Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Feb 21, 1854
APPENDAGES TO THE LAW.
By Joseph Baker
I WILL here make some remarks, and quotations, in reference to what I have said in my discourse on the Covenants, relative to appendages. The reader is referred to the latter clause of Ex. xx, 5, 6; viz., "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments." Now turn to Gen. xv, 14, 16, especially verse 16. "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full." Here is an intimation that he would visit the iniquity of the fathers, upon the children, unto the fourth generation of the Amorites, who hated him. And this is justified by matter of fact. The Canaanites were driven out of Canaan, for their iniquity, as we learn from Moses; [Deut. ix, 45.] "But for the wickedness of these nations doth the Lord drive them out from before thee." See also, Chap. viii, 19, 20; xviii, 12; Lev. xviii, 24-28; xx, 23.
The appendages were given to make the ten commandments appropriate to the peculiar circumstances of Israel; (for there must be rules of application; and this, too, is justified by matter of fact; see Matt. v;) hence, this appendage, undoubtedly, had reference to the Canaanites.
The following passages plainly show this to be an appendage merely; and that under the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, it was to be, and is, null and void. Eze. xviii, 2-4; xix, 20; Jer. xxxi, 27, 29, 30.
Again: Ex. xx, 12. "That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee." This I consider the appendage of the 5th command, and that it has particular reference to the children of Israel, and the land of Canaan. For proof of this, see Deut. iv, 25, 26; v, 33; xi, 6, 9, 21, 31; xii, 1; xvi, 20; xvii, 20; xxii, 7; xxv, 15; xxx, 16, 20; xxxi, 13; xxxii, 47. We now turn to Eph. vi, 3. In regard to this, it is asked, "Why does the Apostle quote this, if it is abolished, and is not re-instated (or incorporated) into the gospel." In answer, I ask, Is it good, or sufficient evidence that the Apostle considered it indispensable, because he quotes it, merely in its original form? If so, tell me why he quotes from the law of Moses, as in 1 Cor. ix, 9, 13; 1 Tim. v, 18, when in fact, that law was abolished by Christ—"nailed to his cross?" Rom. x, 4; Gal. iv, 31; Eph. ii, 14-16; Col. ii, 14-23; 2 Tim. i, 10; Heb. x, 9. I have been told that "all that was good was brought over, or incorporated into the gospel." But I ask, if there would not be, under any dispensation, something worthy of imitation; which time, the real original thing itself, had abolished? Is the idea of imitating an act, to be rejected, or despised, because the original itself is abolished—has ceased to be? And because this act is imitated, does it make the real original act to exist? or only its image, or resemblance? If a part of the real original Mosaic law, or any part of the Mosaic dispensation, was incorporated into the gospel, (dispensation, for the gospel is merely a system of good news) pray tell me what part Christ "nailed to his cross?" If there was any thing in the law of Moses, or if any part of the Mosaic dispensation was not to be abolished, and, (as the Mosaic was typical of the gospel dispensation) a substitute for the substance given by Christ, [Heb. x, 9; Col. ii, 17.] he did not abolish it; and Paul should have said, "He taketh away a part of the first, that he may establish the second." But he does not say so; and as the Scriptures were written by inspiration, and are not written in a language of their own, but in the common language of men, for otherwise they would be no revelation to them, hence we conclude that he meant what he said.
We admit that almost, if not quite, the whole Mosaic law, and dispensation, is referred to, as being (in some way) worthy of imitation; or as being written for our admonition. See 2 Cor. x, 6, 11. Even the sacrifices, also other ceremonial services, under the Mosaic dispensation, (and too, some of the precepts of that law, which were not strictly ritual,) are referred to, as being in some way, imitative. See 1 Pet. ii, 5; Rom. xii, 1, 2; Phil. iv, 18; Heb. xiii, 15, 16. Also, see Heb. x, 22; xii, 24; xiii, 10-13. See also 1 Cor. ix, 9-11; also verses 13, 14. But obedience to the real original law is not required or enjoined. Heb. viii, 7, 8, 13; x, 9; Gal. ii, 16-18; iv, 31. We are frank to admit that many (if not all) things under the Mosaic dispensation, were typical of something under the gospel dispensation. And, as they were typical of something under the gospel, we ask, What does the term, antitype, signify, or mean? "The restoration of its type?" What! Is this its true signification, true meaning? Why, the apostle Paul, speaking of the Mosaic law, says: "The law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, &c." See Col. ii, 17; Heb. x, 1. But the opponent in fixing up a principle to suit his own particular creed,
or sentiment, has for the foundation, the supposition that the antitype is, in every sense of the word, a mere restoration of its own type? But this idea burlesques the Scriptures, and is too absurd to be considered warrantable by the man of reason! Therefore, a principle founded on such a basis, must be considered a fabulous and groundless principle.
Now therefore, Christ could not re-instate his type, (the Mosaic law, see Col. ii, 17.) This point, is also "plainly stated," in the Apostle's inquiry and declaration, found in Gal. ii, 17, 18. (Compare verse 18 with Rom. x, 4; Gal. iii, 13; Eph. ii, 15; Col. ii, 14; Heb. x, 9.) And, that the gospel dispensation could not exist, or be effectual whilst its type was effectual, or even existed, we learn from the Apostle's declaration, and arguments in the following passages: Heb. ix, 8, 9; vii, 11; Gal. ii, 21; v, 2-4. Therefore that Christ could not re-instate or restore anything which was typical of the gospel dispensation, of which dispensation he was the foundation; and that, therefore, (as the apostles laid no other foundation, preached no other gospel, 2 Cor. iv, 5; Gal. i, 6-12) no part of the real original Mosaic law, or Mosaic dispensation, has been in force since the introduction of the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, should remain forever settled in the minds of all believers in Christ. Gal. v, 2-4; Rom. iv, 4; iii, 27. Compare with 1 Cor. vii, 19; Gal. v, 6; Gal. ii, 16-18. It is an old maxim, that we should "give the devil his due;" but when our opponents have all that they in justice can claim, they have not the one hundredth part of enough to re-instate, or restore one of the ten commandments, if they were, (as they assert,) Mosaic, or Jewish, or abolish the fourth command, without preaching another gospel, laying another foundation beside the one laid by Christ, as long as Christ's rule of application to the gospel dispensation, remains a principle of the New Testament; viz., "For the Son of man is Lord of the Sabbath-day." And says he, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
The literal land of Canaan was typical of the New Earth; and that antitype is beyond, or in other words, is to succeed (but not immediately; i. e., the renewal of the earth is not to be the first event, following) the conclusion of the gospel dispensation; but the promise of the land of Canaan is not incorporated into the gospel dispensation; neither is it a part of the gospel system, or gospel dispensation: being a fulfilled promise. Ex. xii, 25; Deut. xxvii, 3; Josh. xxiii, 5; Josh. i, 11; 2 Chron. vi, 25. It is simply referred to in the writings of the apostles, as having been promised, and as having been typical of the new earth; and some things which were necessary to be done by the children of Israel, in order that they might obtain an inheritance in this land, (the literal land of Canaan) are referred to by the Saviour and the apostles, as being in some way worthy of imitation. But that abolished system makes no part of the gospel; neither is any part of it incorporated into the gospel dispensation. The gospel is a system of life, not of dead works, which, when in their native and most vigorous strength, made nothing perfect. Heb. vii, 18, 19; x, 9.
But I am asked, "What must be done to re-instate this law?" I answer, something more than merely to quote it in its original form. There must be some evidence that it stands as valid both in form and strength as when in its primeval state; or in other words, there must be something presented to prove that the end or purpose for which it was34given, was not accomplished; hence that its effect must be as valid in accomplishing the purpose for which the new covenant was given, as the purpose for which the old was given. Now, how to ascertain or determine this point, may be understood by ascertaining the difference existing between the purposes for which these two covenants were introduced. For the validity of the means to accomplish the purpose for which they were given, must inevitably correspond with the purpose to be accomplished. Now the old was introduced to preserve temporal life, to save from temporal death; but the new to save from eternal death, by preparing for life everlasting. Now which is of the most importance, salvation from only temporal death? or salvation from eternal death? And which would require the most perfect means? or would it require means equal in validity to accomplish the purpose of the one, that it would the purpose of the other? But now can any part of the Mosaic law or first covenant, or any part of the Mosaic dispensation, be incorporated into the gospel, or its dispensation? from even this fact if there were no other evidence, that the gospel has no such ends to answer; as they were answered or accomplished at the introduction of the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, for as we have remarked in some part of our discourse, the ceremonial law, or first covenant was introduced to preserve the temporal lives of, and restore the children of Israel to a temporal relationship with Abraham, which they had lost by violating the conditions on which the extent of their relationship was suspended. And as we have shown in some of the remarks in this article, the Mosaic dispensation in many respects, if not in all, was typical of the new, or gospel dispensation. Hence the gospel had no such ends to answer; for when the antitype came, the type was no longer effectual; neither did it any longer exist. For an illustration, we ask, Were the prophecies of Christ's first advent any longer a prediction after Christ had come? (?) Or could they be made to serve two ends with the same acceptance? If so, we will admit that in like manner, the law could be made to serve two ends; for if it were true that the Mosaic law, or Mosaic dispensation was incorporated into the gospel, it must have been on the same principle that the prophecy of Christ's first advent could be made to serve two ends; or else the gospel must have so changed its nature (which was to preserve temporal life, and restore to the privilege of temporal blessings,) when incorporated, that other results might be expected from it. The gospel has a transforming influence, 'its true; but if it contained a dead or abolished law, it surely could not have a transforming influence; for it would certainly have a system of dead works, which when in their primeval state, when in their native and most vigorous strength, "made nothing perfect." Hence, how can any part of the real original first covenant or Mosaic dispensation, be applicable to the gospel, or gospel dispensation? for the gospel is a system of life; and under the gospel dispensation, mankind must, if ever, make a preparation for eternal life; for it is the dispensation preparatory to the fulfillment of the last unfulfilled promise made to Abraham, of which, the ten commandments are the basis. Admitting the foregoing arguments to be true, what part of the Mosaic law, or Mosaic dispensation, has been, or could be incorporated into the gospel, or gospel dispensation?
We have we think, proved conclusively that no part of the real original Mosaic dispensation could be re-instated or incorporated into the gospel, or gospel dispensation. Not into the gospel because it is a system of good news, of life, simply; and not into the gospel dispensation; because to suppose that the term, antitype, signified, "a restoration of its own type," is too absurd to be admitted; and because Christ could not therefore, re-instate anything typical of himself. And again; because, this, the apostles could not do, and yet, preach upon the foundation laid by Christ; and too, because the gospel dispensation had no such a purpose to answer, as the one for which the Mosaic law and dispensation were given. Therefore as we presented proof that the appendage of the fifth command had reference to the children of Israel, and the literal land of Canaan, (before entering on our examination of the objector's position in regard to the apostle Paul's quotation of this appendage,) hence it must be that it could only apply to the dispensation under which, the promise of the gift of the literal land of Canaan, was to be fulfilled; and the time of this, we have previously shown by reference to scripture declarations. And again; from the position taken (and maintained by scripture,) in regard to this land's being given to keep distinct the tribe of Judah, that Christ might come through them; for therefore, after the first advent of Christ, having accomplished the purpose for which it was promised, it could no longer be considered a promised land; therefore, as the term, antitype, signifying, a restoration of its own type, or the idea of Christ's restoring his own type, is too absurd to be admitted; and also as the idea of the apostle's incorporating into the gospel dispensation, anything typical of Christ, and yet preach no other gospel than Christ, is contrary to scripture; and also, as there were no such purposes to be accomplished under the gospel dispensation, as the purposes for which the first covenant, and Mosaic dispensation were given—hence, this appendage must be a part of the Mosaic dispensation, and hence, could not be incorporated into the gospel dispensation; for since it could be applicable to only Israel, and the literal land of Canaan—it being appropriate only under the dispensation in which temporal death could be inflicted on the disobedient, by the authority of the Divine Being—it could not be made appropriate under the gospel. For all believers in Christ, will I think, admit that Christ abolished the judicial part, at least, of the Mosaic or Jewish dispensation. And hence, I ask, will any admit, that since Christ abolished the Mosaic judicial law, or in other words, since he took from man, (for this he did,) all right to inflict temporal death upon the in any wise disobedient, that temporal life will be extended any longer to the obedient than to the disobedient?
But this appendage is by some applied to the new earth. But do such sincerely believe, that those who are permitted to inherit the new earth, will have their existence extended any further, for keeping here, or there, any command whatever? If so, they must admit that eternity, although learned men have said, "Eternity is not divided into parts or periods," and have called it "duration without end;" "endless duration;" and although the Scriptures teach that God, a being without end, "inhabiteth eternity;" yet that eternity is limited!! That eternal, everlasting life, is probationary life!! That they that obtain eternal life, obtain nothing more than a probationary state of existence!! But see 1 Cor. xv, 26, 54; Rev. xx, 14; xxi, 4. Yet all this must be true if this appendage has reference to the duration of the new earth, or to the duration of man's existence there. But I am told that "a parallel passage is contained in Isa. lxv, 22, and that, that must apply to the new earth." But it cannot apply to the duration of the new earth, neither to the duration of man's existence there; for the one is inseparably connected with the other; for the new earth is to be the everlasting inheritance of such as are blessed with faithful Abraham, of such as have been faithful while in time, and have obtained everlasting life; for the reason that neither the duration of the new earth, or the duration of man's existence there will admit of degrees of comparison: being limited in no degree whatever. Men as wise as the appellants, have proved that such words in such connections cannot bear. Learned men have applied the whole connection to time; but such an application of it may be unnecessary; for the power both to do, and to enjoy the works of his hands, could be taken from man, and not affect the duration of his existence, or the duration of his inheritance. We do not however, wish to be understood to mean, that the power to do and enjoy will be taken from him; but that it could be done by Him who hath power to create, and give to man power to do and to enjoy the work of his hands, and yet, neither the duration of his (man's) existence, or the duration of the new earth would be limited thereby. Hence there may not be any impropriety in the idea of the Prophet's employing a term expressive of limitation, a term admitting degrees of comparison, and applying it (as he does, if at all) figuratively, to the enjoyment and work of man; i. e., that man shall longer enjoy the work of his hands, than in this mortal state. But a term admitting degrees of comparison, (as long, longer, longest,) if applied at all to the enjoyment and works of being on the new earth, cannot be justified on any other principle, than that it was figuratively applied.
Now as the terms, eternity and eternal, are inseparably connected, and one being applicable to the duration of the new earth, and the other to the duration of man's existence on the new earth, hence it must be admitted that this appendage cannot apply to that to which either of these terms apply; for neither of them will admit of degrees of comparison, as long, longer, longest. And, moreover, as these terms are inseparably connected, this appendage cannot be applicable to either the duration of the new earth, [Eph. vi, 3.] or to the duration of man's existence there, (in eternity); even figuratively; (neither is it any where in the Holy Scriptures thus applied;) for time bears no proportion to eternity, unless eternity is measured by time; but "eternity is not divided into parts or periods."
From the whole it follows, that the Apostle's merely quoting this appendage, cannot be considered any evidence whatever, that he believed it to be appropriate since the abolition of that dispensation, under which temporal death was inflicted on the transgressor of the ten commandment.
Under the present dispensation, these commandments are by the Holy Spirit written on the hearts, hence by the intents of the heart all mankind are to be judged; and hence, vengeance belongeth unto the all-seeing and all-wise Being; "And I will repay, saith the Lord." Amen.
Lebanon, N. H., Feb. 6th, 1854.
THE HEAVENLY TEMPLE.
WHERE high the heavenly temple stands,
The house of God not made with hands,
A great High Priest our nature wears,
The guardian of mankind appears.
He who for men their surety stood,
And poured on earth his precious blood,
Pursues in heaven his mighty plan,
The Saviour and the friend of man.
Though now ascended up on high,
He bends on earth a brother's eye;
Partaker of the human name,
He knows the frailty of our frame.
Our fellow-suff'rer yet retains
A fellow-feeling of our pains,
And still remembers in the skies,
His tears, his agonies and cries.
In every pang that rends the heart,
The Man of sorrows had a part;
He sympathizes with our grief,
And to the suff'rer sends relief.
With boldness, therefore at the throne
Let us make all our sorrows known,
And ask the aid of heavenly power,
To help us in the evil hour.
A NEW REMEDY FOR AN OLD DIFFICULTY.
"Hengstenberg on the Lord's Day."
In the January number of the Bibliotheca Sacra, we find a notice of the pamphlet of Hengstenberg, in which he discusses the Sabbath question. The reviewer has given a brief synopsis of the argument; one or two items of which are worthy of being placed on record, as rare specimens of biblical interpretation. These arguments do not seem altogether satisfactory to the reviewer; and yet he suggests, "It may well prompt us to review, if not to revise, the grounds on which we have been wont to justify our observance of the Sabbath." From such a conclusion, of so high authority, we would be led to suppose that the German divine had discovered some new truth in biblical science, that had heretofore escaped the notice of New England theologians. Should it result in revising the theology of the Edwardean school of theologians, much of the glory that has clustered around the brow of the late lamented Dr. Edwards, for his zeal in promoting Sunday observance, will pass away. We have no right to suppose, that Dr. Edwards had any doubt of the soundness of his views upon the Sabbath question, nor yet that those of like sentiments with him have held the dogmas of their faith as questionable, and subject to a radical revision. The strength of the argument, by which theologians have sought to sanctify Sunday, and on which its observance as a Sabbath is based, may be determined by the argument which is likely to overthrow it. The following is given as the basis of the doctrine of Hengstenberg:—
"He holds the Sabbath to be purely a Mosaic institution. He insists that there is not the slightest evidence of its observance before the time of Moses. The account of the creation bears decidedly an Israelitic stamp. God's labor and rest are made typical of our duty. This is anticipative of the giving of the law. This notice of the Sabbath pre-supposes the fall and its curse. The conduct of the Israelites in the desert, before the giving of the law, shows that the institution was entirely novel to them. With the giving of the law, obligation to keep the Sabbath commences; for the Sabbath had no existence as an institution before. The decalogue35is inseparably connected with the whole Mosaic economy. It stands and falls with the ceremonial law. But its spirit and divine sanction remain under the New Testament. The rest of the Sabbath is not the end of its institution, but a means to that end, and of the greatest importance to the observance of the day, to life in God, and the permanence of the church."
When it is gravely proposed to make the above antinomian basis the occasion of a revision of Christian theology, we respectfully suggest that it be tried by the word of God. To make out this basis, the author has to combine absolute contradictions. In one sentence he seals the doom of the moral law with the ceremonial. In the next, he says, "its spirit and its divine sanction remain under the New Testament." Whence, we ask, arises the necessity of destroying an institution whose "spirit and divine sanction remain"? What has been destroyed, while so much remains! If the spirit and divine sanction of the law of the Sabbath remain, it all remains. And the great labor of the great theologian, has its counterpart in the throes of the mountain which brought forth a mouse. It was a useless labor; for, in the death and resurrection of the Sabbath, which he has so wonderfully accomplished, he, unfortunately for his purpose, has found no place for the introduction of the first for the seventh day. This whole basis has its foundation in the necessity of justifying a sentiment which has found its way into the creeds and practices of theologians. That sentiment is the one which teaches that the first day of the week is the Christian Sabbath. No person ever obtained his conviction of a change of the Sabbath from the word of God. Nor did the no-Sabbath sentiment ever come from that Holy Book. Theologians have opened their eyes, and found themselves keeping the first day of the week. They have opened the Bible, and found that declaring, "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." And because they were lovers of themselves more than God, they have sought to destroy the authority of the law of the Sabbath, and justify themselves in their practices. It is amusing, while it is an occasion of the deepest sorrow, to see the theories that have been started to evade God's law, and justify the practices of the church. They are of every cast and form possible, and only lack the authority of God to make them good. While we laugh at the sophistical, ludicrous, and contradictory theories held up to us, we most sincerely and prayerfully pity those who make them their guide.
Hengstenberg misconceived altogether the nature and object of the Sabbath, when he said, "The rest of the Sabbath is not the end of its institution, but a means to that end, and of the greatest importance to the observance of the day, to life in God, and the permanence of the church." The very concise, plain language in which the institution is given, shows that the object of the Sabbath was and is by its rest to commemorate the creation. This is the reason, and only reason, given for its establishment. Thus the Sabbath, in its weekly recurrence, is a standing rebuke against infidelity in its atheistic form. Hengstenberg and his sympathizers rob themselves of the strongest argument against atheism, when they rob the Sabbath of its original character; and yet, for the support of their practice in desecrating "God's holy day," they readily do it. Were they in the observance of the Bible Sabbath, they could say each week, to all gainsayers, Behold in the Sabbath instituted at creation, and observed by Christians, a constant rebuke of your infidelity.
Another important declaration in the argument of the German divine is, "The transfer of its (the Sabbath's) observance to the first day of the week, rests on the authority of the church, which, however, can absolutely effect no more than create a favorable judgment." Such a declaration, from one so high in the theological world, is indeed refreshing. Ye humble few disciples of Christ who have so oft re-iterated the above assertion, take courage. There is now high authority in the church for what you have dared to assert, that the first day of the week has only human authority for its observance.
Well does the reviewer of Hengstenberg ask, "If the law of the Sabbath is perpetual as law, where is the authority for transferring its observance to another day? Can the authority of the church alter such a law of God? No such laws regulating external observance are given to the free church of the New Testament." We italicize the last sentence. It is a precious one. It is most truthful and in place. With Hengstenberg and his reviewers, we have the truths, that the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the week rests upon the authority of the church, and that no such authority is vested in the church.
After the trial of all remedies, the old difficulty remains. The church can not dispense with a Sabbath. It is essential to its prosperity. It is a necessary fact of Christianity. And yet one class of theologians would destroy the law of the Sabbath, because it specifies the seventh day and not the first as holy time, and then, to give the church the necessary benefit of a Sabbath, introduce a new day, and make a Sabbath of it. Another denies the authority of the church to make such a change, and insists upon the authority of the Sabbath law, but robs it of its authority as law by so changing its phraseology as to absolutely destroy its sense. Thus theological speculations destroy the Sabbath, and bring it to life again—change it, and make it the same—deny its authority, and acknowledge its necessity—destroy it absolutely, and acknowledge its spirit and divine sanction. Poor thing! How roughly it is treated, and how kindly caressed—how ruthlessly it is dissected, and kindly nursed. How it is owned and denied—changed, modified, strangled, revised, reviewed, revived, for the sake of giving sanction to the day that man has appointed for it, instead of the one God named, blessed, sanctified, and made perpetual. If theologians would receive the law as God gave it, and use the Sabbath for the purpose for which he appointed it, then would all difficulties and speculations about it cease.—Sab. Recorder.
The Downward Tendency of Man.
It has been recently remarked that when nations become corrupt they never rise again. The whole history of the world, without an exception, is an illustration of this truth.
Individuals may again attain to moral excellence, but history does not furnish an example where a nation or community has once fallen and again attained the height of her previous glory. Thus Babylon, Persia, Grecia, and Rome, successively rose to power and greatness, by slow and steady steps; but on reaching the acme of their fame, they never remained stationary. Luxury led the way to effeminacy and immorality, they entered their downward course, and never rose again. And now their greatness is like a vision of the past. The kingdoms of Europe, also, the toes of the image, are fast sinking in morals, again to heathenism. Even our own country has fallen far from the proud height which she a short time since occupied; and is sinking fast in the sins that hastened on the ruin of Sodom and Egypt.
The religious world are not exceptions to the same truth. Africa, once resplendent with the light of the gospel, has had her light long since extinguished. The brightness of Christianity in Europe, is also greatly dimmed. The church of Rome has manifested to the world her entire rottenness; and the church of England, our mother church, is making rapid and fearful strides towards a union with the church of Rome. The various dissenting denominations of Europe have lost the purity and piety they once possessed; Germany, the birth-place of the reformation, is again almost devoid of practical godliness, and is sunk into Rationalism, Socianism, Transcendentalism, and German Neology. And even the church in Geneva, which once echoed to the voice of Calvin, has become a Socinian church.
When we turn our eyes to the American churches, we find them fast following in the wake of the theology of the old world. Many of our most popular clergy boldly and openly doubt whether the body will ever be literally raised from the dead. They also deny a personal advent of Christ and a literal burning of the world. They have made many and sad departures from the faith once delivered to the saints; and yet the churches are not alarmed, they still fold their arms in lazy lock, and slumber over the desolations of Zion.
We thus find, in taking a view of the whole field, which is the world, that the tares are growing with the wheat in greater luxuriance and rankness than ever; that the nations of the earth and the churches have all attained their height of moral greatness, and have progressed far in the descending path, never to rise again. The field has also been all occupied, so that there are no nations to arise and take the places of those whose sun is now setting. Therefore, reasoning from the past, the moral indications of the world show us that we must be near that point when the kingdoms of this world will reach the end of their existence—when the stone cut out of the mountain without hands will smite the image on its feet and break it in pieces, that its metalic and earthly parts may become like the chaff of the summer-threshing-floor, and no place be found for them. Then will the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, but shall continue for ever, even for ever and ever.—Selected.
Drawing Near to God.
Prayer is the very life-breath of true religion. It is one of the first evidences that a man is renewed by grace. "Behold," said the Lord, of Saul, in the day he sent Ananias to him,—"Behold he prayeth." He had begun to pray, and that was proof enough.36
Prayer was the distinguishing mark of the Lord's people in the day that there began to be a separation between them and the world. "Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord."
Prayer is the peculiarity of all real Christians now. They pray; for they tell God their wants, their feelings, their desires, their fears, and mean what they say. The nominal Christian may repeat prayers, too, but he goes no further.
Prayer is the turning-point in a man's soul. Our ministry is unprofitable, and our labor is vain till you are brought to your knees. Till then, we have no hope about you.
Prayer is the great secret of spiritual prosperity. When there is much private communion with God, your soul will grow like grass after rain; when there is little, all is at a stand-still, you will barely keep your soul alive. Show me a growing Christian, a going forward Christian, a strong Christian, a flourishing Christian, and sure am I he is one that speaks often with his Lord. He asks much, and he has much. He tells Jesus everything, and so he always knows how to act.
"Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be known unto God." Phil. iv, 6.
Christ's First Coming.
About the time of our Saviour’s first advent, there existed a strong expectation of some great event being nigh at hand. When he appeared the Jews received him not, they overlooked the prophetic Scriptures, which spoke of his humiliation. They had imbibed erroneous conceptions of the character of their Prince, the nature of his kingdom, and the design of his coming; hence, when their long expected Messiah came, they rejected him, they believed not on him, they suffered him to be crucified, and consigned him to the tomb: but he arose again. The massive tenement, the door, the stone, the seal, could not contain him. “He now liveth, that was dead, and is alive forevermore.”
Have any of the rulers believed on him? was a question often asked, and as invariably answered, No: the learned, the distinguished of that day, the expounders of prophecy, the Rabbis, the Doctors, all discarded the true Messiah. Illiterate men—men of humble origin, engaged in secular affairs, became his followers; although enough was displayed to convince the most obdurate, to melt an adamant, yet they acknowledged him not: to their prepossessed opinions, they tenaciously clung; the cherished idea of the nature and design of his coming, they would not yield—they expected an earthly kingdom, as many now expect a temporal millennium. How abortive their hope; how futile their expectation. Soon, ah, very soon, every false impression will be obliterated, every false sentiment which has become entwined in man’s affections, will be dissevered and dispersed. Let no sentiments which emanate only from man’s imagination, govern your mind, but if they derive nourishment and support from the true source, then embrace them. Examine for yourselves, “prove all things, hold fast that which is good.” But beware, be not influenced by sentiments, which will not stand the test of truth, and harmonize with divine revelation, lest ye be not extricated ere the brightness of the coming day, dissipate your errors, result fatal to your cherished hopes, and blast your fondest expectations.—Selected.