utterly unsocial Christianity would be a solecism—as much related to a true brotherhood as a sandy desert would be to “a field which the Lord hath blessed.”
And not alone the exercises of the social principle on the church, but also on the impenitent world. It is here that the delinquency of church members is most palpable. Among themselves there is professional character enough to give some savor of social, Christian life. Necessity, habit and choice, all conspire to some Christian intercourse; but outside of this, our male membership is, in many cases, little better than negative quantities in algebra, which to the unmathematical eye, look like numbers; while the more there is of them, the less is the sum total. It is here, most signally and disastrously, for the spread of religion, that Christian activity is transferred by our male constituency to the ministry; a proxy system which met, often and faithfully, to some extent cannot be fulfilled—thus leaving a measure of personal effort unaccomplished. The reserve of Christian men in regard to religious matters towards the irreligious, impresses the latter unfavorably both towards religion and the character of professors. Every other thing in which men take an interest, they talk about; but this is ignored. If the heart be fully sensible of the value of piety to itself; if it have any appreciation of its value to others; if it have any generous promptings toward the spiritual well-being of others; if it have any sense of their danger without it—then out of the abundance of such a heart the tongue will speak. Even the woman of Samaria, in the newness of her knowledge of Christ, could run with alacrity among her fellow citizens, crying, “Come see a man who told me all that ever I did. Is not this the Christ?” And if the testimony of such a one led many of the Samaritans to believe on him, are there not trophies of grace to be won from the enemy, for Christ, by those who have long tasted that the Lord is gracious? Who will go abroad in the fullness of their experience, and in the earnestness of their love, like David, saying, “Come all ye that fear the Lord, and I will tell you what he hath done for my soul?”—Ob. Evan.
"Ἀναστροφή, conversation, mode of life, conduct, deportment." Robinson defines it: "A turning about. In the New Testament, converse, manner of life, walk, conduct." In addition to the above, the word occurs in the following texts which comprises its entire use in the New Testament: Eph. iv, 22. 1 Tim. iv, 12. Jas. iii, 13. 1 Pet. i, 15, 18; ii, 16. 2 Pet. ii, 7; iii, 11. The word rendered conversation in Phil. iii, 20, is πολίτευμα, and is defined to be, "any institution, &c., belonging to a commonwealth; a state, community, commonwealth."
"LOVE THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW."
G. P. W., of Me. The word rendered fulfilling in Rom. xiii, is defined, "A fullness, plenitude, i. e., that of which anything is full; a fulfillment, fulfilling, i. e., exact observance. Rom. xiii, 10." Greenfield. The doctrine the apostle would inculcate is, that a manifestation of perfect love, either to God or our fellow-men, necessarily involves an exact observance of the moral law.
The Catholic works from which quotations are made in the tract, "Who Changed the Sabbath," can be obtained at any Catholic book-store. We obtained ours in Rochester, N. Y.
THE LAW UNTIL JOHN.
QUERY. Will you explain one point in reference to the Sanctuary? Allowing that at the rending of the vail of the temple, the Levitical priesthood ceased, and the Melchisedec began, who was our intercessor while Christ lay in the grave? What law and prophets ceased with John?**
ANSWER. The first of the above queries is of that class in which nothing is involved, and which, therefore, we do not consider it profitable to spend much time in attempting to solve. It is a question which might naturally enough suggest itself in connection with the Sanctuary subject, but its answer would in no wise affect that subject. Whether we take our view of the Sanctuary or any other, the same query would still exist, and all that we can see to be gained by its answer, would be a gratification of curiosity. In regard to the second, we do not understand that Luke xvi, 16, affirms that any law or prophets ceased with John, but only that up to the time of John the law and the prophets were all the light the world had; but since that time we have, in addition, the preaching of the kingdom of God.