Publishing Committee · Rochester, N. Y. · Feb 14, 1854
THE COVENANTS.
By Joseph Baker
(Concluded.)
HAVING produced some arguments relative to the everlasting and Sinai covenants, we pass to notice some arguments which show that the Sinai covenant has been abolished, and the new, instituted.
Gal. iv, 30. "Nevertheless, what saith the scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman." (It should be remembered that those two women with their sons, are said to represent the two covenants.) "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." The argument of the Apostle in this place, does prove the Sinai covenant abolished, and the new, instituted; or there is, in this connection, such an abuse of language, as no inspired writer could be guilty of. Again: see Heb. x, 8, 9. "Above, when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." Chap. ix, 1. "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service," &c. Here the Sinai covenant is called the first; and from the foregoing quotation, we learn that Christ took away the first, that he might establish the second. Again: Chap. x, 28, 29. "He that despised Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sacrificed, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace!"
The next passage to be examined may be found in 2 Cor. iii. Of this it is contended, that the ministration of death never was written on stone; but in a book. If so, I fail, to see it. It is admitted that the penalty, together with the regulations of the administrator's office, were written in the book of the law. But does the administrator perform his office on the strength of the penalty, or on the strength of the law? We are told by the Apostle, that, "the strength of sin is the law." Therefore, it must be on the strength of the law, that he administers his office; and that was written on tables of stone; therefore, the ministration of death was written and engraved on tables of stone. We find quite as intricate a passage in Romans; there the Apostle says, "The commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death." How did he find it out? By transgression, of course. But what produced death? did the penalty do it? No; for he found the very commandment which was ordained to life, to be unto death. The commandment without a penalty could not have done it. But if the penalty was written somewhere else, it is immaterial: the administration being on the strength of the commandment. And indeed, we cannot conceive how the term law can apply to moral agents without a penalty—it would be a nominal thing, for which we could not find a name. But the law is one thing, and the penalty is another. The question naturally suggests itself here, Why was not the penalty written with the law, on tables of stone? Ans. The law was endless—the penalty two-fold; temporal and eternal death. Therefore, the penalty, to accord with the ten commandments, was written in a book, the means for the preservation of temporal life, also. And as the ten commandments were liable to be violated again, an administrator was furnished, to meet such an emergency. But, I believe, all are agreed that Christ abolished temporal death, when he arose from the tomb; and that now, no temporal death, authorized by the Divine Being, is inflicted for any new violation of the ten commandments.
By the universality of this admission, (if what every one says is true,) one of two things is admissible.
1. That the ten commandments being written on stone, was the call for the administration of death; and, that now, that form only, is abolished; and not the ten commandments themselves; or, 2. That the promissory, the everlasting, covenant is at an end. (For if the ten commandments were the basis of the promissory covenant, and are abolished, then the everlasting covenant is at an end! But if their being written, was the call for the administration of death, now that form is abolished; and not the ten commands themselves.) Which horn of this dilemma will you take? The Scriptures plainly declare that the ten commandments were the basis of the promissory, the everlasting, covenant; and that their being written on stone, was the call for the administration of death. With these remarks before us, we turn to Jer. iii, 16. "And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, They shall say no more the ark of the covenant of the Lord: [Jer. xxxi, 32, 33; 2 Cor. iii, 3, 6; Heb. viii, 6-8; ix, 1-4; x, 9;] neither shall it come to mind, neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more." See Heb. x, 16-22. If this language does not express its abolition, I do not understand the meaning of terms. What was the ark made for? Certainly not to contain a verbal contract! but one written. This is provable
by the tables of stone being its chief contents. It is not to be visited; which proves its useless state, and the object for which it was given, accomplished. This the verses following, prove. Christ is given: the object for which the multiplication of Abraham's natural seed, and Canaan were promised.
Now, then, look up, and call Jerusalem, or the free-woman, the throne of the Lord. Again, I say, Look up; for under this dispensation, the ten commandments are to be impressed on thy heart, by the Spirit of him who dwelt in the bush, and in the sanctuary of Israel, and had his throne in old Jerusalem; but now in the Jerusalem above, which is free, and the mother of all that believe.
By the free-woman and her son, the Apostle undoubtedly meant to convey the idea of the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, as being a part of the promise to Abraham, and his seed. And how the notion came into existence, that the gospel was a distinct system, embracing a different object, I cannot conceive: unless it was among the fables collected from spurious and apocryphal writings, canonized by superstition; or the offspring of the deliriums of pious visionaries, early converts from heathenism, from which they imported this part of their creed. There is not one text of scripture, legitimately interpreted, that gives the least countenance to this dogma.
The new covenant referred to in our text, and mentioned in Hebrews, is expressed by way of promise in Jer. xxxi, 31-34. "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Paul, in reference to this covenant, says, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away." Heb. viii, 13. From the preceding chapter, it is evident that the Apostle considered that the first covenant was abolished; and from the tenth, it is equally certain that the new is instituted; and that all that was expressed in the promise in Jeremiah, was literally fulfilled. For though the promise was given in view of the new earth, yet, the new earth is not expressed in the promise; neither has it any reference to what it would ultimately do; but only has reference to its formation. What this covenant will do, may be understood by referring to the promise of it, given to Abraham. We shall take it for granted, therefore, that every part of the promise made to Israel through Jeremiah, has had its literal fulfillment. And therefore, we would refer all those who contend that Israel is to say to his neighbor, or Gentile, [Eze. xvi, 61,] Know the Lord, to Heb. x; where this point is clearly illustrated, and testified to, by the holy Ghost. John vi, 45; 1 John v, 20.
Permit me here to quote a few passages as a specimen of many, to show the law on the heart, according to the promise. Rom. vii, 22. "For I26delight in the law of God after the inward man." Gal. vi, 8. "But he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." 2 Cor. iii, 6. "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; (i. e., covenant,) not of the letter, but of the Spirit." Verse 8. "How shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?" Also iv, 6. "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." Again: Chap. iii, 3. "Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart." Nothing can be plainer than these passages: they prove that it was the same law, that by the finger of God was written on tables of stone, that now is written by the Spirit of God on the heart.
As the words, new covenant, and gospel, are generally used as synonymous terms, (Rom. i, 16; Acts iii, 25, 26; xiii, 26, 32, 33, 46, 47; Eph. ii, 12-22; Jno. viii, 56; 1 Pet. i, 4, 10-12; Luke i, 46-55; ii, 28-32,) we shall in the remaining part of our subject, generally use the term, gospel, instead of covenant; as it will better accommodate the age in which we live. We now proceed to define the word, gospel. And an appeal might here be made to the most learned critics and lexicographers, who have given the definition of the word, and also to the etymology of the word, both in the English and original languages; and in either case, the decision would, most certainly be in favor of the gospel's being a system of good news. But it has become so fashionable for every man who knows the names and characters of the Greek alphabet to turn critic, and question the authority and learning of all the literary world, that the unlearned know not what to decide upon. They either conclude that there is no dependence to be put upon any of them, and therefore none upon the Bible; or they adopt such translations as suit their particular creed, and with these rest satisfied. Waiving therefore, all argument founded upon the authority of the learned, or the derivation of this word, its meaning may be determined by an appeal to the Apostle who says that the "gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Rom. i, 16; also see Acts iii, 26, 38, 46, 47. The same may be said of the meaning of the word, Jesus; which signifies, Saviour. Matt. i, 21; Acts v, 30-32; xiii, 38, 39; Luke ii, 10, 11; iv, 17-21; viii, 1. Therefore the gospel must certainly be considered a system of good news; or, salvation from sin, or the transgression of some law; "for sin is the transgression of the law."
We ask if salvation from sin is not good news? Again: Is this good news a law of itself? If so, what may we expect from it, if Paul has given a right definition of the term, gospel? Certainly, salvation from its transgression. With this expectation, how unmeaning the sanction it contains! viz., "He that believeth not shall be damned!" This is not good news, and cannot be applied to the gospel without making Paul's definition chimerical or absurd, if the gospel is not founded on law; for it is said that "sin is not imputed (charged) when there is no law." Therefore the gospel must be based on law, or there is no sin. Indeed, the passages already quoted show the existence of a law written by the Spirit of God on the heart; and this too, to accord with the gospel, which purports to save from the condemning power of the law. Hence the salvation expected from the gospel, is, salvation from transgression of the law.
The preceding reasonings are founded on the supposition, that the gospel saves from condemnation only. And as good news of salvation never could be rejected, abstract from depravity, therefore the term salvation, is unmeaning in its application to the gospel, abstract from its foundation.
As the preceding reasonings are founded on the supposition, that the gospel saves only from condemnation, and that it cannot even do this, without being founded on law, we will now briefly consider the guilt of the transgression causing condemnation. And we not only accumulate guilt by transgression, but while neglecting salvation from this transgression of the law, there stands a blank, where duties were required, and none performed; and this must so corrupt the fountain, that all its streams will be impure. And, as no being can cleanse his own infected nature, or undo the criminal acts which he has already done; the gospel therefore, must possess power to deliver and re-instate or make the fountain pure, or the plaster is not as large as the wound. Can good news do this, and at the same time be a law? We answer, It cannot. But as it admits the thundering sanctions of law, its basis must be law.
Now as the gospel proffers salvation to those only, who believe, hence, where faith is wanting the law of ten commandments, admit of the full administration of the penalty previously affixed, notwithstanding the gospel of good news. They run therefore to the extent of the promises, and are made appropriate to each dispensation under which they pass: having the affixed rules of that dispensation. Hence there were appendages affixed, to make them appropriate to the peculiar situation of Abraham and his seed, and under the Sinai, they were written to accord with that dispensation; but under the gospel, which is not to be superseded by another, in time, they apply to the heart, where the whole system of the gospel applies.
Now we learn from each dispensation, appropriate rules of application: Under the Sinai, killing maliciously was by those rules of application, considered murder; but under the gospel rules, to have our brother without cause, is murder. 1 John. iii, 15; Matt. v, 21, 22; xv, 18, 19. Thus we might enumerate the ten commands, and we should find gospel rules, applying them to the heart.
O. Scott, in quoting from Mr. Wesley, makes him say, that we are "as really preaching Christ when saying, 'The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the people that forget God,' as when saying, 'Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.'" But to my mind, the former is preaching the sanctions of law, the gospel, (abstract from its foundation,) has no such sanctions. It is therefore evident that it has law for its foundation.
O. Scott, makes Dr. A. Clarke say, "The gospel is a law for it imposes obligation from God, and prescribes a rule of life; and it punishes transgressors, and rewards the obedient." This must be a gross mistake and is self-contradictory; for the term gospel, will not admit (separately considered from its foundation) of any such sanctions. Also, it is a palpable contradiction of a sermon of A. Clarke's which I hold in my possession, and from which I shall take the liberty to make an extract. Page 32. "Hence the gospel proclaims both pardon and purification; and they that believe are freely justified from all things, and have their hearts purified by faith. Thus the grand original law is once more written on their hearts by the finger of God; and they are restored both to the favor and to the image of their Maker." If under the gospel, this is the privilege of those that believe, what must be the fate of those who do not believe, but to remain under the condemning power of this same law? the sanctions of which are recognized by the gospel. For the gospel having law for its foundation, or basis, supposes the most awful sanctions. "He that believeth shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here we see that faith in Christ, is a condition of salvation, from the condemning power of the law. Therefore this law, the penalty of which, (under the gospel,) is eternal death is permitted by the gospel to have its full condemning power on those who do not believe. (But "because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil;" but "vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.") The commission given to the disciples, cannot be regarded in any other light.
I have yet to learn how Christ can be preached without preaching the gospel. And I am equally at a loss, to know how the full commission given to the disciples could be fulfilled, without proclaiming the basis of the gospel; for this commission, embraces one of the most awful sanctions: "He that believeth not, shall be damned!" which partakes not of the nature of good news, but of the rigors of law. This, therefore must show the gospel built on law; otherwise this threatening would be contradictory and absurd. For gospel, abstract from law, has no penalty: it being simply, good news. And the law abstract from the promise to Abraham, has nothing to do with Christ. But who does not see that this promise embraced Christ, and that it was founded on the ten commandments? Now, therefore, Christ cannot be preached, without showing the fulfillment of a gracious promise. And yet, a promise, resting on the ten commandments, (its basis,) yet remains to be given through Christ; and this, the renewed earth. Therefore, how can Christ be successfully preached, without proclaiming the consequences of rejecting him? And as this gospel precedes, to prepare for the fulfillment of the promise of the renewed earth; and as judgment precedes the reception of the new earth, the consequence of rejecting the gospel, must be looked for, in the sanctions of law; which leads to the inevitable conclusion, that the ten commandments are the basis of the gospel.
It can but be admitted that the gospel permits the promulgation of sanctions the most awful imaginable; yet they cannot partake of the nature of good news. Hence these spurs to duty, these incitements to obedience, are the results of law. And as they make up a considerable part of the New Testament, therefore the new covenant or gospel must be based on the ten commandments, as this is the only unabolished law contained in the Bible.
It has been urged in some preceding remarks, that why the penalty was not written with the ten commands on stone, was, that the nature of the penalty was two-fold; and that the penalty under the gospel was only eternal death. Now, therefore, they might be recorded (under the new covenant or gospel dispensation) with their penalty. They are so recorded. And too, proceeding on the principle that the gospel is in substance one of the promises, and has for its foundation the ten commandments, it may admit of the most awful sanctions, and condign punishment to be executed on the gospel rejectors, and at the same time be a system of good news, or salvation from sin, on the easy condition of simple faith in Christ. Who could measure the guilt accumulated by rejecting Christ, but God? and where should the penalty for this guilt be recorded but with the gospel? though it partakes of the nature of law? God's threatenings are by no means to be cast out of the New Testament, or rejected because they are not good news; neither are they to be considered abstract from his promises, for these promises were founded on law. And Christ being included in one of these promises, we may, therefore, hear from his mouth, and from the apostles, the most terrific thunders of wrath, roaring louder, tenfold, than from the law of Moses; describing the damnation of hell; painting in colors of the deepest dye the agonies of the damned, and the horrors of the bottomless pit; a burning world, the Judge coming down, the parted skies in flaming fire, the dead rising, the amazing throng divided; and the wicked sentenced to eternal death. Are such representations admitted by the gospel? then the gospel must be based on law; as it abstractly considered could not admit of such sanctions.
Again: the gospel proceeds on the principle of a revelation from God; and this perfectly accords with the ten commandments being written on the heart. This is expressed and illustrated by Christ in his question to the disciples, and answer to Peter. Matt. xvi, 15-18. "And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." . . . i. e., upon this principle of revelation from God, will I build my church; not on Peter; but on the principle of revelation from God. 1 Cor. ii, 10-13; Prov. xx, 27; Jno. xiv, 15-17, 23-26; xv, 26, 32; xvi, 7-15; Rev. viii; 1 Jno. iii, 24; iv, 6; v, 6.27But we are told that "God acts on the scale of general good; therefore the gospel can hold out the most awful sanctions, and thereby deter men from violating it, and thus promote the general good." But this idea burlesques the Scriptures. The threatenings admitted by the gospel, mean what they say; and must be permanently built, either on gospel or on law; and as it has been proved, that they are the sanctions of law, therefore the gospel must be based on law.
It is said that "nine precepts are sufficient." We ask, Why were not nine sufficient to have based the promises upon? and especially the promise of the new covenant, or gospel dispensation? Infinite wisdom never acts without sufficient reasons; therefore the new covenant or gospel dispensation is based on ten commandments. Christ was given to build upon the foundation which God had laid, and this was the ten commandments. Therefore he found ten, and built upon ten.
In reviewing the subject, we would say that it has been proved that the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, were conditions on the part of God; and, that living in obedience to the ten commandments, were conditions on the part of Abraham and his seed. And that both, or either might with the strictest precision, be called a covenant; that the promises were made to Abraham, not for his benefit alone, but for his seed also; that his seed, until we come to the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, consisted in his natural seed; and, that the land promised, was Canaan; which also was typical of the new earth; that also Christ, the new covenant, and the renewed earth, were included in the promissory covenant; and, that the promises, (i. e. the promissory covenant,) singly and collectively, were based on the ten commandments; that consequently, while a single promise remained unfulfilled, (whilst heaven and earth remain, Matt. v, 18,) the basis or ten commandments must remain unbroken and unabolished; therefore the ten commands came under the new covenant, or gospel dispensation with all their native force: the covenant being endless as a whole.
We know that Christ has said, "All power is given unto me, both in heaven and earth;" but are we to infer from this mode of expression that he had power to dethrone God? or abolish his promise of a new earth? Would it not be more with the analogy of the Scriptures to suppose that he had sufficient power to accomplish the work assigned him to do? and that the work said to be done by Jehovah alone, never has been assigned over to another? or been affected by delegation? It has also been proved that a violation of the conditions on the part of the covenanters, would subject them to a loss of the promises; and, that they might be restored, and again become Abraham's seed, by a temporary covenant, which is true of the Sinai, but that it could ensure them no more than temporal life, and could extend no further than to the first advent of Christ; there it must cease, having accomplished the object for which these promises, the multiplication, and the gift of Canaan, were given: and that the temporality of the first, was the cause of the call for the new covenant. It has been proved, also, that the Sinai did not alter Israel's relation to the Abrahamic: it being given only to bring them back to a relationship with Abraham, according to the covenant; that this relationship involved all their former liabilities; and the fact that the ten commands were written on stone, by the finger of God, and carried with them, is sufficient proof that they were among their former liabilities; and that they could not be abolished without destroying the strength of the promise of a new earth. To abolish the Sinai, was the work of Christ; and that has been accomplished: leaving God's promise of a new earth, standing on its original basis. All therefore, who live under the gospel dispensation, may view the ten commands in all their native beauty and strength, bringing back to Christ the first dominion, according to the promise in Mic. iv, 8, and all those who are obedient to them, and through faith in his blood are made heirs with him. Hence their application must be to the heart, to accord with the last promise, which is immortality.
The Sinai depended on outward evidences; but the new covenant, applies them to the thoughts, and intents of the heart: our Lord's sermon on the Mount, being a specimen, where he takes the liberty to correct their application under the Sinai dispensation, and applies them to the heart, giving rules for their application to this effect. Whatever light therefore, the Scriptures afford, showing the new covenant a part of the Abrahamic, must be regarded as proof that the ten commandments are its basis; and, in their examination, we have found this point abundantly substantiated; for Christ and his works were promised at a very early date, especially to Abraham, through his seed. Gal. iii, 8. "And the Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." "That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." . . . "And this I say, That the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ," &c. It was the promise of God to Abraham, that God confirmed through Christ; therefore the new covenant, with all its privileges and blessings, was included in the promises given to Abraham. Indeed, the Scriptures in too many places to be at this time recited, show the new covenant to have been included in the promissory, and hence its basis, running parallel, must be here. And it has been proved that when God formed the new covenant or gospel dispensation, he wrote ten moral precepts on the heart; and, that on this principle of revelation from God, Christ built his church. But now, where is the fourth command? There are only nine, and a substitute, taught by the opponents. Who has effected this change? It could not have been done by the promised seed, or his disciples; for he and they, kept his Father's commandments, and must, in order to teach by revelation. And as this law was to be sealed among his disciples, they could not have violated that which was requisite for translation, without setting an unworthy example for the last generation. It must be, therefore, something that has been effected since the days of Christ, and of his apostles.
If man could be translated with this man-made substitute, there would be a jargon in heaven; part keeping the fourth command, and part the substitute, as the gospel was introduced with ten; and if God would accept of a substitute for the basis of the gospel, he might on the same principle, accept of another gospel; which accords very well with the new revelation given by the "Spirit Rappers," who introduce a new way of getting into heaven: one aside from the one revealed in the Bible. Again: if the promise embraced the new earth, and the ten commands were its basis, they must remain until the consummation of that promise, or judgment at least; and for this reason attempts have been made of late to do away the idea of a judgment altogether; and of what use is a trial, without a law, on which to found a penalty? That the gospel is a law of itself, is so contradictory and absurd, that only one man has ever (to my knowledge) attempted to raise any arguments in its favor; and he was fairly met, and his arguments put down by an able hand, at the outset. Since it must be granted that there is a future judgment, the gospel must either be a law of itself, or be based on law; and as it has been proved that it cannot be law, therefore, it must have law for its foundation. The testimony of James [Chap. ii, 12, 13,] is to this point. "So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty; for he shall have judgment without mercy that hath showed no mercy." "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." i. e., We do not belong to the Sinai covenant; for Christ has redeemed us from that, "being made a curse for us; for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree." So then, the blessing of Abraham has come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ; and they have received the fulfillment of the "promise of the Spirit through faith." Gal. iii, 13, 14.
The way is now paved for the third angel's message; which should be regarded, not so much for its proof of the existence of the ten commandments, under the present economy, as to show our whereabouts in this world's history; and taken in this light, it is a subject, the most momentous, that ever arrested or interested the attention of man. To the men of this generation, it speaks in tones of thunder, saying, Here are they that keep the conditions on which the last promise is based: the commandments of God, in connection with the faith of Jesus, who has lived, our example, and has died, our sacrifice; who has ascended to the first apartment of the heavenly Sanctuary, and removed to the Most Holy, and there commenced his last work. The faith of these things being predicated on good authority, how awfully solemn their appeal. We are looking for him to come the second time to raise the dead saints, to change the living, and to renew the earth, according to the promise of God to Abraham. "So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free."
Lebanon, N. H., Jan. 18th, 1854.
P. S. The preceding Discourse was not written to express any man's sentiments; but to speak out the sentiment of the Book of books on this subject, in accordance with the rules laid down by Bacon, and successfully followed by Newton; which is, to "trace facts up to first principles, and not to assume first principles, and from these infer facts."
CONSOLATIONS FOR THE LONELY.
By Mary Howitt
THERE is a land where beauty cannot fade,
Nor sorrow dim the eye;
Where true love shall not droop, nor be dismayed,
And none shall ever die!
Where is that land, oh where?
For I would hasten there.
Tell me—I fain would go;
For I am wearied with a heavy wo!
The beautiful have left me all alone;
The true, the tender, from my path have gone!
O guide me with thy hand,
If thou dost know that land,
For I am burdened with oppressive care,
And I am weak and fearful with despair,
Where is it? Tell me where.
Friend, thou must trust in Him who trod before
The desolate paths of life;
Must bear in meekness, as he meekly bore,
Sorrow, and pain and strife.
Think how the Son of God
These thorny paths hath trod;
Think how he longed to go,
Yet tarried out, for thee, the appointed wo;
Think of his weariness in places dim,
Where no man comforted or cared for him!
Think of the blood-like sweat,
With which his brow was wet—
Yet how he prayed unaided and alone,
In that great agony, "Thy will be done!"
Friend, do thou not despair;
Christ, from his heaven of heavens, will hear thy prayer!